What are the major findings of endovascular (EVAR) vs open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in the 15-year follow-up of the UK EVAR trial 1?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: December 9, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

UK EVAR Trial 1: 15-Year Follow-Up Findings

EVAR provides an early survival advantage that is completely lost by 8 years, after which open repair demonstrates superior survival, primarily due to late aneurysm sac ruptures in EVAR patients. 1

Primary Mortality Outcomes

Overall Survival

  • Over a mean follow-up of 12.7 years (maximum 15.8 years), there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between EVAR and open repair (9.3 vs 8.9 deaths per 100 person-years; adjusted HR 1.11,95% CI 0.97-1.27, p=0.14) 1
  • The initial operative survival benefit of EVAR completely dissipated over time, with a reversal of the survival advantage occurring after 8 years 1

Time-Dependent Mortality Patterns

  • 0-6 months post-randomization: EVAR demonstrated significantly lower mortality (adjusted HR 0.61 for total mortality; HR 0.47 for aneurysm-related mortality, p=0.031) 1
  • Beyond 8 years: Open repair showed significantly lower mortality (adjusted HR 1.25 for total mortality, p=0.048; HR 5.82 for aneurysm-related mortality, p=0.0064) 1

Aneurysm-Related Deaths

Late Rupture Risk

  • The increased aneurysm-related mortality in the EVAR group after 8 years was primarily attributable to secondary aneurysm sac rupture: 13 deaths (7%) in EVAR versus 2 deaths (1%) in open repair 1
  • This finding represents a critical failure mode of EVAR that manifests only with extended follow-up 1

Cancer Mortality

  • An unexpected finding was increased cancer mortality in the EVAR group during long-term follow-up, though the mechanism remains unclear 1

Reintervention Rates

  • EVAR required significantly more reinterventions throughout the entire follow-up period: 4.1 per 100 person-years in EVAR versus 1.7 per 100 person-years in open repair (p<0.001) 2
  • Postoperative complications within 4 years occurred in 41% of EVAR patients versus only 9% of open repair patients (p<0.0001) 3
  • Reinterventions in the EVAR group continued throughout the entire follow-up period, not just in the early years 2

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

  • The mean difference in costs over 14 years was £3,798 higher for EVAR (95% CI £2,338 to £5,258) 2
  • Economic modeling demonstrated that the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained exceeds conventional UK thresholds, making EVAR not cost-effective compared to open repair 2
  • At 4 years, mean hospital costs were £13,257 for EVAR versus £9,946 for open repair (mean difference £3,311) 3

Quality of Life

  • After 12 months, there was negligible difference in health-related quality of life between the two groups 3
  • This finding is particularly important as it eliminates quality of life as a justification for choosing EVAR over open repair in fit patients 3

Clinical Implications

Surveillance Requirements

  • Lifelong surveillance is mandatory for EVAR patients to detect complications early and trigger timely reintervention 1, 2
  • The late rupture deaths highlight failures in surveillance systems or inability to prevent rupture despite surveillance 1

Patient Selection

  • These findings apply specifically to patients aged ≥60 years with aneurysms ≥5.5 cm who are anatomically suitable and fit for both procedures 1
  • The 2022 ACC/AHA guidelines acknowledge that while EVAR has lower perioperative mortality, this advantage dissipates over time with higher rates of late rupture and aneurysm-related death after 8 years 4

Device Considerations

  • An important caveat is that devices used in EVAR trial 1 were implanted between 1999 and 2004; newer devices might have improved durability, though this remains unproven in long-term randomized trials 2

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.