Endovascular Repair Versus Open Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic AneurysmsOBJECTIVE: Randomized comparison of endovascular repair (EVAR) with open repair (OR) in patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA). BACKGROUND: Despite advances in operative technique and perioperative management RAAA remains fraught with a high rate of death and complications. Outcome may improve with a minimally invasive surgical technique: EVAR. METHODS: All patients with a RAAA in the larger Amsterdam area were identified. Logistics for RAAA patients was changed with centralization of care in 3 trial centers. Patients both fit for EVAR and for OR were randomized to either of the treatments. Nonrandomized patients were followed in a prospective cohort. Primary endpoint of the study was the composite of death and severe complications at 30 days. RESULTS: Between April 2004 and February 2011, we identified 520 patients with a RAAA of which 116 could be randomized. The primary endpoint rate for EVAR was 42% and for OR was 47% [absolute risk reduction (ARR) = 5.4%; 95% confidence interval (CI): -13% to +23%]. The 30-day mortality was 21% in patients assigned to EVAR compared with 25% for OR (ARR = 4.4% 95% CI: -11% to +20%). The mortality of all surgically treated patients in the nonrandomized cohort was 30% (95% CI: 26%-35%) and 26% (95% CI: 20% to 32%) in patients with unfavorable anatomy for EVAR, treated by OR at trial centers. CONCLUSIONS: This trial did not show a significant difference in combined death and severe complications between EVAR and OR. Mortality for OR both in randomized patients and in cohort patients was lower than anticipated, which may be explained by optimization of logistics, preoperative CT imaging, and centralization of care in centers of expertise.
Randomized clinical trial of observational <i>versus</i> antibiotic treatment for a first episode of CT-proven uncomplicated acute diverticulitisL. Daniels, Çağdaş Ünlü, N. de Korte et al.|British journal of surgery|2016 BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are advised in most guidelines on acute diverticulitis, despite a lack of evidence to support their routine use. This trial compared the effectiveness of a strategy with or without antibiotics for a first episode of uncomplicated acute diverticulitis. METHODS: Patients with CT-proven, primary, left-sided, uncomplicated, acute diverticulitis were included at 22 clinical sites in the Netherlands, and assigned randomly to an observational or antibiotic treatment strategy. The primary endpoint was time to recovery during 6 months of follow-up. Main secondary endpoints were readmission rate, complicated, ongoing and recurrent diverticulitis, sigmoid resection and mortality. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were done. RESULTS: A total of 528 patients were included. Median time to recovery was 14 (i.q.r. 6-35) days for the observational and 12 (7-30) days for the antibiotic treatment strategy, with a hazard ratio for recovery of 0·91 (lower limit of 1-sided 95 per cent c.i. 0·78; P = 0·151). No significant differences between the observation and antibiotic treatment groups were found for secondary endpoints: complicated diverticulitis (3·8 versus 2·6 per cent respectively; P = 0·377), ongoing diverticulitis (7·3 versus 4·1 per cent; P = 0·183), recurrent diverticulitis (3·4 versus 3·0 per cent; P = 0·494), sigmoid resection (3·8 versus 2·3 per cent; P = 0·323), readmission (17·6 versus 12·0 per cent; P = 0·148), adverse events (48·5 versus 54·5 per cent; P = 0·221) and mortality (1·1 versus 0·4 per cent; P = 0·432). Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the observation group (2 versus 3 days; P = 0·006). Per-protocol analyses were concordant with the intention-to-treat analyses. CONCLUSION: Observational treatment without antibiotics did not prolong recovery and can be considered appropriate in patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis. Registration number: NCT01111253 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).