tion’, implying that most patients ‘should’ receive a particular action. In contrast, level 2 guidelines are essentially ‘suggestions’ and are deemed to be ‘weak’ or discretionary, recognising that management decisions may vary in different clinical contexts. Each recommendation was further graded from A to D by the quality of evidence underpinning them, with grade A referring to a high quality of evidence whilst grade D recognised a ‘very low’ evidence base. The overall strength and quality of the supporting evidence is summarised in table 1 . The guidelines focused on 4 key domains: (1) AKI definition, (2) prevention and treatment of AKI, (3) contrastinduced AKI (CI-AKI) and (4) dialysis interventions for the treatment of AKI. The full summary of clinical practice statements is available at www.kdigo.org, but a few key recommendation statements will be highlighted here.

/pdf/kdigo-clinical-practice-guidelines-for-acute-kidney-injury-27tybolw7l.pdf

KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury.

2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases: Document covering acute and chronic aortic diseases of the thoracic and abdominal aorta of the adult. The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Aortic Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

Sexual Behavior in the Human Male

正しい方法がわかる臨床基本手技 : from the New England journal of medicine

Background Although the initial results of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms were promising, current evidence from controlled studies does not convincingly show a reduction in 30-day mortality relative to that achieved with open repair. Methods We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing open repair with endovascular repair in 345 patients who had received a diagnosis of abdominal aortic aneurysm of at least 5 cm in diameter and who were considered suitable candidates for both techniques. The outcome events analyzed were operative (30-day) mortality and two composite end points of operative mortality and severe complications and operative mortality and moderate or severe complications. Results The operative mortality rate was 4.6 percent in the open-repair group (8 of 174 patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.0 to 8.9 percent) and 1.2 percent in the endovascular-repair group (2 of 171 patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.1 to 4.2 percent), resulting in a risk ratio ...

/pdf/a-randomized-trial-comparing-conventional-and-endovascular-241ugoime2.pdf

A randomized trial comparing conventional and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND For patients with large abdominal aortic aneurysms, randomized trials have shown an initial overall survival benefit for elective endovascular repair over conventional open repair. This survival difference, however, was no longer significant in the second year after the procedure. Information regarding the comparative outcome more than 2 years after surgery is important for clinical decision making. METHODS We conducted a long-term, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing open repair with endovascular repair in 351 patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm of at least 5 cm in diameter who were considered suitable candidates for both techniques. The primary outcomes were rates of death from any cause and reintervention. Survival was calculated with the use of Kaplan-Meier methods on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS We randomly assigned 178 patients to undergo open repair and 173 to undergo endovascular repair. Six years after randomization, the cumulative survival rates were 69.9% for open repair and 68.9% for endovascular repair (difference, 1.0 percentage point; 95% confidence interval [CI], -8.8 to 10.8; P=0.97). The cumulative rates of freedom from secondary interventions were 81.9% for open repair and 70.4% for endovascular repair (difference, 11.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.0 to 21.0; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Six years after randomization, endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm resulted in similar rates of survival. The rate of secondary interventions was significantly higher for endovascular repair. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00421330.)

/pdf/long-term-outcome-of-open-or-endovascular-repair-of-2m16ht45hu.pdf

Long-Term Outcome of Open or Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Background Two randomized trials have shown better outcomes with elective endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms than with conventional open repair in the first month after the procedure. We investigated whether this advantage is sustained beyond the perioperative period. Methods We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing open repair with endovascular repair in 351 patients who had received a diagnosis of abdominal aortic aneurysm of at least 5 cm in diameter and who were considered suitable candidates for both techniques. Survival after randomization was calculated with the use of Kaplan–Meier analysis and compared with the use of the log-rank test on an intention-to-treat-basis. Results Two years after randomization, the cumulative survival rates were 89.6 percent for open repair and 89.7 percent for endovascular repair (difference, –0.1 percentage point; 95 percent confidence interval, –6.8 to 6.7 percentage points). The cumulative rates of aneurysm-related death were 5.7 percent...

/pdf/two-year-outcomes-after-conventional-or-endovascular-repair-1vnjd90977.pdf

Monique Prinssen

Papers

A randomized trial comparing conventional and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

Long-Term Outcome of Open or Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Two-Year Outcomes after Conventional or Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Two-Year Outcomes After Conventional or Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Quality of life after endovascular and open AAA repair. Results of a randomised trial