The UK Complex Aneurysm Study (UK-COMPASS)
Research type
Research Study
Full title
A Risk-adjusted and Anatomically Stratified Cohort Comparison Study of Open Surgery, Endovascular Techniques and Medical Management for Juxtarenal Aortic Aneursyms: The UK Complex Aneurysm Study (UK-COMPASS).
IRAS ID
224135
Contact name
Srinivasa Rao Vallabhaneni
Contact email
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier
ISRCTN85731188, ISRCTN Trial ID
Duration of Study in the UK
4 years, 11 months, 30 days
Research summary
Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a common condition where aorta, the biggest artery, begins to bulge abnormally. Usually this expands over years and can eventually burst, causing fatal internal bleeding. When an emergency life-saving operation is possible, they have high failure rate. A planned AAA repair operation prevents a burst aneurysm.
AAAs vary in complexity. Juxtarenal AAAs are more complex because they are close to the arterial branches to the kidneys. There are different methods of managing such complex aneurysms and doctors are unsure which is better.
The open surgical repair is a durable but serious operation involving slow recovery and higher operative death rates compared to alternative methods, of which Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (FEVAR) is the most established. In some patients with juxtarenal aneurysms, doctors are judiciously using standard endovascular repair (Off-label EVAR), a technique originally intended for use in less complex aneurysms. Endovascular methods cause less of a strain leading to faster recovery and fewer operative deaths, but are less durable requiring further procedures in the years after.
Some patients who are not fit enough to withstand open repair may be able to have endovascular repairs. In some patients no operation may be in their best interest. This study aims to examine how these different treatments compare in terms of clinical benefit and utilisation of NHS resources.
We intend to analyse the outcomes of all patients undergoing juxtarenal aneurysm treatment in England without altering their treatment, during a period of 2 years and collect 5 year follow-up. We plan to examine the routinely performed scans and utilise data that is routinely collected by the NHS. Available data will be analysed to compare the safety and effectiveness of different treatments, and to see if a particular treatment is better suited for particular features so patients can be offered bespoke treatment strategies.
REC name
North West - Preston Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
17/NW/0610
Date of REC Opinion
30 Nov 2017
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion