Timaran and others1 report on what essentially appears to be a registry-based observational study and go at length to explain why their results may be used to refute the results of the EVAR (endovascular aortic aneurysm repair) 2 trial.2 They recognize the fact that by definition their design is inferior but still claim that no patients should be denied “rescue” by a vascular surgeon. Interestingly,
framing the message as denying care instead of what more appropriately may be called offering optimal medical care already sets the scene.
Buskens E. Denying May Yet Make Sense. Arch Surg. 2008;143(2):209. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2007.45