International Consortium of Vascular Registries

Endovascular versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm: a claims-based data analysis in Japan

Objectives

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) evolved through competition with open aortic repair (OAR) as a safe and effective treatment option for appropriately selected patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Although endoleaks are the most common reason for post-EVAR reintervention, compliance with lifelong regular follow-up imaging remains a challenge.

Design

Retrospective data analysis.

Setting

The Japan Medical Data Center (JMDC), a claims database with anonymous data linkage across hospitals, consists of corporate employees and their families of ≤75 years of age.

Participants

The analysis included participants in the JMDC who underwent EVAR or OAR for intact (iAAA) or ruptured (rAAA) AAA. Patients with less than 6 months of records before the aortic repair were excluded.

Main outcome measures

Overall survival and reintervention rates.

Results

We identified 986 cases (837 iAAA and 149 rAAA) from JMDC with first aortic repairs between January 2015 and December 2020. The number of patients, median age (years (IQR)), follow-up (months) and post-procedure CT scan (times per year) were as follows: iAAA (OAR: n=593, 62.0 (57.0–67.0), 26.0, 1.6, EVAR: n=244, 65.0 (31.0–69.0), 17.0, 2.2), rAAA (OAR: n=110, 59.0 (53.0–59.0), 16.0, 2.1, EVAR: n=39, 62.0 (31.0–67.0), 18.0, 2.4). Reintervention rate was significantly higher among EVAR than OAR in rAAA (15.4% vs 8.2%, p=0.04). In iAAA, there were no group difference after 5 years (7.8% vs 11.0%, p=0.28), even though EVAR had initial advantage. There were no differences in mortality rate between EVAR and OAR for either rAAA or iAAA.

Conclusions

Claims-based analysis in Japan showed no statistically significant difference in 5-year survival rates of the OAR and EVAR groups. However, the reintervention rate of EVAR in rAAA was significantly higher, suggesting the need for regular post-EVAR follow-up with imaging. Therefore, international collaborations for long-term outcome studies with real-world data are warranted.

Editor's Choice - Long Term Survival after Femoropopliteal Artery Revascularisation with Paclitaxel Coated Devices: A Propensity Score Matched Cohort Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the survival of patients after use of paclitaxel coated devices (PCX), as a recent meta-analysis of randomised trials reported higher mortality in patients treated with PCX balloons and stents METHODS: A retrospective health insurance claims analysis of patients covered by the second largest insurance fund in Germany, BARMER, was used to identify index femoropopliteal arterial interventions between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2018. To ensure first PCX exposure, patients with prior deployment of PCX were excluded. The study cohort was stratified into patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI) and intermittent claudication (IC), then into balloons vs. stents cohorts. Within each stratum PCX were compared with uncoated devices. Propensity score matching was used to balance the study groups. Survival was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression.

RESULTS

There were 37 914 patients (mean age 73.3 years; 48.8% female) included in the study. The annual proportion of PCX use increased from 3% to 39% during the study period for CLTI and from 4% to 48% for IC (both p < .001). Paclitaxel coated balloons and stents were associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.90), amputation free survival (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78-0.91), and freedom from major cardiovascular events (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.77-0.89) vs. uncoated devices at five years for CLTI. In IC cohort, mortality was significantly lower after using drug coated balloons (DCB) (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76-0.99) or combined DCB and drug eluting stents (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.98).

CONCLUSION

In this large health insurance claims analysis, rapid adoption of PCX, higher long term survival, better amputation free survival, and lower rates of major cardiovascular events were seen after their use for the treatment of CLTI.

Ten Years of Urgent Care of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in a High-Volume-Center

BACKGROUND

The urgent treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA) remains a challenging condition with devastating morbidity and mortality. Available studies are often limited due to a significant selection bias. This study aims to illuminate real-world evidence using comprehensive data from electronic health records, registries, postmortem findings, and administrative data on all consecutively treated patients presenting with rAAA at a tertiary care center.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cross-sectional cohort study covering consecutively treated patients with rAAA between 2009 and 2018. All noninvasive treatments, fatalities, and invasive repairs were included. Information on patient's characteristics, prehospital, and inpatient care was gathered. Short-term outcomes and long-term survival were analyzed for relevant subgroups.

RESULTS

In total, 139 patients with rAAA (median age 75 years and 20.9% females, 79.9% infrarenal) were treated increasingly frequent by endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) when compared to open-surgical aortic repair (OSR) during the study period (16.7% in 2009 to 33.3% in 2018, P < 0.05). The rate of patients who had been turned down for rAAA repair was 10.8%, and the overall in-hospital mortality was 43.2%. Perioperative morbidity and mortality were similar for EVAR and OSR, although patients treated by OSR presented with a lower mean Glasgow Coma Scale during the prehospital (12.7 vs. 14.3) and inpatient care (12.7 vs. 14.4) (both P < 0.001), higher rates of intubation (12.8% vs. 10.9%, P < 0.001), lower systolic blood pressure (115 mm Hg vs. 127 mm Hg, P = 0.042), and more often had a cardiac arrest before the operation (14.1% vs. 2.3%, P < 0.001). Higher patient's age (Odds Ratio, OR 1.09; Hazard Ratio, HR 1.06), history of stroke or transient ischemic attack (OR 5.30; HR 2.64), higher serum creatinine (OR 1.81; HR 1.31), and occurrence of colonic ischemia (OR 11.31; HR 2.82) were significantly associated with higher odds of dying in hospital and in the longer term, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed comparable outcomes following OSR and EVAR, although hemodynamically unstable patients were more likely to be treated by OSR. This study also confirmed the impact of colonic ischemia as a devastating complication following rAAA repair emphasizing the need for further reflection by the vascular community.