Obesity is Not an Independent Factor for Adverse Outcome after Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Impact of class of obesity on clinical outcomes following fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Obesity represents a prevalent and escalating health concern among vascular surgery patients. Evidence pertaining to the influence of body mass index (BMI) on clinical outcomes after fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (B/FEVAR) remains unclear. This study aims to assess the effect of obesity on short- and midterm clinical outcomes among individuals undergoing B/FEVAR.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent B/FEVAR from 2007 to 2020, with a median follow-up of 3.3 years (interquartile range, 1.6-5.3 years). Obesity was defined as a BMI of ≥30 kg/m2. Patients were divided into nonobese (NO) and obese cohorts according to their BMI. Outcomes were compared between the two groups subsequently.

RESULTS

A total of 264 patients, 96 obese and 168 NO, were included. Patients with obesity were younger (72.8 ± 6.9 years vs 76.0 ± 7.3 years; P < .001), but had a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus (27.1% vs 12.0%; P = .01) and dyslipidemia (80.2% vs 68.5%; P = .03). Both cohorts had similar rates of percutaneous access (37.5% for obese vs 35.1%; P = .7), and no significant differences in the rate of conversion to open access (8.3% for obese vs 4.2% for NO; P = .16). Technical success was similar between the cohorts (89% for obese vs 86%; P = .59). Major adverse events (MAEs) were higher in the NO group (13.1% vs 4.2%; P = .02). Patients in the obese cohort suffered more access site related infections (7.3% vs 1.2%; P = .01). All-cause mortality over 5 years was significantly higher in the NO group (35.1% vs 21.9%; P = .02). No statistical differences were found in spinal cord injury or dialysis requirement rates. Furthermore, on follow-up at 5 years, endoleak, branch instability, and reintervention rates were not statistically different between the two cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with obesity are on average younger; however, they were more likely to suffer access site infections compared with NO patients. They had increased survival rates on follow-up, although rates of reinterventions and endoleaks were similar between the two cohorts. Our study demonstrates that, despite higher comorbidities, patients with obesity had similar intraoperative success with decreased postoperative mortality; however, access site infections remains a significant clinical concern.

Obesity is Not Associated with Adverse Perioperative or Poorer Clinical Outcomes following Thoracic and Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a risk factor for higher morbidity and mortality following open aortic repair but currently there is limited literature on its impact on clinical and procedural outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and branched-fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (B-FEVAR).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective case-control analysis of a prospectively collected nonrandomized database to evaluate the effects of obesity on procedural and clinical outcomes after B-FEVAR/TEVAR in treatment of pararenal/thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm and dissection at the University hospital of Nantes (France) between January 2016 and December 2021. Patients were divided in 2 groups according to their body mass index (BMI) and the rate of technical success, complications (renal, pulmonary, cardiac, and neurological events), 30-day and long-term survival, freedom from target vessel instability and reintervention were compared.

RESULTS

195 patients were included (mean age 69.6 DS±11.2; n = 135, 69.2% men; mean BMI: 26.6 kg/m2 range 19-41) totalling n = 72 (36.8%) TEVAR, n = 107 (55.4%) FEVAR and n = 14 (7.3%) BEVAR. Patients were divided in 2 groups [obese: BMI≥30 kg/m2n = 52 (26.7%); and nonobese, BMI<30 kg/m2, n = 143 (73.3%) that statistically differed only in terms of coronary artery disease (obese 42.3% vs. 26.6% nonobese, P = 0.035) and diabetes (obese 25% vs. 12.6% nonobese, P = 0.03). No statistical differences were noted in primary technical (94.2% vs. 94.4%, P = 1.00) and clinical (92.3% vs. 95.1%, P = 0.49) success. Overall morbidity (30.8% vs. 21.1%, P = 0.16), visceral vessels instability (1.9% vs. 1.4% P = 1.00), reintervention rate within 30 days (9.6% vs. 5.6% P = 0.33), 90 days (7.7% vs. 9.8%, P = 0.78) and during follow-up (9.8% vs. 20%, P = 0.14) were comparable. No statistical difference were noted in 30-day mortality (3.8% vs. 4.9%, P = 1.00) and the 2-year follow-up survival (86.8% vs. 78.4%, P = 0.180) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this series, obesity was not associated to worst clinical outcomes or higher mortality rate following TEVAR/B-FEVAR. However, considering our small patient sample, a conclusive analysis on obesity as risk factors for adverse events after endovascular treatment is not possible. A larger sample from the collaboration of multiple centers will be required to obtain definitive conclusions.

Quantifying the burden of survivorship associated with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVES

Survivorship encompasses the physical, psychological, social, functional, and economic experience of a living with a chronic condition for both the patient and their caregiver. It is made up of nine distinct domains and remains understudied in nononcological pathologies, including infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysmal disease (AAA). This review aims to quantify the extent to which existing AAA literature addresses the burden of survivorship.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO databases were searched from 1989 through September 2022. Randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and case series were included. Eligible studies had to detail outcomes related to survivorship in patients with AAA. Owing to the heterogeneity between studies and outcomes, no meta-analysis was conducted. Study quality was assessed with specific risk of bias tools.

RESULTS

A total of 158 studies were included. Of these, only five (treatment complications, physical functioning, comorbidities, caregivers, and mental health) of the nine domains of survivorship have been studied previously. The available evidence is of variable quality; most studies display a moderate to high risk of bias, are of an observational study design, are based within a limited number of countries, and consist of an insufficient follow-up period. The most frequent complication after EVAR was endoleak. EVAR is associated with poorer long-term outcomes compared with open surgical repair in most studies retrieved. EVAR showed better outcomes in regard to physical functioning in the short term, but this advantage was lost in the long term. The most common comorbidity studied was obesity. No significant differences were found between open surgical repair and EVAR in terms of impact on caregivers. Depression is associated with various comorbidities and increased the risk of a nonhospital discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the absence of robust evidence regarding survivorship in AAA. As a result, contemporary treatment guidelines rely on historic quality-of-life data that are narrow in scope and nonrepresentative of contemporary clinical practice. As such, there is an urgent need to reevaluate the aims and methodology associated with traditional quality-of-life research moving forward.

The impact of obesity on perioperative and postoperative outcomes after elective endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a common and growing health problem in vascular surgery patients, as it is in all patient groups. Evidence regarding body mass index (BMI) on endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) outcomes is not clear in the literature. We aimed to determine the impact of obesity on perioperative and midterm outcomes of elective EVAR between obese and non-obese patients.

METHODS

Under a retrospective study design, a total of 120 patients (109 males, 11 females, mean age: 74.45 ± 8.59 (53-92 years)) undergoing elective EVAR between June 2012 and May 2020 were reviewed. Patients were stratified into two groups: obese (defined as a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m²) and non-obese (mean BMI < 30 kg/m² (32.25 ± 1.07 kg/m² vs 25.85 ± 2.69 kg/m²)).

RESULTS

Of the 120 patients included in the study, 81 (67.5%) were defined as "nonobese," while 39 (32.5%) were obese. The mean BMI of the study group was 27.93 ± 3.78 kg/m². In obese patients, the procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and dose area product (DAP) values were longer than those of non-obese patients: 89.74 ± 20.54 vs 79.69 ± 28.77 min (p = 0.035), 33.23 ± 10.14 vs 38.17 ± 8.61 min (p = 0.01) and 133.69 ± 58.17 vs 232.56 ± 51.87 Gy.cm² (p < 0.001). Although there was no difference in sac shrinkage at 12-month follow-up, there was a significant decrease at 6-month follow-up in both groups (p = 0.017). Endoleak occurred in 17.9% (n = 7) of the obese group versus 11.1% (n = 9) of the non-obese group (p = 0.302). Iliac branch occlusion developed in four patients, 3 (3.7%) in the non-obese group and 1 (2.6%) in the obese group (p = 0.608). The all-cause mortality rate was slightly higher in the obese group; however, it did not differ between the groups (p = 0.463).

CONCLUSION

In addition to the longer procedure times, fluoroscopy times, and DAP values in obese patients, regardless of obesity, significant sac shrinkage in the first 6 months of follow-up was observed in both groups. No difference was documented with regards to mortality or morbidity following EVAR.

New Measures, Old Conclusions: Obesity Does Not Worsen Outcomes after Elective Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Background  The “obesity paradox,” whereby the body mass index (BMI) mortality curve is “U-shaped,” is a well-studied phenomenon in vascular surgery. However, there has been an overreliance on BMI as the measure of obesity, which has shown to poorly correlate with clinical outcomes. Robust measures such as waist-hip ratio (WHR) have been suggested as a more accurate marker reflecting central obesity.

Objectives  The objectives of this study were to evaluate the correlation between BMI and WHR on postoperative morbidity and mortality after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair.

Methods  Data were collected from the Leeds Vascular Institute between January 2006 and December 2016. The primary outcome was mortality and secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) and all-cause readmission. Binary logistic regression, linear regression, and correlation analysis were used to identify associations between BMI and WHR in relation to outcome measures.

Results  After exclusions, 432 elective AAA repairs (281 open surgical repair [OSR] and 151 endovascular aneurysm repairs [EVARs]) were identified to be eligible for the study. The combined 30-day and 4-year mortality was 1.2 and 20.1%, respectively. The 30-day readmission rate was 3.9% and the average LOS was 7.33 (standard deviation 18.5) days. BMI data was recorded for 275 patients (63.7%) and WHR for 355 patients (82.2%). Logistic regression analysis highlighted no association between BMI and WHR with mortality, readmission, or LOS following OSR or EVAR.

Conclusion  The results of this study suggest patients should not be denied treatment for AAA based on obesity alone.

A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the impact of obesity on outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the impact of obesity on perioperative mortality and complication rates in patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA).

METHODS

A systematic review of all studies reporting AAA treatment perioperative (30 day) outcomes in obese patients (body mass index ≥30 kg/m²). The primary outcome was 30 day mortality. Secondary outcomes included: cardiac complications, respiratory complications, wound complication, renal complications, and neurological complications at 30 days. These outcomes were pooled for meta-analysis. Analysis first compared obese versus nonobese patients undergoing EVAR and OSR then compared EVAR to OSR in obese patients.

RESULTS

We identified 7 observational studies with 14,971 patients (11,743 EVAR, 3228 OSR). Obese patients undergoing EVAR had lower 30 day mortality (1.5%) compared to nonobese patients (2.2%) (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.50-0.96; p=0.03; I²= 0%; Grade of evidence: low). In OSR, obese patients (5.0%) had similar 30 day mortality to nonobese patients (5.7%) (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.70-1.20; p=0.54; I²=0%; Grade of evidence: low). Wound complications were higher in obese patients undergoing OSR (OR 2.30; 95% CI 1.74-3.06; p<0.001; I²=0%; Grade of evidence: low). EVAR was associated with a lower 30 day mortality (1.5%) compared to OSR (5.0%) in obese patients (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.12-0.46; p<0.001; I²= 38%; Grade of evidence: low). Cardiac, respiratory, wound, renal and neurological complications were also reduced in EVAR.

CONCLUSIONS

Obese patients have lower 30 day mortality in EVAR compared to nonobese patients. In OSR, obese patients had similar 30 day mortality but higher wound complications compared to nonobese patients. Obese patients otherwise have similar cardiopulmonary complication rates compared to nonobese patients in both EVAR and OSR. EVAR offers lower 30 day mortality and morbidity compared to OSR in obese patients. This study suggests that EVAR is superior to OSR in obese patients.

Endovascular Aortic Repair in Patients of Advanced Age

PURPOSE

Treatment decisions for the elderly with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are challenging. With advancing age, the risk of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) increases while life expectancy decreases, which may nullify the benefit of EVAR. The purpose of this study was to quantify the impact of EVAR on 1-year mortality in patients of advanced age.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The 2003-2020 Vascular Quality Initiative Database was utilized to identify patients who underwent EVAR for AAAs. Patients were included if they were 80 years of age or older. Exclusions included non-elective surgery or missing aortic diameter data. Predicted 1-year mortality of untreated AAAs was calculated based on a validated comorbidity score that predicts 1-year mortality (Gagne Index, excluding the component associated with AAAs) plus the 1-year aneurysm-related mortality without repair. The primary outcome for the study was 1-year mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 11 829 patients met study criteria. The median age was 84 years [81, 86] with 9014 (76.2%) being male. Maximal AAA diameters were apportioned as follows: 39.6% were <5.5 cm, 28.6% were 5.5-5.9 cm, 21.3% were 6.0-6.9 cm, and 10.6% were ≥7.0 cm. The predicted 1-year mortality rate without EVAR was 11.9%, which was significantly higher than the actual 1-year mortality rate with EVAR (8.2%; p<0.001). The overall rate of perioperative MACE was 4.4% (n = 516). Patients with an aneurysm diameter <5.5cm had worse actual 1-year mortality rates with EVAR compared to predicted 1-year mortality rates without EVAR. In contrast, those with larger aneurysms (≥5.5cm) had better actual 1-year mortality rates with EVAR. The benefit from EVAR for those with Gagne Indices 2-5 was largely restricted to those with AAAs ≥ 7.0cm; whereas those with Gagne Indices 0-1 experience a survival benefit for AAAs larger than 5.5 cm.

CONCLUSION

The current data suggest that EVAR decreases 1-year mortality rates for patients of advanced age compared to non-operative management in the elderly. However, the survival benefit is largely limited to those with Gagne Indices 0-1 with AAAs ≥ 5.5 cm and Gagne Indices 2-5 with AAAs ≥ 7.0 cm. Those of advanced age may benefit from EVAR, but realizing this benefit requires careful patient selection.

Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Is Associated with Higher Mortality Among Nonobese Patients and Higher Risk of Deep Wound Infections Among Obese Patients

BACKGROUND

Prevalence of obesity in the United States is increasing. The impact of obesity on outcomes after endovascular and open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair is largely unknown. The purpose of this analysis was to compare the postoperative outcomes between obese and nonobese patients after these operations.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database from years 2013-2015 was analyzed. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were compared between obese and nonobese patient groups. Then obese and nonobese patients were divided into 2 groups each, based on the type of surgery (endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR) versus. open AAA repair), and the outcomes were compared. Then multivariant analysis was used to compare impact of operative modality on outcomes for obese and nonobese patients.

RESULTS

A total of 6,859 patients (men 80%, women 20%) underwent surgical procedures for AAA during this time period. Among these patients, 2,218 (32.3%) had body mass index (BMI) ≥30, and 4,641 (67.7%) had BMI <30. Obese patients were less likely to be > 80 years old, women, nonwhites, and smokers. Obese patients had lower mortality and higher risk of deep wound infections after surgery (P < 0.05). Among the obese patients, 83.1% underwent EVAR and 16.9% underwent open AAA repair; patients undergoing EVAR had shorter operative times, shorter length of hospital stays, and mortality (P < 0.05). Among nonobese patients, 81% underwent EVAR and 19% underwent open AAA repair. Patients undergoing EVAR had shorter duration of operation, length of hospital stay, and mortality (P < 0.05). Overall, mortality was the highest among nonobese patients undergoing open AAA repair (odds ratio (OR) 0.66, confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.99, P < 0.05). Incidence of deep wound infections was the highest among obese patients undergoing open AAA repair (OR 4.3, CI: 1.2-14.6, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Nonobese patients have high mortality after open AAA repair, and obese patients have higher incidence of deep wound infections after open AAA repair. For patients deemed appropriate anatomic candidates, EVAR should be preferred for nonobese patients to improve mortality and for obese patients to reduce the incidence of deep wound infections.

The Obesity-associated Risk in Open and Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

:

The rising pandemic of obesity in modern society should direct attention to a more comprehensive approach to abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) treatment in the affected population. Although overweight patients are considered prone to increased surgical risk, studies on the subject did not confirm or specify the risks well enough.

:

Associated comorbidities inevitably lead to a selection bias leaning towards endovascular abdominal aortic repair (EVAR), as a less invasive treatment option, which makes it hard to single out obesity as an independent risk factor. The increased technical difficulty often results in prolonged procedure times and increased blood loss. Several smaller studies and two analyses of national registries, including 7935 patients, highlighted the advantages of EVAR over open repair (OR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm, especially in morbidly obese population (relative risk reduction up to 47%). On the other hand, two other studies with 1374 patients combined, concluded that EVAR might not have an advantage over OR in obese patients (P = 0.52). Obesity is an established risk factor for wound infection after both EVAR and OR, which is associated with longer length of stay, subsequent major operations, and a higher rate of graft failure. Percutaneous EVAR technique could present a promising solution to reducing this complication.

:

EVAR seems like a more feasible treatment option than OR for obese patients with AAA, due to lower overall morbidity and mortality rates, as well as reduced wound-related complication rates. However, there is a clear lack of high-quality evidence on the subject, thus future prospective trials are needed to confirm this advantage.

Outcomes after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in obese versus nonobese patients

OBJECTIVE

Obesity is a worldwide epidemic, particularly in Western society. It predisposes surgical patients to an increased risk of adverse outcomes. The aim of our study was to use a nationally representative vascular database and to compare in-hospital outcomes in obese vs nonobese patients undergoing elective open aortic repair (OAR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

All patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative database (2003-2017). Obesity was defined as body mass index ≥30 kg/m². Univariable (Student t-test and χ² test) and multivariable (logistic regression) analyses were implemented to compare in-hospital mortality and any major complications (wound infection, renal failure, and cardiopulmonary failure) in obese vs nonobese patients.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 33,082 patients undergoing elective OAR (nonobese, n = 4605 [72.4%]; obese, n = 1754 [27.6%]) and EVAR (nonobese, n = 18,338 [68.6%]; obese, n = 8385 [31.4%]). Obese patients undergoing OAR and EVAR were relatively younger compared with nonobese patients (mean age [standard deviation], 67.55 [8.26] years vs 70.27 [8.30] years and 71.06 [8.22] years vs 74.55 [8.55] years), respectively; (both P < .001). Regardless of approach, obese patients had slightly longer operative time (OAR, 259.02 [109.97] minutes vs 239.37 [99.78] minutes; EVAR, 138.27 [70.64] minutes vs 134.34 [69.98] minutes) and higher blood loss (OAR, 2030 [1823] mL vs 1619 [1642] mL; EVAR, 228 [354] mL vs 207 [312] mL; both P < .001). There was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups undergoing OAR and EVAR (OAR, 2.9% vs 3.2% [P = .50]; EVAR, 0.5% vs 0.6% [P = .76]). On multivariable analysis, obese patients undergoing OAR had 33% higher odds of renal failure (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.63; P = .006) and 75% higher odds of wound infections (adjusted OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.76; P = .02) compared with nonobese patients. However, in patients undergoing EVAR, no association was seen between obesity and any major complications. A significant interaction was found between obesity and surgical approach in the event of renal failure, in which obese patients undergoing OAR had significantly higher odds of renal failure compared with those in the EVAR group (OR_interaction, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.05-1.75; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Using a large nationally representative database, we demonstrated an increased risk of renal failure and wound infections in obese patients undergoing OAR compared with nonobese patients. On the other hand, obesity did not seem to increase the odds of major adverse outcomes in patients undergoing EVAR. Further long-term prospective studies are needed to verify the effects of obesity after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and the implications of these findings in clinical decision-making.