Ten-Year Single-Center Results of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Treatment: Endovascular versus Open Repair

Outcomes and Cost-Analysis of Open Versus Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in a Developing Country: A 15-year Experience at a Tertiary Medical Center

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the most common procedure for treating abdominal aortic aneurysms based on multiple studies conducted in the western world. The implication of such findings in developing countries is not well demonstrated. The objective of this study was to compare medical outcomes and costs of EVAR and open surgical repair (OSR) in a developing country.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of all patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair between 2005 and 2020 at a tertiary medical center in a developing country. Medical records were used to retrieve demographics, comorbidities, and perioperative complications. Medical records were also used to provide data on the need of reintervention, date of last follow-up, and mortality.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 164 patients. Median follow-up time was 41 months. The mean age was 69.9 +/- 7.84 years and 90.24% (n = 148) of patients were males. Regarding long-term mortality outcomes, no significant difference was detected between both groups; OSR patients had a survival rate of 91.38% and 74.86% at 5 and 10 years, compared to 77.29% and 56.52% in the EVAR group (P value = 0.10). Both groups had comparable long-term reintervention rates (P value = 0.334). The OSR group was charged significantly less than the EVAR group ($27,666.35 vs. $44,528.04, P value = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

OSR and EVAR have comparable survival and reintervention outcomes. Unlike what was reported in developed countries, patients undergoing OSR in countries with low hospital stay costs incur lower treatment costs.

The survival rate among endovascular and open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

A best evidence topic has been constructed using a described protocol. The three-part question addressed was: In patients with Infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), Does endovascular abdominal aortic repair (EVAR), AS compared to open surgical repair (OSR), has higher Survival rates? The outcomes assessed were the overall survival rates in both techniques. The best evidence showed that there is no statistically significant difference between EVAR and OSR in survival rates.

[Debate on Infrarenal AAA in Young and Fit Patients ('Fit for Open Repair'): Open Repair is Safe and Long-term Results are Better]

Endovascular aortic repair, initially developed for patients at prohibitively high risk for an open repair, has undergone significant technical evolution and refinement and has emerged as the preferred treatment option for patients with an infrarenal aortic aneurysm. However, analysis of long-term data of the randomised studies revealed inferior results with regards to survival and freedom-from-reintervention after eight years. Open aortic repair has been performed for more than seven decades and especially for the younger patients with few comorbidities, results are excellent. Potential drawbacks of open repair like incisional hernias, erectile dysfunction and quality of life can either be effectively prevented (mesh reinforcement) or actually failed to show a significant difference compared to open repair in recent studies. Therefore, meticulous assessment of patient comorbidites using validated parameters is the key element for decision-making and parameters such as young age, low comorbidity profile, large aneurysm and presence of atopic renal arteries or a dominant inferior mesenteric artery should prompt a recommendation of open repair.

Re-intervention rate in endovascular vs open surgical repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms

A best evidence topic has been constructed using a described protocol. The three-part question addressed was: In patients with Infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), Does endovascular abdominal aortic repair (EVAR), AS compared to open surgical repair (OSR), has lower re-intervention rates? The outcomes assessed were the re-interventional rates in both techniques. The best evidence showed that the OSR has lower statistically significant difference rates in re-intervention rates than the EVAR.

•

Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is inferior to the open surgical repair regarding the re-intervention rates.

•

Long term outcomes of the open surgical repair are better than the Endovascular repair.

•

Secondary procedures are more in endovascular repair than the open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Ten-year single center experience in elective standard endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the treatment of choice for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), demonstrating excellent early outcomes. However, EVAR durability has been questioned in the long-term period. The aim of this study was to assess EVAR outcomes in terms of survival and freedom from re-intervention during a long-term period.

METHODS

All consecutive patients being treated, with elective standard EVAR, in a single tertiary center, were included between 2008 and 2018. Outcomes were defined as survival and freedom from re-intervention and were reported using Kaplan-Meyer lifetables. In subgroup analyses, sex, age (threshold at 65 and 80 years), neck diameter>28mm and type of fixation were also analyzed. Type of re-intervention and endoleak type I (ETIa) were also reported.

RESULTS

Five hundred and eight patients (94% males, mean age 72±7.3, mean AAA diameter 59±9mm) were included. The median follow-up was 3 years (range 0-10 years). The survival rate was 92.8% (SE 1.5%), 76.5% (SE 3.1%) and 41.6% (SE 6%), at 2, 5 and 10 years of follow-up, respectively. In total, 78 patients died; 8 deaths (8/75, 10%) were aneurysm related. In multivariate regression analysis, age (CI. 1.02-1.14; p=0.006) and ever tobacco use (CI. 1.02-6.12, P=0.045) were associated with the long-term mortality. Freedom from re-intervention was 96% (SE 1.1%), 93% (SE 1.8%), 85.5% (SE 5%) at 2, 5 and 9 years of follow-up. Limb occlusion was a common complication (n/n; 30% of re-intervention), particularly within the first 2 postoperative years. Six patients presented with rupture and were treated with open conversion. EVAR cases with supra-renal fixation graft presented lower rates of ETIa (CI. 76-87.27, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Elective standard EVAR is associated with good long-term survival showing low aneurysm-related mortality. Common risk factors such as advanced age and smoking are associated to higher mortality. The procedure presents low re-intervention rates, while limb occlusion is a complication presented within the first 2 postoperative years.

Meta-analysis of long-term survival after elective endovascular or open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the preferred strategy for elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) for many patients. However, the superiority of the endovascular procedure has recently been challenged by reports of impaired long-term survival in patients who underwent EVAR. A systematic review of long-term survival following AAA repair was therefore undertaken.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Articles reporting short- and/or long-term mortality of EVAR and open surgical repair (OSR) of AAA were identified. Pooled overall survival estimates (hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding 95 per cent c.i. for EVAR versus OSR) were calculated using a random-effects model. Possible confounding owing to age differences between patients receiving EVAR or OSR was addressed by estimating relative survival.

RESULTS

Some 53 studies were identified. The 30-day mortality rate was lower for EVAR compared with OSR: 1·16 (95 per cent c.i. 0·92 to 1·39) versus 3·27 (2·71 to 3·83) per cent. Long-term survival rates were similar for EVAR versus OSR (HRs 1·01, 1·00 and 0·98 for 3, 5 and 10 years respectively; P = 0·721, P = 0·912 and P = 0·777). Correction of age inequality by means of relative survival analysis showed equal long-term survival: 0·94, 0·91 and 0·76 at 3, 5 and 10 years for EVAR, and 0·96, 0·91 and 0·76 respectively for OSR.

CONCLUSION

Long-term overall survival rates were similar for EVAR and OSR. Available data do not allow extension beyond the 10-year survival window or analysis of specific subgroups.