Early and Late Outcomes of Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair versus Open Surgical Repair of an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Single-Center Study

Initial Experience of the Covered Endovascular Reconstruction of Iliac Bifurcation Technique

INTRODUCTION

The distal landing zone in iliac arteries represents an important issue during endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR). The aim of this study is to present a case series for landing in the external iliac artery (EIA) during EVAR while preserving blood flow in the internal iliac artery (IIA) with the covered endovascular reconstruction of the iliac bifurcation (CERIB) technique.

METHODS

This is a single-center, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients that underwent EVAR either for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) or previous failed EVAR from December 2022 up to September 2023. Indications for treatment were presence of common iliac artery aneurysm (CIAA), short CIA, or endoleak type Ib (ETIb). For the distal sealing zone, we used balloon-expandable covered stent (BXCS). Primary outcomes were technical success and first-month patency rate. Secondary outcomes were endoleak and re-intervention rate.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients being treated with 20 CERIBs were included in the study. Four patients had a previous failed EVAR, while 3 patients were treated urgently for a symptomatic para-renal aneurysm. The indications for treatment were EIb (n=2), short CIA (n=4), CIAA with narrow lumen (n=3), and CIA aneurysm (n=11). Platforms that were used were the Cook Zenith Alpha (n=5), Gore C3 (n=2 and 3 limbs), Endurant IIs (n=2, and 3 limbs), and a t-branch device (n=3). Technical success rate was 100% with no adjunctive procedure. No death or re-intervention was recorded for all patients at postoperative 30-day period and at 6 months for 2 patients. At first-month CTA, patency rate was 100% (20/20), while in 2 patients that had 6-month CTA, the patency was also 100% (2/2). No kinking or stenosis was also noted. Two patients had ETIII after branched EVAR (BEVAR), 2 patients had ETII, and 1 patient had gutter ET in the area of the CERIB.

CONCLUSION

The CERIB technique seems to be effective and safe in the early period. It is suitable with a variety of commercial endograft platforms. It may be a valuable alternative to iliac branch devices when there are anatomical considerations. Longer follow-up is needed to conclude for long-term patency and durability.

CLINICAL IMPACT

The distal landing zone in iliac arteries represents an important issue during EVAR while it is important to preserve blood flow in the internal iliac artery. The covered endovascular reconstruction of the iliac bifurcation (CERIB) technique is a technique for the preservation of internal iliac arteries during EVAR, while it is suitable with a variety of commercial endograft platforms. The CERIB technique seems to be effective and safe in the early period. It may be valuable alternative to iliac branch devices when there are anatomical considerations.

Early and Midterm Outcomes of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair With Zenith Alpha Abdominal Stent-Graft: Results From a Multicenter Retrospective Tuscany Registry

PURPOSE

Zenith Alpha Abdominal (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA) is one of the new-generation low-profile stent-grafts with demonstrated satisfactory early and midterm clinical outcomes for endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). The aim was to evaluate early and midterm results of this device in the framework of a multicenter regional retrospective registry, with the analysis of morphological factors affecting outcomes, including different limb configurations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2016 and November 2021, 202 patients with AAA underwent elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with implantation of a Zenith Alpha Abdominal in 7 centers. Early (30 day) outcomes in terms of technical and clinical success were assessed. Estimated 5 year outcomes were evaluated in terms of survival, freedom from type I/III endoleak, freedom from surgical conversion, freedom from limb graft occlusion, freedom from any device-related reintervention, and graft infection evaluation by life-table analysis (Kaplan-Meier test). A comparative analysis between different limb configurations (Zenith Spiral Z AAA iliac legs, codes ZISL vs ZSLE) was performed in terms of limb graft occlusion.

RESULTS

The 30 day technical and clinical success rates were 97.5% and 99.5%, respectively. Median follow-up period was 25.5 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 12-43.25). The 5 year survival rate was 73.6%. The estimated 5 year outcomes in terms of freedom from type I/III endoleak, freedom from surgical conversion, freedom from limb graft occlusion, freedom from any device-related reintervention, and freedom from graft infection were 88.6% (95% CI [confidence interval]: 83.4%-93.1%), 95.8% (95% CI: 92.7%-97.1%), 93.6% (95% CI: 90.2%-96.8%), 87% (95% CI: 83.3%-91.6%), and 97.7% (95% CI: 95.1%-98.9%), respectively. About limb configuration, no differences were found in terms of 5 year freedom from limb graft occlusion (ZSLE 93.4% [95% CI: 89.8%-95.5%] vs ZISL 94.3% [95% CI: 90.1%-95.9%], p=0.342; log-rank 0.903).

CONCLUSION

Zenith Alpha Abdominal in elective EVAR offered satisfactory early and 5 year outcomes with low complication rates. Limb graft occlusion continued to be an issue. Limb configuration did not affect outcomes.

CLINICAL IMPACT

The authors describe satisfactory early and 5 year outcomes of Zenith Alpha Abdominal in elective endovascular aortic repair in the framework of a multicenter regional retrospective registry. At 5 years freedom from type I endoleak was 88.6%, and rate of endograft infections and conversions to open repair were very low. in the present study. Hot topic about about Zenith stent-graft still remains the limb graft occlusion with a 30-day overall rate of 2%, and estimated 5-year freedom from limb graft occlusion of 93.6%. Limb graft configuration did not affect limb graft occlusion rate. A standardized protocol including iliac stenting should be adopted to reduce kimb graft occlusion.

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.

Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of 10-Year Follow-Up after Endovascular and Open Repair for Ruptured Abdominal AorticAneurysms

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has conferred an early survival advantage compared to an open surgical repair (OSR) in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA). However, the long-term survival benefit after EVAR was not displayed among randomized controlled trials (RCTs), whereas many non-RCTs have provided conflicting results. We conducted a time-to-event individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis on long-term rAAA data.

METHODS

All studies comparing mortality after EVAR versus OSR for rAAA were included. We used restricted mean survival times (RMSTs) as a measure of life expectancy for EVAR and OSR.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies, including 12,187 patients (4952 EVAR and 7235 OSR) were finally deemed eligible. A secondary IPD analysis included 725 (372 EVAR and 353 OSR) patients only from the 3 RCTs (Immediate Management of the Patient With Rupture : Open Versus Endovascular Repair, Endovasculaire ou Chirurgie dans les Anévrysmes aorto-iliaques Rompus and Amsterdam Acute Aneurysm Trial trials). Among all studies, the median survival was 4.20 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.70-4.58) years for EVAR and 1.91 (95% CI: 1.57-2.39) years for OSR. Although EVAR presented with increased hazard risk from 4 to 7 years, which peaked at 6 years after the operation, the RMST difference was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.35-0.73; P < 0.001) years gained with EVAR at the end of the 10-year follow-up. IPD meta-analysis of RCTs did not demonstrate significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

At 10-years follow-up, EVAR was associated with a 6.5 month increase in life expectancy when compared to OSR after analyzing all eligible studies. Evidence from our study suggests that a strict follow-up program would be desirable, especially for patients with long-life expectancy.

Patient Blood Management in Vascular Surgery

Patient blood management (PBM) is an evidence-based, multidisciplinary approach aimed at appropriately allocating blood products to patients requiring transfusion while simultaneously minimizing inappropriate transfusions. The 3 pillars of patient blood management are optimizing erythropoiesis, minimizing blood loss, and optimizing physiological reserve of anemia. Benefits seen from PBM include limiting hospital costs and mitigating harm from numerous risks of transfusion.

The treatment choices of abdominal aortic aneurysm patients in China in the era of value-based healthcare

Background

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is often seen as the first choice treatment for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), particularly high-risk patients, yet the long-term survival rate and improvement in quality of life are still unclear. In order to seek the value of EVAR to the entire healthcare field, we conducted a retrospective study to evaluate whether the improvement EVAR can truly bring to the quality of medical care in the era of value-based healthcare.

Methods

We included AAA patients who underwent surgical treatment in the Department of Vascular Surgery, First Hospital of China Medical University, from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2019 and evaluated surgery procedure data, short-term and long-term mortality, complications, prognoses, and medical costs.

Results

We analyzed 507 patients with AAA who underwent open repair (n = 232) or EVAR (n = 275) over a 15-year period. The operative time, blood loss, blood transfusion rate, and postoperative length of hospital stay of the EVAR group is significantly lower than which of the open repair group. Meanwhile, neither short-term nor long-term mortality rates shows significant differences between the two groups. On the other hand, the complication rate of the EVAR group was significantly higher than that of the open repair group. Lastly, the total cost of EVAR was significantly higher than that of open repair.

Conclusion

Existing evidence suggests that EVAR improves neither short-term nor long-term survival rate compared with open surgery. In contrast, the complication rate and the reintervention rate in the EVAR group were higher than those in the open surgery group. Moreover, the cost of EVAR and that paid by medical insurance were higher than those for open surgery. For patients with a long-life expectancy, in order to ensure that patients receive appropriate and effective care, surgeons should choose a suitable method that considers both the quality of medical care as well as the expense accordingly.

Quality-adjusted life year comparison at medium term follow-up of endovascular versus open surgical repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm in young patients

Objectives

This study aimed to compare the quality of life and cost effectiveness between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) in young patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).

Design

This was a single-center, observational, and retrospective study.

Materials and methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients with AAA, who were <70 years old and underwent EVAR or OSR between January 2012 and October 2016. Only patients with aortic morphology that was suitable for EVAR were enrolled. Data on the complication rates, medical expenses, and expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were collected, and the cost per QALY at three years was compared.

Results

Among 90 patients with aortic morphology who were eligible for EVAR, 37 and 53 patients underwent EVAR and OSR, respectively. No significant differences were observed in perioperative cardiovascular events and death between the two groups. However, during the follow-up period, patients undergoing OSR showed a significantly lower complication rate (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.11; P = .021). From the three-year cost-effectiveness analysis, the total sum of costs was significantly lower in the OSR group (P < .001) than that in the EVAR group, and the number of QALYs was superior in the OSR group (P = .013). The cost per QALY at three years was significantly lower in the OSR group than that in the EVAR group (mean: $4038 vs. $10 137; respectively; P < .001)

Conclusions

OSR had lower complication rates and better cost-effectiveness than EVAR Among young patients with feasible aortic anatomy.

Impact of Gradual Adoption of EVAR in Elective Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Retrospective Cohort Study from 2009 to 2015

INTRODUCTION

The recommendations about the preferred type of elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) still divides guidelines committees, even nowadays. The aim is to assess outcomes after AAA repair focusing on differences between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR).

METHODS

The observational retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients submitted to elective AAA repair at a tertiary center, 2009-2015. Exclusion criteria were as follows: nonelective cases or complex aortic aneurysms. Primary outcomes were postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, survival, freedom from aortic-related mortality, and vascular reintervention. Time trends were assessed along the period under analysis.

RESULTS

From a total of 211 included patients, those submitted to EVAR were older (74 ± 7 vs. 67 ± 9 years; P < 0.001), presented a higher prevalence of hypertension (83.5% vs. 68.5%, P = 0.004), obesity (28.7% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.029), previous cardiac revascularization (30.5% vs. 14.7%, P = 0.005), heart failure (17.2% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.013), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (32.8% vs. 13.3%, P = 0.002). Patients were followed during a median of 49 months. EVAR resulted in a significantly shorter length of hospital stay (median 4 and interquartile range 3 vs. 8 (9); P < 0.001), lower 30-day complications (10.6% vs. 22.8%, P = 0.017), lower aortic-related mortality, and similar reintervention after adjustment with a propensity score. Along the time under analysis, EVAR became the predominate type of repair (P = 0.024), the proportion of complications decreased (P = 0.014), and the 30-day mortality (P = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

Although EVAR was offered to patients with more comorbidities, better and durable outcomes were achieved after EVAR, favoring its adoption for elective AAA repair.