To what extent has endovascular aneurysm repair influenced abdominal aortic aneurysm management in the state of Illinois?

Elective Endovascular vs Open Repair for Elective Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in Patients ≥80 years of Age: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To provide updated, pooled evidence on clinical outcomes among octogenarians (aged ≥80 years) with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) managed by elective endovascular repair, compared to conventional open repair.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were systematically searched. Studies that were either observational or randomized controlled trials were considered for the review. Included studies were conducted in elderly subjects (≥80 years) with AAA, and clinical and mortality outcomes were compared between endovascular and open surgical repair. Those reporting on outcomes of patients with urgent repair were excluded. The primary outcomes of interest were mortality and risk of complications. The pooled effect sizes were reported as odds ratio (OR) for categorical outcomes and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes. STATA software was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 15 studies. Compared to those undergoing open repair, patients receiving endovascular repair had significantly reduced risk of immediate post-operative mortality (OR .23, 95% CI: .20, .27), overall complication (OR .30, 95% CI: .20, .44), cardiac (OR .23, 95% CI: .16, .35), renal (OR .29, 95% CI: .18, .46), pulmonary (OR .14, 95% CI: .09, .21) and bleeding related (OR .59, 95% CI: .42, .83) complications. The risk of mortality at latest follow up (at 36 months and 60 months) was similar in the two groups. The total blood loss (ml) (WMD -1126.47, 95% CI: -1497.81, -755.13), operative time (min) (WMD -29.40, 95% CI: -56.19, -2.62), length of intensive care unit stay (days) (WMD -2.27, 95% CI: -3.43, -2.12) and overall hospital stay (days) (WMD -6.64, 95% CI: -7.60, -5.68) was significantly lower in those undergoing endovascular repair.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular repair appears to be better than open repair of AAA in this high-risk, frail population, with respect to short term outcomes. The benefits of reduced risk of short term mortality, complications, and better peri and post-operative outcomes may be considered when making a choice between these two surgical approaches. Randomized controlled trials are needed to provide reliable evidence on the effect of EVAR on long term survival.

Improved outcomes from endovascular aortic repair in younger patients: Towards improved risk stratification

Objectives

Abdominal aortic aneurysms are conventionally treated by open repair surgery. While endovascular aortic repair improves survival in high-risk patients, younger patients (40–65 years) potentially at lower risk with asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms undergoing endovascular aortic repair usually have poorer post-operative outcomes and require longer term follow-up. In this study, clinical data on younger patients were analyzed to investigate whether endovascular aortic repair leads to poorer short- and long-term outcomes.

Methods

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles comparing clinical outcomes in patients aged 40–65 years undergoing open repair or endovascular aortic repair and published between 2000 and 2017. In-hospital mortality, long-term mortality, and post-operative complication data were retrieved from eligible studies and clinical outcomes were compared. Twenty-one retrospective cohort analyses were included, accounting for 250,837 patients (149,051 endovascular aortic repair; 101,786 open repair). Risk ratios were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model. All statistical analyses were performed in Review Manager 5.3.

Results

Younger patients with asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms undergoing endovascular aortic repair had a significantly reduced 30-day mortality (odds ratio (OR) = 0.40, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.28–0.57; p  < 0.00001), long-term mortality (OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.17–0.82; p  = 0.01), incidence of reintervention (OR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.34–0.66; p  < 0.0001), and incidence of renal failure (OR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.37–1.82; p  < 0.00001).

Conclusions

Endovascular aortic repair may improve short- and long-term survival and reduce post-operative complications in younger patients with asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms.

GRADE-Based Recommendations for Surgical Repair of Nonruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

The objective of this study was to provide evidence-based recommendations for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) for patients with a nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement and adhered to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Both low- and high surgical risk patients treated with EVAR showed decreased 30-day mortality, but the low-risk group had no differences in 4-year mortality. Compared with friendly anatomy, patients with hostile anatomy had an increased risk of type I endoleak. Young patients may prefer OSR. Endovascular aneurysm repair was not cost-effective in Europe. Four conditional recommendations were formulated: (1) OSR for low-risk patients up to 80 years old, (2) EVAR for low-risk patients older than 80 years, (3) EVAR for high-risk patients as long as is anatomically feasible, and (4) OSR in patients in whom it is not anatomically feasible to perform EVAR. Based on GRADE criteria, either OSR or EVAR can be suggested to patients with nonruptured AAA taking into account their surgical risk, hostile anatomy, and age. Given the weakness of the recommendations, personal preferences are determinant.

Effectiveness of open versus endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in population settings: A systematic review of statewide databases

BACKGROUND

Patient outcomes after open abdominal aortic aneurysm and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair have been widely reported from several large, randomized, controlled trials. It is not clear whether these trial outcomes are representative of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair procedures performed in real-world hospital settings across the United States. This study was designed to evaluate population-based outcomes after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair versus open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using statewide inpatient databases and examine how they have helped improve our understanding of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases was performed to identify articles comparing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using data from statewide inpatient databases. This search was limited to studies published in the English language after 1990, and abstracts were screened and abstracted by 2 authors.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 17 studies published between 2004 and 2016 that used data from 29 different statewide inpatient databases to compare endovascular aortic aneurysm repair versus open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. These studies support the randomized, controlled trial results, including a lower mortality associated with endovascular aortic aneurysm repair extended from the perioperative period up to 3 years after operation, as well as a higher complication rate after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. The evidence from statewide inpatient database analyses has also elucidated trends in procedure volume, patient case mix, volume-outcome relationships, and health care disparities associated with endovascular aortic aneurysm repair versus open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

CONCLUSION

Population analyses of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using statewide inpatient databases have confirmed short- and long-term mortality outcomes obtained from large, randomized, controlled trials. Moreover, these analyses have allowed us to assess the effect of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair adoption on population outcomes and patient case mix over time.

Endovascular Abdominal Aneurysm Repair in Women: What are the Differences Between the Genders?

INTRODUCTION:

Abdominal aortic aneurysm has a lower incidence in the female population, but a higher complication rate. It was been hypothesized that some anatomical differences of abdominal aortic aneurysm in women could be responsible for that. We proposed to analyze our data to understand the differences in the clinical and anatomical characteristics and the outcomes of patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair, according to gender.

METHODS:

A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair between 2001-2013 was performed. Patients were divided according gender and evaluated regarding age, atherosclerotic risk factors, aneurysm anatomic features, endograft type, anesthesic risk classification, length of stay, reinterventions and mortality. Two statistical studies were performed, first comparing women and men (Group A) and a second one comparing women and men, adjusted by age (Group B).

RESULTS:

Of the 171 patients, only 5.8% (n=10) were females. Women were older (P<0.05) and the number of women with no atherosclerotic risk factor was significantly higher. The comparison adjusted by age revealed women with statistically less smoking history, less cerebrovascular disease and ischemic heart disease. Women had a trend to more complex anatomy, with more iliac intern artery aneurysms, larger aneurysm diameter and neck angulations statistically more elevated. No other variables were statistically different between age groups, neither reintervention nor mortality rates.

CONCLUSION:

Our study showed a clear difference in the clinical characteristics of women. The female population was statistically older, and when compared with men adjusted by age, had less atherosclerotic risk factors and less target organ disease. Women showed a more complex anatomy but with the same outcomes.

Elective endovascular vs. open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm in octogenarians

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the operative mortality and short-term and midterm outcomes of treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm in Japanese patients over 80 years of age.

METHODS

Between January 2007 and December 2011, 207 patients underwent elective repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. Comorbidities, operative morbidity and mortality, midterm outcomes were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The average age (endovascular aneurysm repair, 84.4 ± 0.3; open, 82.8 ± 0.3, P < 0.01) and the percentage of hostile abdomen (endovascular aneurysm repair, 22.2%; open repair, 11.1%, P < 0.05) were higher in the endovascular aneurysm repair group. Percentage of outside IFU was higher in open repair (endovascular aneurysm repair, 38.5%; open repair, 63.3%, P < 0.01). The cardiac complication (endovascular aneurysm repair, 0%; open repair, 5.6%, P < 0.01) and length of postoperative hospital stay (endovascular aneurysm repair, 10.3 ± 0.8 days; open, 18.6 ± 1.6 days, P < 0.05) were significantly lower in the endovascular aneurysm repair group. There were no differences in operative mortality (endovascular aneurysm repair, 0%; open, 1.1%, P = 0.43) and the aneurysm-related death was not observed. The rate of secondary interventions (EVAR, 5.1%; open repair, 0%, P < 0.01) and midterm mortality rate were much higher in the endovascular aneurysm repair group.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular aneurysm repair is less invasive than open repair and useful for treating abdominal aortic aneurysm in octogenarians; however, open repair can be acceptable treatment in the inappropriate case treated by endovascular aneurysm repair.

Emergent endovascular vs. open surgery repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: a meta-analysis

Objectives

To systematically review studies comparing peri-operative mortality and length of hospital stay in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) to patients who underwent open surgical repair (OSR).

Methods

The Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched until Apr 30, 2013 using keywords such as abdominal aortic aneurysm, emergent, emergency, rupture, leaking, acute, endovascular, stent, graft, and endoscopic. The primary outcome was peri-operative mortality and the secondary outcome was length of hospital stay.

Results

A total of 18 studies (2 randomized controlled trials, 5 prospective studies, and 11 retrospective studies) with a total of 135,734 rAAA patients were included. rAAA patients who underwent EVAR had significantly lower peri-operative mortality compared to those who underwent OSR (overall OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.58 to 0.67, P<0.001). rAAA patients with EVAR also had a significantly shorter mean length of hospital stay compared to those with OSR (difference in mean length of stay ranged from −2.00 to −19.10 days, with the overall estimate being −5.25 days (95% CI = −9.23 to −1.26, P = 0.010). There was no publication bias and sensitivity analysis showed good reliability.

Conclusions

EVAR confers significant benefits in terms of peri-operative mortality and length of hospital stay. There is a need for more randomized controlled trials to compare outcomes of EVAR and OSR for rAAA.

Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the geriatric population

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a relatively common pathology among the elderly. More people above the age of 80 will have to undergo treatment of an AAA in the future. This review aims to summarize the literature focusing on endovascular repair of AAA in the geriatric population. A systematic review of the literature was performed, including results from endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) registries and studies comparing open repair and EVAR in those above the age of 80. A total of 15 studies were identified. EVAR in this population is efficient with a success rate exceeding 90% in all cases, and safe, with early mortality and morbidity being superior among patients undergoing EVAR against open repair. Late survival can be as high as 95% after 5 years. Aneurysm-related death over long-term follow-up was low after EVAR, ranging from 0 to 3.4%. Endovascular repair can be offered safely in the geriatric population and seems to compare favourably with open repair in all studies in the literature to date.

Nationwide trends in abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and use of endovascular repair in the emergency setting

PURPOSE

To analyze nationwide trends in abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair and the use of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in the emergency setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were obtained from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision-Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes for open and endovascular repairs from 2001-2009. Trends in outcome parameters and hospital charges were compared.

RESULTS

The number of emergency EVAR procedures increased from 382 in 2001 to 1,247 in 2009 (P < .001). During the study period, length of hospital stay associated with total number of EVAR procedures decreased from 3.8 days to 3.4 days (P < .05), and the in-hospital mortality decreased from 2.4% to 2% (P = .32). From 2001-2009, mean hospital charges associated with EVAR increased from $50,630 to $91,401 (74% increase), whereas charges associated with open repairs increased from $54,578 to $128,925 (136% increase). The proportion of patients needing rehabilitation or nursing home placement after EVAR increased from 5.8% to 7.7% (P < .01), and need for home health increased from 6.9% to 10.5% (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant increase in the number of emergency EVAR procedures during the study period; however, the overall in-hospital mortality associated with EVAR remained unchanged, and the length of hospital stay showed a decreasing trend. The total hospital charges for EVAR were lower than the charges for open abdominal aneurysm repair throughout the study period; the difference in charges between the procedures showed a significant increasing trend with time.

Outcome after open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients>80 years old: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of open repair in the management of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA) in patients>80 years old is questioned by the perceived high operative risk of these patients. This issue has been investigated in the present meta-analysis of observational studies.

METHODS

Studies on open repair of RAAA in patients>80 years old were identified in July 2010. The immediate and intermediate results were expressed as pooled proportions with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Linear regression and meta-regression were performed to evaluate the impact of variables on the immediate postoperative mortality.

RESULTS

Pooled analysis of 29 studies showed that the risk of immediate postoperative mortality in patients>80 years old was significantly higher than in younger patients (risk ratio 1.440, 95%CI 1.365-1.519, I2 36.8%, P=0.002; risk difference 19.4%, 95% CI 16.4-22.4%, I2 38.8%, P=0.019). Pooled analysis of 36 studies showed an immediate postoperative mortality rate of 59.2% (95% CI 55.7-62.5, I2 35.62). Immediate postoperative mortality in patients<80 years old positively correlated with that of patients>80 years old (rho: 0.686, P<0.0001). Intermediate survival data of 111 operative survivors were available from six studies, and their pooled survival rates at 1-, 2-, and 3-year were 82.4, 75.6, and 68.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate and intermediate survival rates of patients>80 years old after open repair of RAAA are acceptable. These findings suggest a more confident approach toward emergency repair of RAAA in the very elderly.

A meta-analysis and metaregression analysis of factors influencing mortality after endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

To determine factors that may influence the perioperative mortality after endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAAs) using metaregression analysis.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of all English-language literature with information on mortality rates after endovascular repair of RAAAs was conducted. A metaregression was subsequently performed to determine the impact on mortality of the following 8 factors: patient age; mid-time study point; anaesthesia; endograft configuration; haemodynamic instability; use of aortic balloon; conversion to open repair; and abdominal compartment syndrome.

RESULTS

The pooled perioperative mortality across the 46 studies (1397 patients) was 24.3% (95% CI: 20.7-28.3%). Of the 8 variables, only bifurcated approach was significantly associated with reduced mortality (p = 0.005). A moderate negative correlation was observed between bifurcated approach and haemodynamic instability (-0.35). There was still a strong association between bifurcated approach and mortality after simultaneously adjusting for haemodynamic instability, indicating that the latter was not a major factor in explaining the observed association.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular repair of RAAAs is associated with acceptable mortality rates. Patients having a bifurcated endograft were less likely to die. This may be due to some surgeons opting for a bifurcated approach in patients with better haemodynamic condition. Further studies will be needed to clarify this.

Elective endovascular vs. open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients aged 80 years and older: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Endovascular treatment (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is thought to be of benefit, particularly in patients aged ≥80 years. This issue was investigated in the present meta-analysis.

DESIGN

The study design involved a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of data on elective EVAR vs. open repair of AAA in patients aged ≥80 years were performed.

RESULTS

Six observational studies reporting on 13,419 patients were included in the present analysis. Pooled analysis showed higher immediate postoperative mortality after open repair compared with EVAR (risk ratio 3.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.19-4.68; risk difference, 6.2%, 95%CI 5.4-7.0%). The pooled immediate mortality rate after open repair was 8.6%, whereas it was 2.3% after EVAR. Open repair was associated with a significantly higher risk of postoperative cardiac, pulmonary and renal complications. Pooled analysis of three studies showed similar overall survival at 3 years after EVAR and open repair (risk ratio 1.10, 95%CI 0.77-1.57).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that elective EVAR in patients aged ≥80 years is associated with significantly lower immediate postoperative mortality and morbidity than open repair and should be considered the treatment of choice in these fragile patients. These results indicate also that, when EVAR is not feasible, open repair can be performed with acceptable immediate and late survival in patients at high risk of aneurysm rupture.

Coding accuracy of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair procedures in administrative databases - a note of caution

BACKGROUND

Administrative databases have been used to compare methods used for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. This requires the use of procedural codes whose accuracy has not been established. In this study we measured the accuracy of procedural codes for open AAA repair and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in administrative databases.

METHODS

Between April 2000 and July 2005, we identified all surgeries of non-ruptured AAA using open or EVAR technique at a tertiary-care teaching hospital. During the same time period, we identified all patients who were coded with either an open AAA repair or EVAR.

RESULTS

During the study period, 514 people had an elective AAA repair or were coded with one. Coding quality of open AAA repair was poor (sensitivity 48.1%; specificity 77.4%; accuracy 52.9%) while that for EVAR was slightly better (sensitivity 58.2%; specificity 100%; accuracy 93.6%). We developed an algorithm that included similar procedures and considered anaesthetic type to improve the identification of both open repair (sensitivity 97.7%; specificity 86.9%; accuracy 95.9%) and EVAR (sensitivity 84.8%; specificity 99.5%; accuracy 97.3%).

CONCLUSION

Administrative database codes that are routinely used to identify open AAA repairs or EVARs are inaccurate. However, slight modifications to the coding algorithms permit the use of administrative databases to study AAA repair.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of sex differences in outcome after intervention for abdominal aortic aneurysm

Background

The aim of this study was to assess possible differences in mortality between men and women with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) treated either by elective repair or following aneurysm rupture.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed using the MEDLINE, Cochrane and Embase databases. Data were analysed by means of bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. Data were pooled and odds ratios (ORs) calculated for women compared with men.

Results

Sixty-one studies (516 118 patients) met the predetermined inclusion criteria. Twenty-six reported on elective open AAA repair, 21 on elective endovascular repair, 25 on open repair for ruptured AAA and one study on endovascular repair for ruptured AAA. Mortality rates for women compared with men were 7·6 versus 5·1 per cent (OR 1·28, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1·09 to 1·49) for elective open repair, 2·9 versus 1·5 per cent (OR 2·41, 95 per cent c.i. 1·14 to 5·15) for elective endovascular repair, and 61·8 versus 42·2 per cent (OR 1·16, 95 per cent c.i. 0·97 to 1·37) in the group that had open repair for rupture. The group that had endovascular repair for ruptured AAA was too small for meaningful analysis.

Conclusion

Women with an AAA had a higher mortality rate following elective open and endovascular repair.

Effects of study design and trends for EVAR versus OSR

Purpose:

To investigate if study design factors such as randomization, multi-center versus single center evidence, institutional surgical volume, and patient selection affect the outcomes for endovascular repair (EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR). Finally, we investigate trends over time in EVAR versus OSR outcomes.

Methods:

Search strategies for comparative studies were performed individually for: OVID’s MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HAPI, and Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews (including Cochrane DSR, ACP Journal Club, DARE and CCTR), limited to 1990 and November 2006.

Results:

Identified literature: 84 comparative studies pertaining to 57,645 patients. These include 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), plus 2 RCTs with long-term follow-up. The other 78 comparative studies were nonrandomized with 75 reporting perioperative outcomes, of which 16 were multi-center, and 59 single-center studies. Of the single-center studies 31 were low-volume and 28 were high-volume centers. In addition, 5 studies had all patients anatomically eligible for EVAR, and 8 studies included high-risk patients only. Finally, 25 long term observational studies reported outcomes up to 3 years.

Outcomes:

Lower perioperative mortality and rates of complications for EVAR versus OSR varied across study designs and patient populations. EVAR adverse outcomes have decreased in recent times.

Conclusion:

EVAR highlights the problem of performing meta-analysis when the experience evolves over time.

Vascular surgery training trends from 2001-2007: A substantial increase in total procedure volume is driven by escalating endovascular procedure volume and stable open procedure volume

BACKGROUND

Endovascular procedure volume has increased rapidly, and endovascular procedures have become the initial treatment option for many vascular diseases. Consequently, training in endovascular procedures has become an essential component of vascular surgery training. We hypothesized that, due to this paradigm shift, open surgical case volume may have declined, thereby jeopardizing training and technical skill acquisition in open procedures.

METHODS

Vascular surgery trainees are required to log both open and endovascular procedures with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). We analyzed the ACGME database (2001-2007), which records all cases (by Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code) performed by graduating vascular trainees. Case volume was evaluated according to the mean number of cases performed per graduating trainee.

RESULTS

The mean number of total major vascular procedures performed per trainee increased by 174% between 2001 and 2007 (from 298.3 to 519.2). Endovascular diagnostic and therapeutic procedures increased by 422% (from 63.7 to 269.1) and accounted for 93.0% of the increase in total procedures. The number of open aortic procedures (aneurysm, occlusive, mesenteric, renal) decreased by 17.1% (from 49.7 to 41.2), while the number of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair procedures increased by 298.8% (from 16.9 to 50.5). Specifically, open aortic aneurysm procedures decreased by 21.8%, aortobifemoral bypass increased by 3.2%, and open mesenteric or renal procedures decreased by 13%. Infrainguinal bypass procedures remained relatively constant (from 37.6 to 36.5, 2.9% decrease), and the number of carotid endarterectomy procedures performed did not change significantly (from 43.6 to 42.2, 3.2% decrease).

CONCLUSION

Vascular surgery trainees are performing a vastly increased total number of procedures. This increase in total procedure volume is almost entirely attributable to the recent increase in endovascular procedures. Aside from a small decline in open aortic procedures, the volume of open surgical procedures has largely remained stable. It is essential that vascular surgery training programs continue to focus on both endovascular and open surgical skills in order for vascular surgeons to remain the premier specialists to care for patients with vascular disease.

A decade of change in abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the United States: Have we improved outcomes equally between men and women?

OBJECTIVES

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair has undergone vast changes in the last decade. We reviewed a national database to evaluate the effect on utilization of services and rupture rates.

METHODS

From the Centers for Medicare Services (CMS), a 5% inpatient sample was obtained for 1994 to 2003 as beneficiary encrypted files (5% BEF) and as a limited data set file after 2001. Files were translated into Microsoft Access by using a custom program. Queries were performed using International Classification of Diseases (9th Revision) (ICD-9) diagnosis codes 441.3 (ruptured AAA) or 441.4 (non-ruptured AAA) and ICD-9 procedure codes 38.34, 38.36, 38.44, 38.64, 39.25, 39.52 for open, and 39.71 (available after October 2000) for endovascular repair. The 5% BEF totals were multiplied by 20 to calculate yearly volumes. Total cases were divided into the yearly CMS population of elderly Medicare recipients for repair rates per capita and are reported as cases per 100,000 elderly Medicare recipients. Statistics were performed using chi2, Student's t test, nonparametric tests, and multiple regression analysis; P < or = .05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Elective AAA repairs declined from 94.4/100,000 in 1994 to 87.7/100,000 in 2003. AAA rupture surgery declined from 18.7/100,000 (1994) to 13.6/100,000 (2003). Rupture repairs from 1994 to 2003 decreased by 29% for men and by 12% for women (P < .001). Rupture mortality has not changed, but the average is significantly higher for women at 52.8%, with men averaging 44.2% (P < .001). Mortality for elective AAA repair has decreased from 5.57% (1994) to 3.20% (2003) in men (P < .001) and from 7.48% (1994) to 5.45% (2003) in women (P < .001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated increasing age, female sex, and open surgery (vs endovascular) were significant predictors of elective and ruptured AAA repair mortality. For 2003 elective AAA repairs, the average length of stay was 6.9 days in men and 8.9 days in women (P < .01) For 2003, men were more likely to be discharged to home after rupture (32.9% of men vs 23.3% of women; P < .001) and elective repair (84.5% of men vs 70.1% of women; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in AAA management in the last decade have decreased aneurysm-related deaths and reduced the incidence of aneurysm ruptures, with a lower utilization of services. Women, however, continue to have a consistently higher mortality for open and ruptured AAA repair and are less likely to return to home after either.

Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Endovascular Repair versus Open Surgery—Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review of studies in which endovascular repair was compared with open surgery in the treatment of patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of the English-language literature from January 1994 until March 2006 was performed. Inclusion criteria for studies were that they were about a comparison between patients who underwent endovascular repair and patients who underwent open surgery, that each treatment group included at least five patients, that information about patients' hemodynamic condition at presentation was reported, and that 30-day mortality was reported for each treatment group. Two reviewers independently extracted the data, and discrepancies were resolved by an arbiter. Random-effects models and meta-regression analysis were used to calculate crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for endovascular repair versus open surgery.

RESULTS

Ten studies, in which the results of 478 procedures (n=148 for endovascular repair, n=330 for open surgery) were reported, met the inclusion criteria. All studies were observational; no randomized controlled trials were found. The pooled 30-day mortality was 22% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 16%, 29%) for endovascular repair and 38% (95% CI: 32%, 45%) for open surgery. The pooled rate for total systemic complications was 28% (95% CI: 17%, 48%) for endovascular repair and 56% (95% CI: 37%, 85%) for open surgery. The crude OR for 30-day mortality for endovascular repair compared with open surgery was 0.45 (95% CI: 0.28, 0.72). After adjustment for patients' hemodynamic condition, the OR was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.31, 1.44).

CONCLUSION

In this systematic review, after adjustment for patients' hemodynamic condition at presentation, a benefit in 30-day mortality for endovascular repair compared with open surgery for patients with a ruptured AAA was observed, but it was not statistically significant.

A Modular Aortouniiliac Endovascular Stent-graft is a Useful Device for the Treatment of Symptomatic and Ruptured Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: One-year Results from a Multicentre Study

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular repair (EVAR) of acute symptomatic and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) can be difficult without a large stock of suitable graft sizes. We report a prospective European multicentre study of a modular aortouniiliac stent-graft.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Seven centres, with elective EVAR experience, participated in the study. Sixty-five patients were enrolled from September 2002 - April 2005. Some 45 patients had rAAA and 20 were acutely symptomatic. Their median age was 74 (69-80.3) years, 49 (75%) were men. From a choice of 4 body and 4 limb sizes, stent-grafts were deployed under local or general anaesthesia.

RESULTS

The endovascular delivery system was introduced and the aneurysm excluded from the circulation in a median of 40 (30-60) minutes from the first incision. The median operative duration was 150 (120-190) mins, blood loss 300 ml (200-800). 33 (51%) operations were performed by a vascular surgeon alone. There were a total of 4 (6%) peri-operative re-interventions, endovascular (n=1), open (n=2) and thrombectomy (n=1). The peri-operative mortality in the rupture group was 40% and 10% in the symptomatic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortouniiliac stent-grafts provide rapid exclusion of rAAA. Suitably trained surgeons can do the operation without a radiologist's support. The mortality rate from rAAA treated with EVAR remains high.

Current Status of Endovascular Repair of Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in the Context of 50 Years of Conventional Repair

The operative risk for conventional open repair of nonruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) has steadily declined during the past several decades to the point that open procedures now can be done with a mortality rate of approximately 2% at tertiary referral centers. Nevertheless, population-based studies suggest that the mortality rate for open AAA repair remains nearly 7% in many communities, a finding that undoubtedly is influenced by a substantial risk for unfavorable outcomes in patients who represent less than ideal candidates for major abdominal operations on the basis of advanced age and the medical comorbidities that so often accompany it. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a landmark contribution to the management of such patients and has been associated with significant overall reductions in the operative mortality rate in statewide and national audits. This early advantage of EVAR comes at the price of a unique set of complications, secondary interventions, and related expenses, however, and randomized clinical trials of EVAR versus open repair have not yet demonstrated differences in survival or quality of life within 4 years of follow-up. Data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and other sources indicate that the mortality rate for open AAA repair appears to be less than 2% in patients who are 65 years of age or younger. This low operative risk may not justify exposure to whatever incidence of late complications the current generation of endografts may prove to have during the relatively long survival times that can be anticipated for these patients.

Long-term outcomes after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: the first decade

OBJECTIVE

The proper role of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) remains controversial, largely due to uncertain late results. We reviewed a 12-year experience with EVAR to document late outcomes.

METHODS

During the interval January 7, 1994 through December 31, 2005, 873 patients underwent EVAR utilizing 10 different stent graft devices. Primary outcomes examined included operative mortality, aneurysm rupture, aneurysm-related mortality, open surgical conversion, and late survival rates. The incidence of endoleak, migration, aneurysm enlargement, and graft patency was also determined. Finally, the need for reintervention and success of such secondary procedures were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate methodology were used for analysis.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 75.7 years (range, 49-99 years); 81.4% were male. Mean follow-up was 27 months; 39.3% of patients had 2 or more major comorbidities, and 19.5% would be categorized as unfit for open repair. On an intent-to-treat basis, device deployment was successful in 99.3%. Thirty-day mortality was 1.8%. By Kaplan-Meier analysis, freedom from AAA rupture was 97.6% at 5 years and 94% at 9 years. Significant risk factors for late AAA rupture included female gender (odds ratio OR, 6.9; P = 0.004) and device-related endoleak (OR, 16.06; P = 0.009). Aneurysm-related death was avoided in 96.1% of patients, with the need for any reintervention (OR, 5.7 P = 0.006), family history of aneurysmal disease (OR, 9.5; P = 0.075), and renal insufficiency (OR, 7.1; P = 0.003) among its most important predictors. 87 (10%) patients required reintervention, with 92% of such procedures being catheter-based and a success rate of 84%. Significant predictors of reintervention included use of first-generation devices (OR, 1.2; P < 0.01) and late onset endoleak (OR, 64; P < 0.001). Current generation stent grafts correlated with significantly improved outcomes. Cumulative freedom from conversion to open repair was 93.3% at 5 through 9 years, with the need for prior reintervention (OR, 16.7; P = 0.001) its most important predictor. Cumulative survival was 52% at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR using contemporary devices is a safe, effective, and durable method to prevent AAA rupture and aneurysm-related death. Assuming suitable AAA anatomy, these data justify a broad application of EVAR across a wide spectrum of patients.

Open aneurysm repair in elderly patients not candidates for endovascular repair (EVAR): Comparison with patients undergoing EVAR or preferential open repair

The authors reviewed a 2-year experience with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair to determine if patients who were excluded from endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) because of anatomic criteria (Group III) represented a higher risk for subsequent open aneurysm repair than either patients undergoing EVAR (Group II) or those patients who preferentially underwent open repair (Group I). Between January 2001 and December 2003, 107 patients underwent AAA repair. Open repair was recommended in patients <70 years of age and without significant comorbidities (Group I). There were 35 patients in Group I; 72 patients were evaluated for EVAR; 29 patients underwent EVAR (Group II), and 43 were excluded and underwent open repair (Group III). Exclusion criteria were those recommended by the graft manufacturers. Patients in Group I were significantly younger than those in Groups II and III (p < 0.0001). Gender, incidence of diabetes, and hypertension were similar in all groups. Patients in Group III had a greater incidence of coronary artery disease (CAD) than those in Groups I and II, trending toward statistical significance (p = 0.06). Aneurysm size in Group II was statistically smaller than in Group I or III. Group III had significantly more complications (25.6% vs 5.7% and 6.9%) than either Group I or II (p < 0.015). Cardiac complications were similar in all groups. Three patients in Group III required prolonged intubation and 3 in Group III developed renal insufficiency. A history of CAD was predictive of complications (21.8% vs 5.8%, p < 0.024), as was inclusion in Group III. There were 2 deaths in this series, both in Group III. Length of stay was significantly less in Group II (4.17 +/-2.36 days) than in Group I (6.57 +/-1.84 days) or Group III (12.30 +/-9.82 days) (p = 0.0001). Open aneurysm repair can be safely performed in younger good-risk patients (Group I) with results equivalent to EVAR (Group II) but with slightly longer length of stay (LOS). In older patients with suitable anatomy EVAR can be performed with minimal morbidity and short LOS. Older patients not suitable for EVAR (Group III) constitute a higher risk group of patients because of increased incidence of CAD and the need for more complex repairs. However, the mortality rate in this group was only 4.6%.

Improving aneurysm-related outcomes: Nationwide benefits of endovascular repair

OBJECTIVES

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has changed the practice of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery. We examined a national Medicare database to establish the effect of EVAR introduction into the United States.

METHODS

A 5% random sample of inpatient Medicare claims from 2000 to 2003 was queried using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis and procedure codes. An EVAR procedure code was available after October 2000. Occurrences were multiplied by 20 to estimate yearly national volumes and then divided into the yearly Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) population of elderly Medicare recipients for rates per capita, reported as cases per 100,000 elderly Medicare recipients. Statistical analysis was performed by using chi2, Student's t test, nonparametric tests, and multiple regression analysis, with significance defined as P < or = .05.

RESULTS

Elective AAA repairs averaged 87.7 per 100,000 Medicare patients between 2000 and 2003, with EVAR has steadily increasing to 41% of elective repairs in 2003. From 2000 to 2003, overall elective AAA mortality declined from 5.0% to 3.7% (P < .001), while open repair mortality remained unchanged. EVAR patients are significantly older than patients treated with open repair. From 2000 to 2003 patients >84 years receiving EVAR increased to 62.7% (P < .001). Overall hospital length of stay (LOS) decreased from 8.6 days in 2000 to 7.3 days in 2003, P < .001, but increased for open AAA patients. EVAR patients were more likely to be discharged home rather than to skilled facilities. Average elective repair hospital charges were not different between groups, but Medicare reimbursement was lower for EVAR, with a higher proportion cases classified as DRG 111 (major cardiovascular procedure without complications). EVAR was used in 10.6% of ruptured AAA repairs in 2003, with a significant reduction in mortality compared with open repairs for rupture (31.8% vs 50.8%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR is replacing open surgery without an increase in overall case volume. EVAR is responsible for overall decrease in operative mortality even in ruptured aneurysms while decreasing utilization variables. Reimbursement to hospitals is shrinking, however.