Long-term outcomes and resource utilization of endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in Ontario

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.

Retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

There has been extensive debate in the surgical literature regarding the optimum surgical access approach to the infrarenal abdominal aorta during an operation to repair an abdominal aortic aneurysm. The published trials comparing retroperitoneal (RP) and transperitoneal (TP) aortic surgery show conflicting results. This is an update of the review first published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of the retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair on mortality, complications, hospital stay and blood loss.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 30 November 2020. The review authors searched the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and handsearched reference lists of relevant articles to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the RP approach versus the TP approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. There were no restrictions on language or publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. We resolved any disagreements through discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in included trials with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated a pooled estimate of treatment effect by calculating the mean difference (MD) and standard deviation (SD) with corresponding 95% CIs. We pooled data using a fixed-effect model, unless we identified heterogeneity, in which case we used a random-effects model. We used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. We evaluated the outcomes of mortality, complications, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, hospital stay, blood loss, aortic cross-clamp time and operating time.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no new studies from the updated searches. After reassessment, we included one study which had previously been excluded. Five RCTs with a combined total of 152 participants are included. The overall certainty of the evidence ranged from low to very low because of the low methodological quality of the included trials (unclear random sequence generation method and allocation concealment, and no blinding of outcome assessors), small sample sizes, small number of events, high heterogeneity and inconsistency between the included trials, no power calculations and relatively short follow-up. There was no evidence of a difference between the RP approach and the TP approach regarding mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.25; 3 studies, 110 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there was no evidence of a difference in complications such as hematoma (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.48; 2 studies, 75 participants; very low-certainty evidence), abdominal wall hernia (OR 10.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 211.78; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or chronic wound pain (OR 2.20, 95% CI 0.36 to 13.34; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence) between the RP and TP approaches in participants undergoing elective open AAA repair. The RP approach may reduce ICU stay (mean difference (MD) -19.02 hours, 95% CI -30.83 to -7.21; 3 studies, 106 participants; low-certainty evidence); hospital stay (MD -3.30 days, 95% CI -4.85 to-1.75; 5 studies, 152 participants; low-certainty evidence); and blood loss (MD -504.87 mL, 95% CI -779.19 to -230.56; 4 studies, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the RP approach and the TP approach regarding aortic cross-clamp time (MD 0.69 min, 95% CI -7.23 to 8.60; 4 studies, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or operating time (MD -15.94 min, 95% CI -34.76 to 2.88; 4 studies, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low-certainty evidence from five small RCTs showed no clear evidence of a difference between the RP approach and the TP approach for elective open AAA repair in terms of mortality, or for rates of complications including hematoma (very low-certainty evidence), abdominal wall hernia (very low-certainty evidence), or chronic wound pain (very low-certainty evidence). However, a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay and shorter hospital stay was probably indicated following the RP approach compared to the TP approach (both low-certainty evidence). A possible reduction in blood loss was also shown after the RP approach (very low-certainty evidence). There is no clear difference between the RP approach and TP approach in aortic cross-clamp time or operating time. Further well-designed, large-scale RCTs assessing the RP approach versus TP approach for elective open AAA repair are required.

Reassessing the operative threshold for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the context of COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

The worldwide pandemic involving the novel respiratory syndrome (COVID-19) has forced health care systems to delay elective operations, including abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, to conserve resources. This study provides a structured analysis of the decision to delay AAA repair and quantify the potential for harm.

METHODS

A decision tree was constructed modeling immediate repair of AAA relative to an initial nonoperative (delayed repair) approach. Risks of COVID-19 contraction and mortality, aneurysm rupture, and operative mortality were considered. A deterministic sensitivity analysis for a range of patient ages (50 to >80), probability of COVID-19 infection (0.01%-30%), aneurysm size (5.5 to >7 cm), and time horizons (3-9 months) was performed. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted for three representative ages (60, 70, and 80). Analyses were conducted for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR).

RESULTS

Patients with aneurysms 7 cm or greater demonstrated a higher probability of survival when treated with immediate EVAR or OSR, compared with delayed repair, for patients under 80 years of age. When considering EVAR for aneurysms 5.5 to 6.9 cm, immediate repair had a higher probability of survival except in settings with a high probability of COVID-19 infection (10%-30%) and advanced age (70-85+ years). A nonoperative strategy maximized the probability of survival as patient age or operative risk increased. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that patients with large aneurysms (>7 cm) faced a 5.4% to 7.7% absolute increase in the probability of mortality with a delay of repair of 3 months. Young patients (60-70 years) with aneurysms 6 to 6.9 cm demonstrated an elevated risk of mortality (1.5%-1.9%) with a delay of 3 months. Those with aneurysms 5 to 5.9 cm demonstrated an increased survival with immediate repair in young patients (60); however, this was small in magnitude (0.2%-0.8%). The potential for harm increased as the length of surgical delay increased. For elderly patients requiring OSR, in the context of endemic COVID-19, delay of repair improves the probability of survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision to delay operative repair of AAA should consider both patient age and local COVID-19 prevalence in addition to aneurysm size. EVAR should be considered when possible due to a reduced risk of harm and lower resource utilization.

Utilization of Advanced Cardiovascular Therapies in the United States and Canada: An Observational Study of New York and Ontario Administrative Data

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), left ventricular assist device (LVAD), and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are expensive cardiovascular technologies with potential to benefit large numbers of patients. There are few population-based studies comparing utilization between countries. Our objective was to compare patient characteristics and utilization patterns of EVAR, LVAD, and TAVR in Ontario, Canada, and New York State, United States.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using administrative data to identify all adults who received EVAR, LVAD, or TAVR in Ontario and New York between 2012 and 2015. We compared socio-demographics of EVAR, LVAD, and TAVR recipients in Ontario and New York. We compared standardized utilization rates between jurisdictions for each procedure. We identified 3295 EVAR recipients from Ontario and 6236 from New York (mean age 74.6 versus 74.5 years; P=0.61): 136 LVAD recipients from Ontario and 686 from New York (age, 57.4 versus 57.7 years; P=0.80): 1708 TAVR recipients from Ontario and 4838 from New York (age, 83.1 versus 83.1; P=1.0). A significantly smaller percentage of EVAR and TAVR recipients in Ontario were female compared to New York (EVAR, 15.8% versus 22.1% female; P<0.001; TAVR, 45.9% versus 51.8%; P<0.001), but for LVAD the percentage female was similar (21.3% versus 20.8%; P=0.99). Utilization was significantly higher in New York for all procedures: EVAR (12.8 procedures per-100 000 adults per-year in Ontario, 20.2 in New York; P<0.001); LVAD (0.3 in Ontario versus 1.3 in New York; P<0.001); and TAVR (6.6 in Ontario, 14.3 in New York; P<0.001). Higher utilization of EVAR and TAVR in New York relative to Ontario increased substantially with increasing age.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed significantly higher utilization of EVAR, LVAD, and TAVR in New York compared to Ontario. Our results highlight important differences in how 2 different countries are using advanced cardiovascular therapies.

Outcomes after endovascular versus open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair: A population-based study

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the early and late outcomes of endovascular versus open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter population-based study across the province of Ontario, Canada, from 2006 to 2017. The primary end point was mortality. Secondary end points were time to first event of a composite of mortality, permanent spinal cord injury, permanent dialysis, and stroke, the individual end points of the composite, patient disposition at discharge, hospital length of stay, myocardial infarction, and secondary procedures at follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 664 adults undergoing surgical repair of a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (endovascular: n = 303 [45.5%] vs open: n = 361 [54.5%]) were identified using an algorithm of administrative codes validated against the operative records. Propensity score matching resulted in 241 patient pairs. Endovascular repairs increased during the study and currently comprise more than 50% of total repairs. In the matched sample, open repair was associated with a higher incidence of in-hospital death (17.4% vs 10.8%, P = .04), complications (26.1% vs 17.4%, P = .02), discharge to rehabilitation facilities (18.7% vs 10.0%, P = .02), and longer length of stay (12 [7-21] vs 6 [3-13] days, P < .01). Long-term mortality was not significantly different (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.50), nor were the other secondary end points, with the exception of secondary procedures, which were higher in the endovascular group (hazard ratio, 2.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-4.55). At 8 years, overall survival was 41.3% versus 44.6% after endovascular and open repair (P = .62).

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular repair was associated with improved early outcomes but higher rates of secondary procedures after discharge. Long-term survival after thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair is poor and independent of repair technique.

Hospital resource use and costs among abdominal aortic aneurysm repair patients admitted to the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. As a result, many of these patients are monitored postoperatively in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, little is known about resource utilization and costs associated with ICU admission in this population. We sought to evaluate predictors of total costs among patients admitted to the ICU after repair of nonruptured or ruptured AAA.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data (2011-2016) of ICU patients admitted after AAA repair. The primary outcome was total hospital costs. We used elastic net regression to identify pre-ICU admission predictors of hospitalization costs separately for nonruptured and ruptured AAA patients.

RESULTS

We included 552 patients in the analysis. Of these, 440 (79.7%) were admitted after repair of nonruptured AAA, and 112 (20.3%) were admitted after repair of ruptured AAA. The mean age of patients with nonruptured AAA was 74 (standard deviation, 9) years, and the mean age of patients with ruptured AAA was 70 (standard deviation, 8) years. Median total hospital cost (in Canadian dollars) was $21,555 (interquartile range, $17,798-$27,294) for patients with nonruptured AAA and $33,709 (interquartile range, $23,173-$53,913) for patients with ruptured AAA. Among both nonruptured and ruptured AAA patients, increasing age, illness severity, use of endovascular repair, history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and excessive blood loss (≥4000 mL) were associated with increased costs, whereas having an anesthesiologist with vascular subspecialty training was associated with lower costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-, procedure-, and clinician-specific variables are associated with costs in patients admitted to the ICU after repair of AAA. These factors may be considered future targets in initiatives to improve cost-effectiveness in this population.

Comparison of Outcomes in Elective Endovascular Aortic Repair vs Open Surgical Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

IMPORTANCE

Knowledge regarding the long-term outcomes of elective treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is increasing. However, data with greater than 10 years' follow-up remain sparse and are lacking from population-based studies.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR compared with open surgical repair (OSR) for elective treatment of AAA.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective, population-based cohort study used linked administrative health data from Ontario, Canada, to identify all patients 40 years and older who underwent elective EVAR or OSR for AAA repair from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2016, with follow-up terminating on March 31, 2017. A total of 17 683 patients were identified using validated procedure and billing codes and were propensity score matched. Analysis was conducted from June 26, 2018, to January 16, 2019.

EXPOSURES

Elective EVAR or OSR for AAA.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival, defined as being free of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; reintervention; and secondary rupture.

RESULTS

Among 17 683 patients who received elective AAA repairs (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [7.8] years; 14 286 [80.8%] men), 6100 (34.5%) underwent EVAR and 11 583 (65.5%) underwent OSR. From these patients, 4010 well-balanced propensity score-matched pairs of patients were defined, with a mean (SD) age of 73.0 (7.6) years and 6583 (82.1%) men. In the matched cohort, the mean (SD) follow-up was 4.4 (2.7) years, and maximum follow-up was 13.8 years. The overall median survival was 8.9 years. Compared with OSR, EVAR was associated with a higher survival rate up to 1 year after repair (91.0% [95% CI, 90.1%-91.9%] vs 94.0% [95% CI, 93.3%-94.7%]) and a higher major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival rate up to 4 years after repair (69.9% [95% CI, 68.3%-71.3%] vs 72.9% [95% CI, 71.4%-74.4%]). Cumulative incidence of reintervention was higher among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR at the 7-year follow-up (45.9% [95% CI, 44.1%-47.8%] vs 42.2% [95% CI, 40.4%-44.0%]). Survival analyses demonstrated no statistically significant differences in long-term survival, reintervention, and secondary rupture for patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR. Kaplan-Meier analysis suggested superior long-term major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR (32.6% [95% CI, 26.9%-38.4%] vs 14.1% [95% CI, 4.0%-30.4%]; stratified log-rank P < .001) during a maximum follow-up of 13.8 years.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Endovascular aortic repair was not associated with a difference in long-term survival during more than 13 years' maximum follow-up. The reasons for these findings will require studies to consider specific graft makes and models, adherence to instructions for use, and types and reasons for reintervention.

Reporting of Complications and Mortality in Relation to Risk Communication in Patients with an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

High-quality reporting of surgical risks is necessary for evidence-based risk communication in clinical practice. Risk communication is defined as the process of discussing benefits and harms of treatment options with patients. This review addressed the current quality of reporting of complications and mortality in publications on abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment, with a focus on items relevant to risk communication.

DESIGN

A systematic review.

MATERIALS

Randomised clinical trials, comparative observational studies and registries from 2010 onwards were eligible if they reported complications and/or mortality in patients with an asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms who received primary treatment.

METHODS

Quality of reporting was assessed by scoring items relevant to risk communication from the reporting standards of the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. Screening, quality assessment and data extraction were independently undertaken by two authors.

RESULTS

Forty-seven publications were included. Nine of 47 publications (19%) provided no definition of complications. In 14 of 47 publications (30%), it was unclear whether the number of adverse events or the number of patients with adverse events were presented. Absolute risk differences were provided in 1 of 32 publications (3.1%) that compared complications between two treatment options. Forty-six of 47 publications reported mortality, of which 42 reported overall mortality rates (91%). Absolute risk differences were given in 2 of the 31 publications (6.5%) that compared mortality between two treatment options.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of reporting of complications and mortality following primary abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment varied considerably. Better adherence to the SVS reporting standards and the CONSORT statement, as well as stating absolute risk differences may improve the quality of reporting and facilitate evidence-based risk communication.

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.

Comparison of perioperative outcomes in endovascular versus open repair for juxtarenal and pararenal aortic aneurysms: A propensity-matched analysis

Objective

Endoluminal aortic aneurysm repair is suitable within certain anatomic specifications. This study aims to compare 30-day outcomes of endovascular versus open repairs for juxtarenal and pararenal aortic aneurysms (JAA/PAAs).

Methods

The ACS-NSQIP database was queried from 2012 to 2015 for JAA/PAA repairs. Procedures characterized as emergent were included in the study; however, failed prior repairs and ruptured aneurysms were excluded. The preoperative and perioperative patient characteristics, operative techniques, and outcome variables were compared between the open aortic repair and the endovascular aortic repair groups. Propensity scoring was performed to clinically match open aortic repair and endovascular aortic repair groups on preoperative risk and select perioperative factors that differed significantly in the unmatched groups. Outcome comparisons were then performed between matched groups.

Results

A total of 1005 (789 JAAs and 216 PAAs) aneurysm repairs were included in the study. Of these, there were 395 endovascular aortic repairs and 610 open aortic repairs. Propensity scoring created a matched group of 263 endovascular aortic repair and 263 open aortic repair patients. There was no statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality rates between matched endovascular aortic repair and open aortic repair patients (2.7% vs. 5.7%). The endovascular aortic repair group had a shorter ICU length of stay and overall hospital stay. The 30-day morbidity significantly favored endovascular aortic repair over open aortic repair (16% vs. 35%, p < 0.001). The main drivers of morbidity for endovascular aortic repair versus open aortic repair included return to the OR (6.8% vs. 15%, p < 0.001), rate of cardiac or respiratory failure (7.6% vs. 21%, p = 0.001), rate of renal insufficiency or failure (3.8% vs. 9.9%, p = 0.009), and rate of pneumonia (1.5% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.004).

Conclusions

There is no difference in mortality rates between endovascular aortic repair versus open aortic repair when repairing JAAs/PAAs. There is a significant difference in overall morbidity, and ICU and hospital length of stay favoring endovascular aortic repair over open aortic repair. This supports the expanded applicability and efficacy of endovascular repair for complex aneurysms.

Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

There has been extensive debate in the surgical literature regarding the optimum surgical access approach to the infrarenal abdominal aorta during an operation to repair an abdominal aortic aneurysm. The published trials comparing retroperitoneal (RP) and transperitoneal (TP) aortic surgery show conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of the transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair on mortality, complications, hospital stay and blood loss.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (last searched May 2015) and CENTRAL (2015, Issue 4) and trials databases (May 2015). The review authors searched the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and other resources including clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the TP approach versus the RP approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. We evaluated the outcomes of mortality, complications, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, hospital stay, blood loss, aortic cross-clamp time and operating time. Two review authors independently selected RCTs against the inclusion criteria. We resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. We resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias according to a standard quality checklist provided by Cochrane Vascular.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs, with a combined total of 129 participants, that assessed the TP approach versus the RP approach for elective open AAA repair. The overall quality of the evidence was low to very low because of the low methodological quality of the included trials (unclear random sequence generation method and allocation concealment, and no blinding of outcome assessors), small sample sizes, small number of events, high heterogeneity and inconsistency between the included trials, no power calculations and relatively short follow-up. There were no differences between the RP approach and the TP approach regarding mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.25; 110 participants; four trials; P = 0.49; I² statistic = 0%; very low quality evidence). However, the RP approach may increase complications, such as hematoma (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.48; 75 participants; two trials; P = 0.92; very low quality evidence), chronic wound pain (OR 2.20, 95% CI 0.36 to 13.34; 48 participants; one trial; P = 0.39; very low quality evidence) and abdominal wall hernia (OR 10.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 211.78; 48 participants; one trial; P = 0.12; very low quality evidence) compared with the TP approach in the patients for elective open AAA repair, but the confidence intervals (CIs) were wide. The RP approach reduced the blood loss (mean difference (MD) -504.87 mL, 95% CI -779.19 to -230.56; 129 participants; four trials; P = 0.003; very low quality evidence), ICU stay (MD -19.00 hours, 95% CI -31.41 to -6.59; 83 participants; two trials; P = 0.003; low quality evidence) and hospital stay (MD -3.14 days, 95% CI -4.82 to -1.45; 129 participants; four trials; P = 0.0003; low quality evidence). There were no differences between the RP approach and the TP approach regarding aortic cross-clamp time (MD 0.69 mins, 95% CI -7.23 to 8.60; 129 participants; four trials; P = 0.86; very low quality evidence) and operating time (MD -15.94 mins, 95% CI -34.76 to 2.88; 129 participants; four trials; P = 0.10; very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low quality evidence from four small RCTs indicates that the RP approach did not have advantages over the TP approach for elective open AAA repair in terms of mortality. Moreover, the RP approach may increase the risk of postoperative wound complications although the CIs were wide.Low quality evidence shows that the RP approach could reduce blood loss, hospital stay and ICU stay compared with the TP approach. Very low quality evidence shows no differences between the RP approach and TP approaches in aortic cross-clamp time and operating time.Further large-scale RCTs of the RP approach versus TP approach for elective open AAA repair are required.

Impact of hospital-acquired infection on long-term outcomes after endovascular and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

We hypothesized that infectious complications after open surgery (OPEN) and endovascular repair (EVAR) of nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) negatively affected long-term outcomes.

METHODS

Elective OPEN and EVAR cases were selected from 2005-2007 Medicare databases, and rates of postoperative infection, readmission, and longitudinal mortality were compared.

RESULTS

Forty thousand eight hundred ninety-two EVARs and 16,669 OPEN AAA repairs were evaluated. Patients with OPEN developed infection during and after the index hospitalization (12.8% and 4.9%, respectively) more often than those who had undergone EVAR (3.2% and 3.9%, respectively; P < 0.0001 for both). Patients with hospital-acquired infection compared to noninfectious ones were more likely to die during the index hospitalization (odds ratio [OR]: 3.7 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 3.22-4.30]) and within 30 days after discharge (OR: 3.6 [95% CI: 2.83-4.45]). They also were more likely to be readmitted to the hospital during 30 days after index discharge (OR: 1.8 [95% CI: 1.63-1.94]). Index infections associated with the greatest readmission were urinary tract infection after OPEN and sepsis after EVAR. Hospital-acquired infection significantly increased the duration of hospital stay (14.2 ± 13.2 vs 4.0 ± 4.4 days; P < 0.0001) and total hospital charges ($133,070 ± $136,100 vs $66,359 ± $45,186; P < 0.0001). The most common infections to develop 30 days after initial discharge were surgical site infection after EVAR (1.27%) and urinary tract infection after OPEN (1.38%).

CONCLUSION

Hospital-acquired infections had a dramatic effect by increasing hospital and 30-day mortality, readmission rates, and hospital resource use after AAA repair. Programs minimizing infectious complications may decrease future readmissions and mortality after AAA repair.

Causes and implications of readmission after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency, causes, predictors, and consequences of 30-day readmission after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair.

BACKGROUND DATA

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will soon reduce total Medicare reimbursements for hospitals with higher-than-predicted 30-day readmission rates after vascular surgical procedures, including AAA repair. However, causes and factors leading to readmission in this population have never before been systematically analyzed.

METHODS

We analyzed elective AAA repairs over a 2-year period from the CMS Chronic Conditions Warehouse, a 5% national sample of Medicare beneficiaries.

RESULTS

A total of 2481 patients underwent AAA repair--1502 endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and 979 open aneurysm repair. Thirty-day readmission rates were equivalent for EVAR (13.3%) and open repair (12.8%). Although wound complication was the most common reason for readmission after both procedures, the relative frequency of other causes differed-eg, bowel obstruction was common after open repair, and graft complication after EVAR. In multivariate analyses, preoperative comorbidities had a modest effect on readmission; however, postoperative factors, including serious complications leading to prolonged length of stay and discharge destination other than home, had a profound influence on the probability of readmission. The 1-year mortality in readmitted patients was 23.4% versus 4.5% in those not readmitted (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Early readmission is common after AAA repair. Adjusting for comorbidities, postoperative events predict readmission, suggesting that proactively preventing, detecting, and managing postoperative complications may provide an approach to decreasing readmissions, with the potential to reduce cost and possibly enhance long-term survival.

Trends in the utilization of endovascular therapy for elective and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm procedures in Canada

OBJECTIVE

While randomized trials have shown improved operative mortality with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) but similar long-term mortality rates, enthusiasm for EVAR persists, and rates of EVAR use continue to increase. Currently, knowledge of utilization rates of EVAR in Canada is limited.

METHODS

Patients who underwent nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and ruptured AAA (RAAA) repair, by either open surgical repair (OSR) or EVAR, in Canada were identified from hospital discharge abstract data. Trends in rates for OSR and EVAR were calculated by province and by year, and standardized per 100,000 persons over 65 years of age (per capita).

RESULTS

Between April 2004 and March 2009, 15,960 AAA procedures were performed in Canada, either by OSR (n=12,204) or EVAR (n=3756). The proportion of all elective AAA procedures by EVAR increased from 11.5% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2009, the highest current proportion of EVAR utilization in British Columbia (45.0%) and the lowest in Manitoba (15.8%). After standardization, the national rate of total procedures was steady, but the rate of RAAAs declined over the entire study period. Alberta consistently had the highest per capita rates of EVAR use (38.9), whereas Prince Edward Island had the lowest (8.4). Provincial variations in EVAR use did not correlate with differences in comorbidities. Compared with Canadian averages, Atlantic Provinces performed the most AAA procedures per capita (137.5 vs 93.4), had the highest rate of RAAAs per capita (29.7 vs 22.2), and had the lowest proportional rates of EVAR use.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of EVAR in Canada for AAAs has increased in the past 5 years, without affecting overall AAA procedure volumes. Large discrepancies in EVAR use exist across Canada. The Atlantic Provinces had the highest rates of RAAAs despite having the highest rates for total AAA procedures, suggesting a population with higher susceptibility for AAAs. This region may also have the largest potential for future increased use of EVAR.

A one-stage operation for abdominal aortic aneurysm and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: report of a case

Pancreatic surgery concomitant with abdominal aortic repair is rarely chosen due to concerns about prosthetic infection following pancreatic leakage and the poor prognosis of pancreatic neoplasms. We herein report a successfully treated case of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas treated by a one-stage operation. A 75-year-old male with a history of cerebral infarction and chronic subdural hematoma was referred to our department with a pulsatile abdominal mass. A 70-mm infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm with severe proximal neck angulation and a 28-mm multilocular cystic tumor with mural nodules in the pancreas body were detected. Abdominal aortic repair with a prosthetic graft and distal pancreatectomy were performed simultaneously. The postoperative course was mostly uneventful, and he was discharged to a rehabilitation facility.

Clinical practice change requires more than comparative effectiveness evidence: abdominal aortic aneurysm management in the USA

Adoption of healthcare innovations frequently outpaces the evidence of effectiveness. Endovascular repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms in the USA demonstrates how comparative effectiveness research without evidence-based reimbursement changes may fail to influence clinical practice. Randomized controlled trials for small abdominal aortic aneurysms demonstrate no lasting benefits of EVAR or open surgical repair (OSR) compared with surveillance, and for large abdominal aortic aneurysms demonstrate no lasting survival benefit of EVAR over OSR, and do show poorer durability and higher costs for EVAR. Nonetheless, >50% of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs in the USA use EVAR. Factors that may be driving the high use of EVAR include patient preference, surgeons’ desire to appear ‘up-to-date’ in the procedures they offer, higher hourly surgeon reimbursement for EVAR than OSR, and the expansion of physician specialties able to perform abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from only vascular surgeons with OSR, to vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists/cardiologists with EVAR. By comparison, in Canada, where government health insurance restricts EVAR coverage to high surgical risk patients, only approximately 25% of abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs are performed using EVAR. Country-specific cost studies and a prospective population-based study collecting detailed clinical data to identify patient subgroups that truly benefit from a particular management strategy are needed to inform policy regarding EVAR availability and reimbursement.