Comparable perioperative mortality outcomes in younger patients undergoing elective open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

The association between frailty and outcomes following ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is a less invasive method than the more physiologically stressful open surgical repair (OSR) for patients with anatomically appropriate abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Early postoperative outcomes are associated with both patients; physiologic reserve and the physiologic stresses of the surgical intervention. Among frail patients with reduced physiologic reserve, the stress of an aortic rupture in combination with the stress of an operative repair are less well tolerated, raising the risk of complications and mortality. This study aims to evaluate the difference in association between frailty and outcomes among patients undergoing minimally invasive EVAR and the physiologically more stressful OSR for ruptured AAAs (rAAAs).

METHODS

Our retrospective cohort study included adults undergoing rAAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2010 to 2022. The validated Risk Analysis Index (RAI) (robust, ≤20; normal, 21-29; frail, 30-39; very frail, ≥40) quantified frailty. The association between the primary outcome of 1-year mortality and frailty status as well as repair type were compared using multivariable Cox models generating adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Interaction terms evaluated the association's moderation.

RESULTS

We identified 5806 patients (age, 72 ± 9 years; 77% male; EVAR, 65%; robust, 6%; normal, 48%; frail, 36%; very, frail 10%) with a 53% observed 1-year mortality rate following rAAA repair. OSR (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.19-1.73) was associated with increased 1-year mortality when compared with EVAR. Increasing frailty status (frail aHR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.00-1.59; very frail aHR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.26-2.13) was associated with increased 1-year mortality, which was moderated by repair type (P-interaction < .05). OSR was associated with increased 1-year mortality in normal (aHR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.20-1.87) and frail (aHR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.20-1.89), but not among robust (aHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.59-1.32) and very frail (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.97-1.72) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Frailty and OSR were associated with increased adjusted risk of 1-year mortality following rAAA repair. Among normal and frail patients, OSR was associated with an increased adjusted risk of 1-year mortality when compared with EVAR. However, there was no difference between OSR and EVAR among robust patients who can well tolerate the stress of OSR and among very frail patients who are unable to withstand the surgical stress from rAAA regardless of repair type.

Editor's Choice -- Age Stratified Midterm Survival Following Endovascular Versus Open Repair of Juxtarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

Age stratified mortality was examined following fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (F-EVAR) vs. open repair of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) METHODS: All patients undergoing first time elective F-EVAR and complex open aneurysm repair (c-OAR) for juxtarenal AAA in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2014 and 2021 were identified. Open repairs were compared with commercially available fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair and physician modified endografts (PMEGs). Patients were stratified into three age groups (< 65, 65 - 75, > 75 years). Primary outcomes were peri-operative and five year mortality, and inverse probability weighted risk adjustment was performed to account for baseline differences.

RESULTS

Overall, 1 961 patients underwent F-EVAR (82% commercial F-EVAR, 18% PMEG) and 3 385 patients underwent c-OAR. Across age groups, the distribution of F-EVAR (vs. c-OAR) was: < 65 years: 23%, 65 - 75 years: 33%, > 75 years: 52%. After adjustment, among patients < 65 years, compared with c-OAR, F-EVAR was associated with similar peri-operative mortality (0.9% vs. 2.1%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07 - 1.44], p = .22), and five year mortality (13% vs. 9.5%; HR 1.44, 95% CI 0.71 - 2.90, p = .31). Among patients aged 65 - 75 years, between juxtarenal AAA repair modalities, compared with c-OAR, F-EVAR was associated with a significantly lower risk of peri-operative mortality (2.2% vs. 5.0%; HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 - 0.79, p = .004), and five year mortality (13% vs. 13%; HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 - 1.36, p = .74). Similarly, among patients > 75 years, compared with c-OAR, F-EVAR was associated with lower peri-operative mortality (2.2% vs. 6.5%; HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 - 0.47, p < .001), but with similar five year mortality (18% vs. 21%; HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.57 - 1.20, p = .31).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with a juxtarenal AAA, F-EVAR was associated with a lower peri-operative mortality compared with c-OAR in patients ≥ 65 years, but was similar in those < 65 years. At five years, F-EVAR was associated with similar mortality in all age groups, though there was a non-significant trend for a higher mortality rate in younger patients.

Long-term Outcomes Associated With Open vs Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in a Medicare-Matched Database

IMPORTANCE

Endovascular aneurysm repair is associated with a significant reduction in perioperative mortality and morbidity compared with open aneurysm repair in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm. However, this benefit decreases over time owing to increased reinterventions and late aneurysm rupture after endovascular repair.

OBJECTIVE

To compare long-term outcomes of endovascular vs open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter retrospective cohort study used deidentified data with 6-year follow-up from the Medicare-matched Vascular Quality Initiative Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network database. Patients undergoing first-time elective endovascular or open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from 2003 to 2018 were propensity score matched. Patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, concomitant procedures, or prior history of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, were excluded. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2018.

EXPOSURES

First-time elective endovascular or open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary long-term outcome of interest was 6-year all-cause mortality, rupture, and reintervention. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and perioperative complications.

RESULTS

Among a total of 32 760 patients (median [IQR] age, 75 [70-80] years; 25 706 [78.5%] men) who underwent surgical abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, 28 281 patients underwent endovascular repair and 4479 patients underwent open repair. After propensity score matching, there were 2852 patients in each group. Open repair was associated with significantly lower 6-year mortality compared with endovascular repair (548 deaths [35.6%] vs 608 deaths [41.2%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.94; P = .002), with increases in mortality starting from 1 to 2 years (84 deaths [4.3%] vs 126 deaths [6.7%]; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83; P = .001) and 2 to 6 years (211 deaths [25.8%] vs 241 deaths [30.6%]; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.88; P = .001). Open repair, compared with endovascular repair, also was associated with significantly lower rates of 6-year rupture (117 participants [5.8%] vs 149 participants [8.3%]; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.97; P < .001) and reintervention (190 participants [11.6%] vs 267 participants [16.0%]; HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80; P < .001). Open repair was associated with significantly higher odds of 30-day mortality (OR, 3.56; 95% CI, 2.41-5.26; P < .001) and complications.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that overall mortality after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair was higher with endovascular repair than open repair despite reduced 30-day mortality and perioperative morbidity after endovascular repair. Endovascular repair additionally was associated with significantly higher rates of long-term rupture and reintervention. These findings emphasize the importance of careful patient selection and long-term follow-up surveillance for patients who undergo endovascular repair.

Long-term age-stratified survival following endovascular and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

The long-term survival differences between endovascular and open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms and specifically the impact of age on these differences remain a topic of debate. Therefore, we compared the long-term mortality between endovascular and open abdominal aneurysm repair for patients of different ages.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data from patients undergoing elective endovascular or open repair for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms within the Vascular Quality Initiative multi-national clinical registry (2003-2021). The primary outcome was long-term all-cause mortality comparing endovascular and open repair for patients aged <65 years, between 65-79 years, and those aged ≥80. In addition, we investigated the interaction between repair modality and ten-year hazard of mortality for sex, aneurysm diameter, and several pre-operative comorbid conditions within each age category. To account for non-random assignment of treatment, we used propensity scores and inverse probability weighted Cox proportional hazard analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 48,074 patients undergoing elective infrarenal abdominal aneurysm repair (89% endovascular) within the study period, including 7,940 patients aged <65, 29,555 aged between 65-79, and 10,579 aged ≥80 years. EVAR was associated with a higher propensity score-adjusted long-term hazard of mortality compared to open repair in the cohort aged <65 years (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-1.86; P=.026). The mortality was similar in the age cohort between 65-79 (HR: 0.94; 95%CI: 0.79-1.10; P=.43), while EVAR was associated with a lower hazard of mortality in the cohort aged ≥80 years (HR: 0.63; 95%CI: 0.46-0.86; P=.004). In patients aged <65, the hazard of mortality was higher with endovascular compared with open repair in those with female sex (HR: 4.40; 95%CI: 1.75-11.0), an aneurysm diameter >65mm (HR: 2.19; 95%CI: 1.11-4.34), and absence of coronary artery disease (HR: 1.26; 95%CI: 0.83-1.91), congestive heart failure (HR: 1.41; 95%CI: 1.03-1.92), and renal dysfunction (HR: 1.46; 95%CI: 1.04-2.05). In the patient cohort aged ≥80, a lower hazard of mortality for endovascular vs. open repair was observed for male patients, or those with small aneurysms or certain comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

In a selected group of young patients with a substantial life expectancy, the long-term mortality is higher with endovascular compared to open repair for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. Long-term mortality with endovascular repair is similar in the middle cohort and lower in the elderly cohort compared to open repair.

Contemporary Indications for Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in the Endovascular Era

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Despite the emergence of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) as the most common approach to abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, open aneurysm repair (OAR) remains an important option. This study seeks to define the indications for OAR in the EVAR era and how these indications effect outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed of all OAR at a single institution from 2004 to 2019. Pre-operative computed tomography scans and operative records were assessed to determine the indication for OAR. These reasons were categorized into anatomical contraindications; systemic factors (connective tissue disorders, contraindication to contrast dye); and patient/surgeon preference (patients who were candidates for both EVAR and OAR). Perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

370 patients were included in the analysis; 71.6% (265/370) had at least one anatomic contraindication to EVAR; 36% had two or more contraindications. The most common anatomic contraindications were short aortic neck length (51.6%), inadequate distal seal zone (19.2%), and inadequate access vessels (15.7%). The major perioperative complication rate was 18.1% and the 30-day mortality was 3.0%. No single anatomic factor was identified as a predictor of perioperative complications. Sixty-one patients (16.5%) had OAR based on patient/surgeon preference; these patients were younger; had lower incidences of coronary artery disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and they were less likely to require suprarenal cross clamping compared with patients who had anatomic and/or systemic contraindications to EVAR. The patient/surgeon preference group had a lower incidence of perioperative major complications (8.2% versus 20.1%, p=0.034), shorter length of stay (6 versus 8 days, p<0.001) and zero 30-day mortalities. The multivariable adjusted risk for 15-year mortality was lower for patient/surgeon preference patients (adjusted hazard ratio 0.44 [95% confidence interval 0.24-0.80], p=0.007) compared to those anatomic/systemic contraindications.

CONCLUSIONS

Within a population of patients who did not meet instruction for use (IFU) criteria for EVAR, no single anatomic contraindication was a marker for worse outcomes with OAR. Patients who were candidates for both aortic repair approaches but elected to have open surgical repair due to patient/surgeon preference have very low 30-day mortality and morbidity, and superior long-term survival rates compared with those patients who had OAR due to anatomic and/or systemic contraindications to EVAR.

Long-term outcomes of open and endovascular abdominal aortic repair in younger patients

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate long-term results in abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery by either open (OAR) or endovascular (EVAR) repair in patients under 70 years of age.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients with age under 70 years old undergoing elective infrarenal AAA surgery between 2010 and 2018 was performed. The study population was divided into two groups: OAR and EVAR. The primary end-points were overall survival and aneurysm-related death, while secondary outcomes were need for reintervention and development of minor and major complications.

RESULTS

191 patients younger than 70 years old treated for elective AAA surgery were enrolled: 157 OAR (98% males, mean age 65 ± 4 years) and 34 EVAR (94% males, mean age 66 ± 4 years). Hospital stay, 30-day mortality and need for reintervention were similar; OAR population presented higher incidence of postoperative major complications (18% vs 2.9%; p .01) while minor complications were 32% in OAR vs 21% in EVAR group (p .08). Median follow-up was 69 months for OAR (IQR 53 months) vs. 79 months (IQR 51 months) for EVAR (p .9): long-term AAA-related reinterventions were more frequent after EVAR (1.9% OAR vs. 17% EVAR; p .01) while AAA-related long-term mortality was similar in both sugroups (1.3% OAR and 3% EVAR; p .8). At univariate analysis a higher risk of reintervention was reported for conical necks in EVAR group (p .03) and for the concomitant presence of iliac aneurysms in both groups (p .01).

CONCLUSIONS

In our population, the presence of a conical neck is an independent predictor of EVAR failure and late reintervention, while it does not play a significant role in OAR group. For this reason, in such cases, open surgery must be considered as the first option in younger patients with a long-life expectancy.

Overview of screening eligibility in patients undergoing ruptured AAA repair from 2003 to 2019 in the Vascular Quality Initiative

OBJECTIVE

Although efforts such as the Screening Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Very Efficiently (SAAAVE) Act have improved access to abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening, certain high-risk populations are currently excluded from the guidelines yet may benefit from screening. We therefore examined all patients who underwent repair of ruptured AAA (rAAA) to characterize those who are ineligible for screening under current guidelines and evaluate the potential impact of these restrictions on their disease.

METHODS

We identified patients undergoing rAAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database between 2003 and 2019. These patients were stratified by AAA screening eligibility according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement guidelines. We then described baseline characteristics to identify high-risk features of these cohorts. Groups with disproportionate representation in the screening-ineligible cohort were identified as potential targets of screening expansion. Trends over time in screening eligibility and the proportion of AAA repairs performed for rAAA were also analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 5340 patients underwent rAAA repair. The majority (66%) were screening-ineligible. When characterizing the screening-ineligible group by sex and risk factors (smoking history or family history of AAA), the largest contributors to screening ineligibility were males less than 65 years of age with a smoking history or family history of AAA (25%), males greater than 75 years of age with a smoking history (25%), and females older than 65 years of age with a smoking history (19%). In comparison with rAAAs prior to implementation of the SAAAVE act, the proportion of AAA repair performed for rupture among males undergoing AAA repair in the VQI decreased from 12% to 8% (P < .001), whereas in females, there was no change (P = .990). There was no statically significant difference in screening eligibility for either males (P = .762) or females (P = .335).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients who underwent rAAA repair were ineligible for initial AAA screening or aged out of the screening window. Furthermore, rAAA rates and screening ineligibility have not improved as much as expected since the passage of the SAAAVE Act. Our data suggest that three high-risk populations may benefit from expansion of AAA screening guidelines: males with a smoking history or family history of AAA between ages 55 and 64 years, female smokers older than 65 years, and male smokers older than 75 years who are otherwise in good health. Increased efforts to screen these high-risk populations may increase elective AAA repair and minimize the morbidity and mortality associated with rAAAs.

MIDTERM RESULTS OF ENDOVASCULAR VERSUS OPEN SURGICAL REPAIR FOR INFRARENAL ABDOMINAL AORTIC ANEURYSMS IN LOW SURGICAL RISK PATIENTS

OBJECTIVE

To analyse midterm outcomes of endovascular repair (EVAR) versus open surgery (OR) for treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) in low surgical-risk patients.

METHODS

Elective AAA patients undergoing treatment from 2003 to 2017 in a single, tertiary-care institution were evaluated. All patients with a low preoperative risk of complications and perioperative mortality (Medicare Aneurysm Scoring System <3) were included, and rates of perioperative and long-term mortality, adverse events and reintervention were evaluated for EVAR and OR. A propensity score matched cohort (PMC), levelling age, risk factors, and comorbidities was additionally performed.

RESULTS

A total of 227 patients were included (59.9% EVAR and 40.1% OR), and followed for a mean of 80 ± 48 months. Patients undergoing EVAR were older (66.6 ± 5 vs. 64.1 ± 6 years; p <.001, had a higher body mass index (29.6 ± 4 vs 28.1 ± 3; p = .005), a higher prevalence of COPD (27.3% vs 9.9%; p = .001) and lower prevalence of dyslipidaemia (46.3% vs 65.9%; p= .004). Patients undergoing OR had a higher rate of major adverse events (19.7% vs 2.6%, p = .001) and 30-day reinterventions (8.8% vs. 1.5%, p=.016), with 30-day mortality being 0% in both groups. The propensity-score matched cohort included 76 matched pairs (1:1), with differences in hospital-stay and major complications kept significant, without affecting mortality. At 5-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in the reintervention rate (18.5% EVAR vs 17.6% OAR; p = .67) or survival (85% EVAR vs 91% OR; p = .195).

CONCLUSION

In low surgical risk patients suffering from AAA, EVAR may offer comparable midterm results to open repair, with a lower rate of major adverse events and a shorter in-hospital stay. With the current OR-first paradigm in low-risk patients, several factors should be taken into account for decision making (anatomic suitability, risk of sexual dysfunction, risk of type 2 endoleaks and need of follow-up).

[Pro Endo: No Need for Open Any More... Surveillance is All Important]

Since its first report in 1991, endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become an established and preferred treatment modality for many patients. Several randomised controlled trials comparing EVAR and open repair have shown an early survival benefit, lower perioperative morbidity and shorter hospital stay with EVAR. As a result, EVAR has become the most common method of elective repair of BAAs in most vascular centres. Despite its widespread use, there are still subgroups of the patient population for whom the benefit of EVAR has not been clearly demonstrated. The most frequently discussed subgroup in this context is the patient with few risk factors - due to concerns about the durability and need of reinterventions. EVAR can provide durability and long-term survival similar to open repair in these younger patients, as long as the aneurysm anatomy and instructions for use are followed. The evidence on the effects of follow-up on patient survival is currently controversial. With increasing knowledge about the behavior of endoprostheses and factors that influence the complications of the endograft, changes in follow-up protocols have been made. A more patient-specific follow-up strategy and less compliance with a rigorous follow up scheme are required.

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

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

Analysis of prognostic factors for postoperative complications and reinterventions after open surgical repair and endovascular aneurysm repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

A definitive treatment for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm considering age and comorbidities has not been identified. In the present study, we retrospectively validated treatment outcomes in Japanese patients and proposed the treatment strategy of open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data for patients undergoing EVAR or OSR between 2006 and 2017. Patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm were excluded. We examined post-operative complications, operative mortality, re-intervention and prognosis.

RESULTS

Throughout the study period, 405 patients underwent EVAR and 176 patients underwent OSR. The percentage of patients with post-operative complications was 35.8% in the OSR group, compared with 13.1% in the EVAR group (P < 0.01). The operative mortality rate was 0.49% in the EVAR group and 0.57% in the OSR group (P = 1.00). With a multivariate analysis, age, hemodialysis, modified Frailty Index (mFI), and OSR were risk factors for post-operative complications. The 5-year re-intervention free survival rate was 63.0 % with hostile neck EVAR compared with 83.1 % with favorable neck EVAR and 86.1 % with OSR group (P < 0.01). With a multivariate analysis, hemodialysis, mFI, and hostile neck EVAR were risk factors for re-intervention. The 5-year overall survival rate was 51.9 % with hostile neck EVAR compared with 73.2 % with favorable neck EVAR and 79.0 % with OSR group (P < 0.01). With a multivariate analysis, age, mFI, and hostile neck EVAR were poor prognostic factors.

CONCLUSION

Age, mFI, hemodialysis and hostile neck anatomy are useful predictors of post-operative complications, re-intervention and overall survival, and could be useful for informing treatment selection between OSR and EVAR.

Characteristics and outcomes of small abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database

OBJECTIVE

The current guidelines recommend elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair at 5.5 cm for men and 5.0 cm for women. However, rupture can occur in patients with an aneurysm smaller than these size thresholds. In the present study, we investigated the proportion of AAAs that rupture at sizes less than elective operative thresholds and compared the outcomes of repair with those of aneurysms that had ruptured at a larger size. Our hypothesis was that the rupture of small AAAs carries mortality similar to that of rupture at larger sizes.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted vascular files for open AAA repair and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) were reviewed for all cases of ruptured AAAs (rAAAs) from 2011 to 2018. The patients were divided into two groups: those with small AAAs that had ruptured at a size less than the current size guidelines for elective repair and those with large AAAs that had ruptured at a size that had met the criteria for elective repair. Univariate analyses were conducted to compare the comorbidities and perioperative outcomes of infrarenal rAAA repair between the groups. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to examine the differences in mortality between small and large rAAAs after controlling for confounding variables.

RESULTS

Of the 1612 rAAA repairs, 167 (10.4%) were small rAAAs. The proportion of small rAAAs did not significantly change during the study period (P = .15). The large rAAA group was more likely to have juxtarenal or suprarenal aneurysms compared with the small rAAA group (27% vs 16%; P = .001). A comparison of infrarenal rAAAs only demonstrated that the mean small rAAA (n = 141) diameter was 4.1 cm in the women and 4.5 cm in the men compared with the large rAAAs (n = 1051), with a mean diameter of 7.1 cm in women and 8.3 cm in men (P < .01 for the women; P < .01 for the men). The patients in the small rAAA group had had a significantly lower body mass index but were more likely to be African American and to have hypertension. The small rAAA group was more likely to present without hypotension and to have undergone EVAR. The repair of small rAAAs was associated with lower bleeding and mortality and a shorter mean operative time but with more readmissions. Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated that size was not associated with outcome after adjusting for other variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Of all AAA repairs classified as treating rupture, 10% were for patients with small AAAs. Patients with small rAAA were less likely to present with hypotension and were more likely to have undergone EVAR. Further research into sac morphology and more sensitive imaging modalities might help identify small rAAAs at high risk of rupture that would benefit from elective repair.

Epidemiology of endovascular and open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms in the United States from 2004 to 2015 and implications for screening

BACKGROUND

Contemporary national trends in the repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) and intact AAAs are relatively unknown. Furthermore, screening is only covered by insurance for patients aged 65 to 75 years with a family history of AAAs and for men with a positive smoking history. It is unclear what proportion of patients who present with a ruptured AAA would have been candidates for screening.

METHODS

Using the National Inpatient Sample from 2004 to 2015, we identified ruptured and intact AAA admissions and repairs using the International Classification of Diseases codes. We generated the screening-eligible cohort using previously identified proportions of male smokers (87%) and all patients with a family history of AAAs (10%) and applied these proportions to patients aged 65 to 75 years. We accounted for those who could have had a previous AAA diagnosis (17%), either from screening or an incidental detection in patients aged >75 years who had presented with AAA rupture. The primary outcomes were treatment and in-hospital mortality between patients meeting the criteria for screening vs those who did not.

RESULTS

We evaluated 65,125 admissions for ruptured AAAs and 461,191 repairs for intact AAAs. Overall, an estimated 45,037 admitted patients (68%) and 25,777 patients who had undergone repair for ruptured AAAs (59%) did not meet the criteria for screening. Of the patients who did not qualify, 27,653 (63%) were aged >75 years, 10,603 (24%) were aged <65 years, and 16,103 (36%) were women. Endovascular AAA repair (EVAR) increased for ruptured AAAs from 10% in 2004 to 55% in 2015 (P < .001), with operative mortality of 35%. EVAR increased for intact AAAs from 45% in 2004 to 83% in 2015 (P < .001), with operative mortality of 2.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients who had undergone repair for ruptured AAAs did not qualify for screening. EVAR was the primary treatment of both ruptured and intact AAAs with relatively low in-hospital mortality. Therefore, expansion of the screening criteria to include selected women and a wider age range should be considered.

Staged in situ aorto-iliac hybrid technique: an original technique to treat complex juxtarenal and iliac aneurysms

BACKGROUND

To report a novel staged hybrid technique to treat complex juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (JAAA) associated with at least one iliac artery aneurysm (IA) with no adequate distal fixation zone.

METHODS

The novel technique herein described has two main "staged" steps. The first step consists in creating an adequate distal fixation zone by endovascular means; after hypogastric embolization an iliac stent-graft has placed from 5 mm above the aortic bifurcation to the external iliac artery. The second step is the surgical resection of the JAAA and graft placement sutured distally to the stent-graft which was always performed the day after.

RESULTS

The five cases included (mean age 74 years), were rejected for fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair or iliac branch devices. Four tube grafts and one aorto-bi-iliac graft were sutured to one stent-graft (N.=3), two stent-grafts in iliac kissing configuration (N.=1) and to a main body of a bifurcated stent-graft (N.=1). Mean follow-up duration was 14 (4-27) months with no mortality. Technical success was obtained in all cases (2 suprarenal clamping). Postoperative complications included two pleural effusions, two transient gluteal intermittent claudications, and one renal failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The technique herein described seems to be a feasible and cost-effective alternative treatment for selected concomitant complex JAAAs and IAs unsuitable for totally endovascular treatment.

Increasing disparity between Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and real-world practice

OBJECTIVE

The current Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) guidelines, based on randomized controlled trials published more than a decade ago, recommend a minimum threshold diameter of 5.5 cm for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (iAAA) repair. It is unknown whether practice patterns with respect to size of repair have changed since the publication of these guidelines. We aimed to evaluate the real-world practice of vascular surgeons in our region with respect to iAAA size at the time of repair, whether this has changed over the past 12 years and if any changes were associated with the repair type, open vs endovascular.

METHODS

The Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) database was used to identify all patients who received iAAA repair between 2003 and 2015. The primary end point was to quantify the annual percentage of iAAAs repaired in different size categories (≥5.5 cm; <5.5 cm but ≥5.0 cm; <5.0 cm) over the study time period and by type of repair. The secondary end points were morbidity and mortality in these groups. We excluded nonelective cases (ruptured or symptomatic), patients with coexisting iliac artery aneurysms, and those missing critical data.

RESULTS

A total of 5314 patients with iAAA repairs (1538 open, 3776 endovascular) were identified in the VSGNE database during the study period. In 40% (2110 of 5314) of patients, repair was performed for aneurysms <5.5 cm, with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) comprising 75% (1581 of 2110) and open 25% (529 of 2110). More EVARs were performed for <5.5 cm in 2015 (46%) compared with 2003 (33%) (P < .05, n - 1 χ²) with an average increase of 1.1%/y. There was also a non-statistically significant increase in open repair of small aneurysms (0.7%/y; P = .759). Overall, 30-day mortality was 1.11% in the EVAR group (0.54% in <5.0 cm, 0.91% in ≥5.0 but <5.5 cm, and 1.55% in ≥5.5 cm), compared with 3% in the open group (2.88%, 1.79%, and 3.77%, respectively) with no significant change in mortality in either group over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the SVS guidelines suggesting surveillance rather than repair of iAAA <5.5 cm, an increasing proportion of repairs in the VSGNE database were performed below that threshold. The reasons for this are likely multifactorial and might include a lesser complexity and lower operative mortality for smaller aneurysms and markedly improved third- and fourth-generation stent graft technology with possibly better long-term survival. As such, it may be time to re-examine the current guidelines for iAAA repair.

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.

Meta-analysis of phase-specific survival after elective endovascular versus surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm from randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies

OBJECTIVE

Although endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) significantly decreases perioperative mortality compared with open surgical repair (OSR), we have not concluded superiority between EVAR and OSR beyond the perioperative period. The aim of this study was to compare phase-specific survival after EVAR vs OSR.

METHODS

The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Embase and MEDLINE were searched up to November 2019 to identify randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies that investigated ≥2-year all-cause mortality (primary outcome) after EVAR vs OSR for intact infrarenal AAA. For each study, the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) of mortality for EVAR vs OSR was calculated using survival curves for the following specific phases: early term (0-2 years after repair), midterm (2-6 years after repair), long term (6-10 years after repair), and very long term (≥10 years after repair). The risk ratio (RR) in the perioperative (in-hospital or 30-day) period was also extracted. Phase-specific HRs or RRs were separately pooled using the random effects model. Sensitivity analyses were performed by removing one study at a time to confirm that our findings were not derived from any single study. Funnel plot asymmetry was also examined using the linear regression test.

RESULTS

Our search identified four randomized controlled trials and seven propensity score-matched studies enrolling a total of 106,243 AAA patients assigned to EVAR (n = 53,123) or OSR (n = 53,120). The mortality after EVAR compared with OSR was significantly lower in the perioperative period (RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.29-0.51; P < .00001) and similar in the early-term period (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.84-1.03; P = .16). Notably, significantly higher mortality was observed in the EVAR group compared with the OSR group in the midterm period (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.29; P = .01). However, similar mortality was observed between the EVAR group and the OSR group in the long-term (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.96-1.17; P = .27) and very-long-term (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.93-1.47; P = .19) periods. In sensitivity analyses, the significant benefit of EVAR in the perioperative period and that of OSR in the midterm period were not changed. No funnel plot asymmetry was identified in all analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with OSR, EVAR was associated with lower perioperative mortality and higher mortality in the midterm period for intact infrarenal AAA. The superiority of EVAR was absent in the early-term period, and the inferiority of EVAR in the midterm period disappeared in the long-term and very-long-term periods.

Long-term Efficacy of EVAR in Patients Aged Less Than 65 Years with an Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm and Favorable Anatomy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare early and long-term outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) in patients aged ≤ 65 years.

METHODS

Data of patients aged ≤65 years undergoing infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, between 2005 and 2013, were retrospectively reviewed. All EVAR procedures were performed according to the instruction for use, and only OSR procedures with an infrarenal aortic cross-clamping were included in the study.

RESULTS

In this group of 115 patients (EVAR: 58 patients, 51% and OSR: 57 patients, 49%), EVAR and OSR patients had similar comorbidities, except for obesity (EVAR: 38% vs. OSR: 19%; P = 0.03). A stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) was necessary in 19% of patients with EVAR versus 79% with OSR (P = 0.001), and the amount of blood transfusion was 236 ± 31 mL for EVAR versus 744 ± 98 mL for OSR (P = 0.001). The hospital stay was 4 ± 2 days for EVAR versus 9 ± 6 days for OSR (P = 0.03). The overall 30-day mortality was 1% (EVAR: 0% vs. OSR: 2%; P = 0.30). Five patients (4%) required reinterventions within 30 days (EVAR: 0% vs. OSR: 8%, P = 0.001). The mean follow-up was 86 ± 38 months. Freedom from reintervention at 10 years after EVAR was 81% versus OSR 74%; (P = 0.77). Late reinterventions were reported in 13 patients (23%) with OSR and in 10 patients (17%) with EVAR. Postoperative retrograde ejaculation occurred more often in patients with OSR (31%) versus EVAR (2%) (P = 0.001). During the follow-up, cancer was found in 19 (17%) patients with no difference between EVAR and OSR (P = 0.83). The global survival at 10 years was 72% (EVAR: 79% vs. OSR: 70%; P = 0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, EVAR was associated with a shorter hospital stay, less need for the ICU, and less early reinterventions than OSR. Survival and reinterventions during the follow-up were not significantly different between EVAR and OSR. According to these results, EVAR may be considered for patients aged ≤65 years with a favorable anatomy.

Long-Term Outcomes of Endovascular vs Open Surgical Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate whether Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is inferior to open surgical repair in terms of adverse events during late follow up, defined as >8 years after the procedure.

BACKGROUND

EVAR is associated with reduced morbidity and mortality compared to open surgery in the early perioperative period. However, it is unknown whether this pattern remains during long-term follow up >8 years.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was conducted with the use of random effects modeling. Hazard ratios were calculated for mortality at different time intervals, and risk ratios were calculated in cases where the total number of events was available.

RESULTS

There was no difference in all-cause mortality during follow up of each study (HR: 1.04; 95%CI: 0.93-1.17; I² = 16.0%). Subgroup analyses for all-cause mortality at 4 to 8 years of follow up (HR: 1.13; 95%CI: 0.94-1.35; I² = 0.0%) and all-cause mortality at follow up >8 years (HR: 1.07; 95%CI: 0.89-0.28; I² = 36.6%) also did not show any significant difference between the two approaches. The risks of aneurysm-related mortality and aneurysm rupture were similar during follow-up. However, the cumulative risk for reintervention during follow up was greater in the EVAR group (RR: 2.18; 95%CI: 1.50-3.17; I² = 76.1%) and occurred in 29% vs 15% of patients in the EVAR vs surgery groups respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR and open surgical repair of AAA are equally safe and have no difference in all-cause mortality. However, endovascular repair is associated with an increased need for re-intervention. Emerging technology in endovascular devices will likely further improve the outcomes of EVAR. Subject codes: Meta-analysis; aneurysm; atherosclerosis; complications.

Inferior Mid-term Durability with Comparable Survival for Younger Patients Undergoing Elective Endovascular Infrarenal versus Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

The durability of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) when compared to open surgical repair (OSR) in younger patients for elective, infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) remains unclear due to limited follow-up.

METHODS

We identified all patients <70 years of age who underwent elective, de novo EVAR or OSR for infrarenal AAA from 2003 to 2013 in a multihospital, single institution. Baseline patient clinical and aneurysmal characteristics were adjusted for using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and negative binomial regression.

RESULTS

We identified 253 patients: 204 underwent EVAR (80.6%) and 49 OSR (19.4%). Baseline demographics and comorbidities were similar across groups. There were no deaths in the immediate perioperative period. The rate of new arrhythmia (EVAR: 1.0%, OSR: 10.2%; P = 0.004), median hospital length of stay (EVAR: 1 day, OSR: 5 days; P < 0.001), and discharge to a facility (EVAR: 2.9%, OSR: 12.2%; P = 0.016) were significantly increased for OSR. In both groups, median follow-up time was 4.5 years, in which survival did not differ between groups. The hazard of composite of freedom from death and any reinterventions (hazard ratio [HR] 4.3, P = 0.009), freedom from any reintervention (relative risk [RR] 4.08, P = 0.030), and freedom from any endovascular reintervention (RR 4.83, P = 0.038) were each higher for OSR when compared to EVAR. EVAR of the standard instruction for use (IFU) for neck length was more likely to die or undergo a reintervention (HR 4.90, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our retrospective review of younger patients undergoing elective AAA repair demonstrated no significant differences in perioperative mortality or survival over time between EVAR and OSR. EVAR required more total reinterventions and endovascular reintervention when compared to OSR.

Does the choice of intraoperative fluid modify abdominal aneurysm repair outcomes?: A cohort analysis

Intraoperatively administered hydroxyethyl starch could be a risk indicator for postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in vascular surgical patients.In a single-center retrospective cohort analysis, we assessed the impact of hydroxyethyl starch and other risk indicators on AKI and mortality in 1095 patients undergoing elective open abdominal aneurysm repair (AAA-OR) or endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). We established logistic regression models to determine the effect of various risk indicators, including hydroxyethyl starch, on AKI, as well as Cox proportional hazard models to assess the effect on mortality.The use of intravenous hydroxyethyl starch was not associated with an increased risk of AKI or mortality. Patients undergoing EVAR were less likely to develop AKI (4% vs 18%). Multivariate risk indicators associated for AKI included suprarenal or pararenal aortic cross-clamp [odds ratio (OR), 4.44; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 2.538-7.784; P < .001] and procedure length (OR, 1.005; 95% CI, 1.003-1.007; P < .001), and favored EVAR (OR, 0.351; 95% CI, 0.118-0.654; P < .01). Main multivariate risk indicators associated with mortality included patients needing an urgent procedure [hazard ratio (HR), 2.294; 95% CI, 1.541-3.413; P < .001], those with suprarenal or pararenal aortic cross-clamp (HR, 1.756; 95% CI, 1.247-2.472; P < .01), and patients undergoing EVAR (HR, 1.654; 95% CI, 1.292-2.118; P < .001).We found neither a benefit nor a negative effect of hydroxyethyl starch on the risk of AKI or mortality. Instead, other variables and comorbidities were found to be relevant for the development of postoperative AKI and survival. Nevertheless, clinicians should be aware of the high risk of postoperative AKI, particularly among those undergoing AAA-OR procedures.

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.