The Zenith AAA endovascular graft for abdominal aortic aneurysms: clinical update

A Systematic Review of the Recruitment and Outcome Reporting by Sex and Race/Ethnicity in Stent Device Development Trials for Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Women and racial/ethnic minority groups have been shown to experience poor outcomes after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). One potential reason is the rare inclusion of these populations in initial phases of device development. The objective of this systematic review is to understand enrollment and outcome reporting by sex and race/ethnicity in industry-funded EVAR device development trials.

METHODS

MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase were searched from inception to January 2022 without language restrictions using the following terminology: "stent", "graft", "endograft", "device", and "abdominal aortic aneurysm" (AAA).

CLINICALTRIALS

gov was also searched from inception to January 2022 for "AAA." Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data. All phase I-III and postmarket evaluation trials that included patients ≥18 years of age, who underwent EVAR were assessed. Participation-to-prevalence ratios (PPRs) were calculated to estimate representation of participants by sex and race/ethnicity in trials compared with their share of disease burden.

RESULTS

Among the 4,780 retrieved articles, 55 industry-funded trials met inclusion criteria for this review. A total of 51 trials (93%) reported enrollment by sex/gender, and only 7 trials (13%) reported enrollment by race/ethnicity of the participants. A median of 19 (interquartile range [IQR]: 4.5, 51) women participants were recruited compared to 171 (IQR: 57, 311.5) men, and 17 (IQR: 7.5, 21.5) racial/minority patients were recruited compared to 241 (IQR: 123, 463.5) White participants. Women represent 16.6% of the disease population, and the median PPR is 0.62 (IQR: 0.42, 0.88), which has remained constant over time (Figure 1). None of the device trials reported outcomes based on sex/gender or race/ethnicity.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review highlights the disparities in recruitment and outcome reporting based on sex and race/ethnicity in EVAR device development trials. While most trials may be underpowered to study these differences, recent registry studies show differential outcomes based on sex and race/ethnicity of vascular patients. Therefore, it is imperative to include and report outcomes in these participants, starting from the initial device development phases to improve generalizability of device-use and understand sources of variation in device performance.

Endovascular treatment of peripheral vascular disease

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) affects about 27 million people in North America and Europe, accounting for up to 413,000 hospitalizations per year with 88,000 hospitalizations involving the lower extremities and 28,000 involving embolectomy or thrombectomy of lower limb arteries. Many patients are asymptomatic and, among symptomatic patients, atypical symptoms are more common than classic claudication. Peripheral arterial disease also correlates strongly with risk of major cardiovascular events, and patients with PAD have a high prevalence of coexistent coronary and cerebrovascular disease. Because the prevalence of PAD increases progressively with age, PAD is a growing clinical problem due to the increasingly aged population in the United States and other developed countries. Until recently, vascular surgical procedures were the only alternative to medical therapy in such patients. Today, endovascular practice, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with or without stenting, is used far more frequently for all types of lower extremity occlusive lesions, reflecting the continuing advances in imaging techniques, angioplasty equipment, and endovascular expertise. The role of endovascular intervention in the treatment of limb-threatening ischemia is also expanding, and its promise of limb salvage and symptom relief with reduced morbidity and mortality makes percutaneous transluminal angioplasty/stenting an attractive alternative to surgery and, as most endovascular interventions are performed on an outpatient basis, hospital costs are cut considerably. In this monograph we discuss current endovascular intervention for treatment of occlusive PAD, aneurysmal arterial disease, and venous occlusive disease.

Comparative analysis of renal function after treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms with a suprarenal fixation device as opposed to open surgery

We analyzed the repercussions on renal function between suprarenal endograft fixation and open surgery in the treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (IAAAs) and determined the influential factors. Between 1999 and 2005, 59 IAAAs were treated with elective OS and 56 with SEF. The serum creatinine (Cr) level and its clearance were determined before the procedure, in the intensive care unit (ICU), on discharge, and after 1, 6, 12, and 24 months. A deterioration in renal function was considered to be a >30% increase in Cr or a Cr >2 mg/dL. A univariate statistical analysis and a logistical regression analysis were carried out to determine the predictive factors for repercussions on renal function. There were no statistically significant differences in the rate of renal exacerbation between the groups either on discharge (p = 0.52) or after 1 month (p = 0.483), 6 months (p = 0.451), 12 months (p = 0.457), and 24 months (p = 0.682). The only significant difference was that detected in the ICU (p = 0.033). Diabetes mellitus, time spent in the ICU, postoperative intubation time, intraoperative transfusion, and transfusion in the ICU were factors that influenced the deterioration of renal function in the univariate analysis. The only significant factor in the multivariate analysis was the need for transfusion in the ICU. Exacerbation of renal function occurred in both groups independently of treatment type. In the immediate postoperative period, hemodynamic deterioration is more frequent in the open surgery group. Renal exacerbation tended to disappear in both groups during follow-up.

No Difference in Medium-Term Outcome Between Zenith and Talent Stent-Grafts in Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Background Many devices are available for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Our aim was to analyze morphological effects of the Zenith and Talent systems.

Methods Patients included underwent EVAR from June 1999 to June 2005 using a Zenith or Talent stent-graft, with computed tomography follow-up. Aortic dimensions over time and clinical outcome were analyzed.

Results Twenty-nine patients with Zenith stent-grafts and 33 with Talent devices were included. Mean preoperative age was similar (75.5 ± 6.0 years vs 74.2 ± 6.7 years; P = .29). Preoperative neck length was longer in the Zenith group (29.9 ± 15.2 mm vs 25.5 ± 10.8 mm; P = .10), and stent-graft oversizing was greater in the Talent patients (20.2% ± 7.9% vs 23.0% ± 11.3%). There was proximal aortic dilatation and aneurysm sac shrinkage in each group. Complication rates were comparable, with 83% of both groups free from 10-mm migration.

Conclusion Although device designs differ, there is no difference in clinical outcome between Zenith and Talent stent-grafts. Migration rates were not influenced by suprarenal fixation.

Review of Interventional Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Abdominal aortic aneurysm is associated with high mortality rate. For over 50 years, open surgical repair was the standard approach for large aneurysms. However, over the past decade, endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has emerged as a viable alternative. EVAR is associated with lower operative and short-term morbidity and mortality and similar long-term survival (up to 4 years) compared with surgical repair. Endoleak remains a significant limitation associated with aneurysm expansion and reintervention. With newer, more versatile endograft designs, improvements in durability, and better surveillance techniques, the utilization of EVAR is likely to continue to expand.

Effect of challenging neck anatomy on mid-term migration rates in AneuRx endografts

OBJECTIVE

To establish the effect of challenging neck anatomy on the mid- and long-term incidence of migration with the AneuRx bifurcated device in patients treated after Food and Drug Administration approval and to identify the predictive factors for device migration.

METHODS

Prospectively maintained databases at the University of North Carolina (UNC) and Washington University (WU) were used to identify 595 patients (UNC, n = 230; WU, n = 365) who underwent endovascular repair of an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm with the AneuRx bifurcated stent graft. Those patients with at least 30 months of follow-up were identified and underwent further assessment of migration (UNC, n = 25; WU, n = 59) by use of multiplanar reconstructed computed tomographic scans.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients with a mean follow-up time of 40.3 months (range, 30-55 months) were studied. Seventy percent of the patients (n = 59) met all inclusion criteria for neck anatomy (length, angle, diameter, and quality) as defined by the revised instructions for use guidelines and are referred to as those with favorable neck anatomy (FNA). The remaining 25 patients retrospectively fell outside of the revised instructions for use guidelines and are referred to as those with unfavorable neck anatomy (UFNA). Life-table analysis for FNA patients at 2 and 4 years revealed a migration rate of 0% and 6.1%, respectively. For UFNA patients, it was 24.0% and 42.1% at 2 and 4 years, respectively (P < .0001). The overall (FNA and UFNA) migration rate was 7.1% and 17.1% at 2 and 4 years, respectively. Overall, late graft-related complications occurred in 38% of patients (FNA, 27%; UFNA, 64%; P = .003; relative risk, 1.7). There was no incidence of late rupture or open conversion. The relative risk of migration for UFNA patients was 2.5 compared with FNA patients (P = .0003). A larger neck angle and a longer initial graft to renal artery distance were predictors of migration, whereas shorter neck length approached but did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who have unfavorable aneurysm neck anatomy experience significantly higher migration, device-related complication, and secondary intervention rates. However, there was no incidence of open conversion, rupture, or abdominal aortic aneurysm-related death, thereby supporting the AneuRx device as a feasible alternative to open repair even in patients with challenging neck characteristics. Enhanced surveillance should be used in these high-risk patients.

Factors predictive of early or late aneurysm sac size change following endovascular repair

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between aneurysm sac size change at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months and a set of 10 independent "predictive" variables by using a general linear model analysis.

METHODS

In a multicenter trial, 351 patients received the Zenith tri-modular bifurcated endograft. The predictive variables used for this analysis were endoleak by type, age, gender, smoking status, and the preprocedure variables of maximum aneurysm major diameter, minor neck diameter, proximal neck length, neck plaque/thrombus, and neck shape; and patent inferior mesenteric artery at predischarge. The aneurysm change was calculated as the difference from the predischarge (< or = 7 days of implant) maximum aneurysm major diameter measurement to the maximum aneurysm major diameter measurement at follow-up examination periods of 1, 6, 12, and 24 months. The same 10 predictive variables were used to assess the absolute change in maximum aneurysm minor diameter and aneurysm area. Additionally, the percent change from predischarge was also assessed for the major diameter, minor diameter, and aneurysm area.

RESULTS

None of the independent variables were predictive of absolute sac size change or percent change at 1 month. At 6 months, the presence of an endoleak (P < .01) and preprocedure neck thrombus/plaque (P = .01) were significant predictors of absolute and relative aneurysm size change for all measurements (major diameter, minor diameter, and area) and were more likely to be associated with less sac shrinkage or to have sac growth. Additionally, preoperative maximum aneurysm major diameter was a significant predictor for absolute change in area (P < .01). Larger preprocedure aneurysm diameters were more likely to experience more shrinkage. The significant predictors of size change at 12 months included preprocedure maximum aneurysm major diameter, the presence of endoleak at 12 months, preoperative neck thrombus/plaque, and gender. At 24 months, significant predictors of aneurysm size change included preprocedure maximum aneurysm major diameter, endoleak at 24 months, and preprocedure neck thrombus/plaque. When the longitudinal model was used, the presence of an endoleak, thrombus/plaque within the proximal neck at preprocedure, and preprocedure maximum aneurysm major diameter were found to be significantly related to the size of the maximum aneurysm major diameter over time.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the concept that early and late sac size change following EVAR is influenced by identifiable independent predictive variables.

Single Center Experience with a New Commercially Available Thoracic Endovascular Graft

PURPOSE

To evaluate the intra-operative performance and clinical outcome of a new commercially available stent-graft for the treatment of thoracic aortic diseases.

METHODS AND PATIENTS

From January 2003 to October 2004, 45 consecutive patients received endovascular treatment with the Zenith TX1 device for diseases of the thoracic aorta at a single center in northern Italy. Indications included disease of the descending thoracic aorta in 26 cases, of the aortic arch in 17 cases and of the thoraco-abdominal aorta in two cases. We treated 38 atherosclerotic aneurysms, two post-traumatic aortic ruptures, two penetrating ulcers, two chronic dissections and one case was treated for aortic bleeding after voluntary acid ingestion for attempted suicide. General anesthesia was used in 20 cases. Combined or hybrid endovascular and open surgical repair was performed in 11 patients. Mean follow-up was 7 months (range 1-22 months).

RESULTS

Technical success was obtained in 44 patients (98%). One primary type I endoleak occurred (2%). ICU was used in 12 cases with a mean stay of 1 day. The mean hospital stay was 6 days (range 4-13 days). There were no hospital deaths or strokes but one transient paraplegia (2%). A type II endoleak was observed in one case and resolved spontaneously 1 month later. No aneurysm enlargement, endograft migration or structural failures were observed during follow-up. Two late unrelated-deaths were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This stent-graft does not fulfill all the characteristics of the ideal graft, however, it proved to be safe and allowed satisfactory short term results in this group of patients treated at a single center.

Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair with the Zenith Endograft in Patients with Ectatic Iliac Arteries

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with ectatic iliac arteries is feasible; however, most studies have reported experience from single institutions where distal flare techniques with endograft components were used on an "off-label basis." The Zenith endovascular graft allows adequate seal in ectatic common iliac arteries (CIAs) with diameters up to 20 mm. To determine whether large or ectatic CIAs are a risk factor for early and late endograft failure, we analyzed data from the Zenith U.S. multicenter trial. Among 352 patients receiving the endograft in the Zenith u.s. clinical study, 156 patients (44%) had at least one ectatic iliac artery (maximum diameter between 14 and 20 mm), whereas 22 (6.3%) had bilateral CIAs of normal diameter (< 14 mm). Variables analyzed included those defined by the reporting standards for EVAR (SVS/AAVS) as well as iliac-related outcome and indications for secondary iliac interventions. Univariate (Kaplan-Meier [KM] receiver operating characteristics curve, and Cox regression analyses were used to determine the association between CIA diameter and iliac-related complications. The median follow-up period was 24 months. Technical success was similar (>99%) for patients with ectatic and normal CIAs. Only one late type I distal endoleak was reported and was attributed to failure of distal iliac seal in a patient with ectatic CIAs. Freedom from iliac-related secondary intervention (IRSI) was not significantly different between the groups (KM, log-rank test, p = 0.98) with rates at 1, 12, and 24 months of 98%, 97%, and 95% for patients with ectatic CIAs, and 100%, 95%, and 95% for patients with normal iliac arteries, respectively. Moreover, Cox regression analysis revealed that the maximum CIA diameter was not a significant predictor of freedom from IRSI (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-1.4; p = 0.98). In patients with large CIAs, indications for IRSI included distal type I endoleak (1, 0.6%), type III endoleak (1, 0.6%), graft limb occlusion (4, 2.6%), and device stenosis (1, 0.6%). The only IRSI in a patient with normal CIAs was performed for device stenosis (4.6%). In conclusion, the Zenith endograft is effective for EVAR in patients with ectatic CIAs. Moreover, the presence of large CIAs was not associated with an increased risk of adverse iliac-related outcome or subsequent IRSI. Long-term surveillance, however, is mandatory, as IRSIs may be necessary.

Early outcomes of endovascular versus open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program–Private Sector (NSQIP–PS)

BACKGROUND

There remains no consensus on the appropriate application of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Information from administrative databases, industry-sponsored trials, and single institutions has inherent deficiencies. This study was designed to compare early outcomes of open (OPEN) versus EVAR in a contemporary (2000 to 2003) large, multicenter prospective cohort.

METHODS

Fourteen academic medical centers contributed data to the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-Private Sector (NSQIP-PS), which ensures uniform, comprehensive, prospective, and previously validated data entry by trained, independent nurse reviewers. A battery of clinical and demographic features was assessed with multivariate analysis for association with the principal study end points of 30-day operative mortality and morbidity.

RESULTS

One thousand forty-two patients underwent elective infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repairs: 460 EVAR and 582 OPEN. EVAR patients were older (74 vs 71 years, P < .0001), included more men (84.6% vs 79.6%, P < .05), and had a higher incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (25.4% vs 17.9%, P < .01). EVAR resulted in significantly reduced overall morbidity (24% vs 35%, P < .0001) and hospital stay (4 vs 9 days, P < .0001). Cardiopulmonary and renal function-related comorbidities had the expected significant impact on mortality for both procedures at univariate analysis ( P < .05). While crude mortality rates between EVAR and OPEN did not differ significantly (2.8% vs 4.0%) ( P = 0.32). After multivariate analysis, correlates of operative mortality included OPEN (odds ratio [OR], 2.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 5.78; P < .05), advanced age (OR, 1.11; P < .001), history of angina (OR, 5.54; P < .01), poor functional status (OR, 5.78; P < .001), history of weight loss (OR, 7.42; P < .01), and preoperative dialysis (OR, 51.4; P < .0001). EVAR also compared favorably to OPEN (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.58 to 2.89; P < .0001) for overall morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Significant morbidity accompanies AAA repair, even at major academic medical centers. These data strongly endorse EVAR as the preferred approach in the presence of significant cardiopulmonary or renal comorbidities, or poor preoperative functional status.

Structural failures in abdominal aortic aneurysm stentgrafts: Threat to durability and challenge to technology

A variety of structural defects or failures have appeared in the majority of commercially developed stentgrafts for endoluminal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Some have resulted in device withdrawal; others have been dealt with by device modification. Newer devices have been designed to avoid some of these failure modes but, because many have not become apparent until as late as 2 years, these corrective measures will require long-term follow-up to establish device durability. Typically, routine surveillance has missed these problems or discovered them late and, when fully investigated, most structural problems have been more prevalent than initially suspected and/or increased with time. However, analyses documenting the full extent and clinical consequences of these structural failures have not been openly reported. This lack of information, and the nature of the structural failures themselves, have undermined confidence in the durability of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), mandated indefinite periodic surveillance, and further increased its costs. Prospects for controlling the described failure modes in the future are good in terms of most device- and operator-specific causes, but aneurysm-specific causes may be more difficult to overcome. Until durability is established by improved technology and long-term follow-up, a more conservative application of EVAR has been suggested, with its use limited primarily to patients with large AAAs (>5.5 cm diameter), favorable anatomy for EVAR, and associated comorbidities that significantly increase the patient's risk for open repair as well as decrease their longevity outlook. The history of these structural failures and the corrective measures taken, as well as their current impact on EVAR are presented in this article.

Catheter-based treatments of endoleaks

At the present time, patients who have undergone endovascular aneurysm repair require lifelong surveillance. The purpose of this surveillance is threefold. First, has there been any change in the position of the endograft? Secondly, what is the status of the aneurysm sac? Thirdly, is there an endoleak? How the patient is managed depends on the answers to these three questions. Managing patients with endoleaks remains a challenging clinical problem. Decisions on these patients depend on the type of leak and the status of the aneurysm sac. This manuscript will review what is currently known about endoleaks and use this information to develop algorithms of how patients should be treated.

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm:. A Review of Endoluminal Treatment

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) carries a high mortality if left untreated. Until recently, most patients with AAA were treated with surgical repair. However, endoluminal graft treatment is rapidly becoming an alternative to surgical repair due to lower morbidity and comparable perioperative mortality rates. Despite this optimism patients and operators should keep in mind the palliative nature of these endovascular repairs and the lifelong need for surveillance, before embarking on these procedures. Endoleaks remain to be a significant problem leading to aneurysm expansion and occasionally rupture. Durability of the existing endograft devices remains to be seen. Careful patient selection is critical to success with these procedures. With future advancements in the endograft device technology, methods of patient surveillance, and patient care, there may be a shift from conventional surgical approaches to endovascular repair for the treatment of AAA.

Overview of success of EVAR: Progress to date

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms has been challenged by a number of groups, and the shortcomings of this procedure have been documented in the scientific literature. However, patients and physicians continue to pursue this procedure as a viable means of treating abdominal aortic aneurysms. Both device evolution and advancement of technical skills have led to dramatic improvements in the outcomes of EVAR within the last decade. These improvements and accomplishments have also been chronicled in the literature. This review looks at the successes of EVAR, based on both US Food and Drug Administration trials and independent studies comparing conventional open repair and endovascular repair.

Clinical effect of abdominal aortic aneurysm endografting: 7-year concurrent comparison with open repair

OBJECTIVE

We compared the effectiveness and clinical outcome of open repair versus endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in achieving prevention of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA)-related death and graft-related complications.

METHODS

Over 7 years from 1997 to 2003, 1119 consecutive patients underwent elective treatment of infrarenal AAAs, 585 with open repair and 534 with EVAR. Patients were regularly followed up at 1, 6, 12 months, and every 6 months thereafter, in EVAR group, and at 3 and 12 months, and yearly thereafter after open repair. Preoperative, intraoperative, and follow-up data were stored in a prospective database.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was similar in the 2 groups: 33 months (interquartile range [IQR], 13-50 months) in the EVAR group vs 35 months (IQR, 15-54 months) in the open repair group. EVAR group patients were older than patients in the open repair group: 73 years vs 72 years (P = .04). There were statistical significant differences between the EVAR group and the open repair group with respect to AAA median diameter (52 mm vs 56 mm), coronary disease rate (46% vs 37%; P = .001), pulmonary disease rate (56% vs 38%; P < .0001), and American Society of Anesthesiologists IV score rate (16% vs 6%; P < .0001). Thirty-day mortality in the EVAR group was 0.9% (5 of 534 patients), compared with 4.1% (24 of 585 patients; P = .001) in the open repair group, and major morbidity was 9.1% (49 of 534 patients) vs 18.6% (109 of 585 patients; P < .0001), respectively. The incidence of secondary procedures in the EVAR group was 15.7%, compared with 3% in the open repair group (P < .0001). There were no deaths related to secondary procedures in either group. Six AAAs (1.1%) ruptured after EVAR, 3 of which were fatal; in the open repair group 1 patient (0.2%) underwent successful repeat operatation to treat iliac pseudoaneurysm rupture 5 years after the original procedure. Kaplan-Meier estimates for freedom from aneurysm-related death at 84 months were 97.5% in the EVAR group and 95.9% in the open repair group (log rank test, P = .008). Kaplan-Meier survival estimates at 84 months were 67.1% in the open repair group and 66.9% in the EVAR group (P = NS). At the same interval the risk for secondary procedures was 49.4% for the EVAR group and 7.1% for the open repair group. Of the 11 variables analyzed with logistic analysis, open surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-54.2; P = .002), American Society of Anesthesiologists IV score (HR, 7.1; 95% CI, 2.7-18.8; P = .0001), and age (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.13; P = .04) were positive independent predictors of perioperative mortality.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that at a maximum follow-up of 7 years, patients who undergo EVAR show lower perioperative and late aneurysm-related mortality compared with a younger and substantially healthier group of patients with aneurysms treated with open repair. The higher need for secondary procedures in the endovascular group did not affect superiority of the overall performance of EVAR in the early and late intervals.

Open Versus Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: What Does Each Really Cost?

Endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has emerged as an alternative to open repair (OR). The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and specific costs of these procedures since commercialization.A retrospective analysis of 119 consecutive infrarenal AAA repaired via an EVAR or an OR between July 2000 and September 2001 was performed. Patient charts were reviewed. Diagnostic-related group (DRG) classification and payer mix were identified. The hospital cost accounting system was accessed to obtain actual variable direct cost (AVDC) for the two groups. Percentages of the mean AVDC for the two groups were compared in the following cost categories: graft, operating room, radiology procedures and supplies, pharmacy, respiratory therapy, clinical laboratories, surgical floor, and monitored unit. Hospital profit margins were determined. Fifty-five patients underwent EVAR and 64 patients underwent OR. Mean aneurysm size was 5.5A cm (EVAR) and 6.1A cm (OR). Mean intensive care unit (ICU) stay was 0.09 days for EVAR vs. 3.5 days for OR ( p < 0.05). Mean length of stay (LOS) was 1.96 days for EVAR vs. 7.3 days for OR ( p < 0.05). Reimbursement was based on DRG 110, 47.3% in the EVAR and 79.7% in the OR group ( p < 0.05), and DRG 111, 50.9% in the EVAR group and 12.5% in the OR group ( p < 0.05). The payer mix showed no significant differences between the two groups. Mean AVDC for EVAR was 1.74 times that of OR. Significant differences in the distribution of costs were found in the following: graft costs (58% vs. 6.3%, p < 0.05), radiology procedures and supplies (3.9% vs. 0.1%, p < 0.05), pharmacy (1.9% vs. 10.5%, p < 0.05), and monitored unit (7.3% vs. 24.65%, p < 0.05) comparing EVAR vs. OR, respectively. Median cost of an endovascular graft was 22.4 times that of the standard graft for OR. Average hospital profit margins for an EVAR case was 49.5% vs. 88.6% for OR. Despite significant differences in monitored unit utilization, pharmacy services, and respiratory therapy services by the OR group, the cost of EVAR is appreciably more expensive. Furthermore, increased DRG reimbursement, and decreased ICU use and LOS do not compensate for the cost of EVAR. The main cost of EVAR is the cost of the graft itself. Hospital profit margins are acceptable with both the EVAR and OR procedures at this time; however, with proposed reductions in reimbursement, the ability to cover the cost of this new technology may be threatened.

Analysis of renal function after aneurysm repair with a device using suprarenal fixation (zenith AAA endovascular graft) in contrast to open surgical repair

PURPOSE

This study was undertaken to assess the effect on renal function of open surgery and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair with suprarenal fixation with the Zenith device.

METHODS

Data for 279 patients with similar preoperative comorbid conditions were prospectively analyzed after AAA repair. One hundred ninety-nine patients underwent endografting with the Zenith AAA Endovascular Graft, which incorporates suprarenal fixation (Zenith standard risk group, ZSR), and 80 patients underwent open surgery (standard surgical risk group, SSR). Endovascular repair was also performed in 100 patients considered poor candidates for open repair (Zenith high risk group, ZHR). Serum creatinine concentration (SCr) and anatomic defects were assessed before the procedure, before discharge, and at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months in all patients who underwent endovascular repair, and before the procedure and at 1 and 12 months in patients who underwent open surgical repair (only SCr was measured before discharge). Renal function was also analyzed, with a creatinine clearance calculation (Cockcraft-Gault). Renal insufficiency was defined as an increase in SCr greater than 30% from a preoperative baseline value, any SCr concentration in excess of 2.0 mg/dL, or any need for dialysis. Cumulative renal infarction and arterial occlusion rates were calculated with computed tomographic, ultrasonographic, and angiographic data, and reported as cumulative values.

RESULTS

Despite the initially superior renal function in the ZSR group at the pre-discharge evaluation (P =.01), there were no differences at 12 months with respect to rise in SCr greater than 30% (ZSR, 16%, vs SSR, 12%; P =.67), SCr rise greater than 2.0 mg/dL (ZSR, 2.5%, vs SSR, 3.4%; P =.66), incidence of renal artery occlusion (ZSR, 1%, vs SSR, 1.4%; P >.99), or infarction (ZSR, 1.5%, vs SSR, 1.4%; P >.99). Only one patient in each group required hemodialysis. Of note, both groups of patients demonstrated a reduction in creatinine clearance over 12 months, which then stabilized or improved by 24 months for ZSR patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Renal dysfunction occurs in a subset of patients regardless of type of repair (open or endovascular with suprarenal fixation). The cause of renal dysfunction after open or endovascular repair with a suprarenal stent is probably multifactorial. The observed dysfunction occurs in a small number of patients, and the effect in the endovascular group (no data for the surgical group at 24 months) appears to be transient. The initial dysfunction, apparent in both groups over 12 months of follow-up, stabilizes or improves at 12 to 24 months.

Perioperative outcomes after open and endovascular repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysms in the united states during 2001

OBJECTIVE

Small patient numbers, mixed data from clinical trials, and longitudinal series representing institutional learning curves have characterized previous studies of early outcomes after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. We compared the perioperative outcomes of endovascular and open surgical AAA repair in an unselected sample of patients in a single calendar year using a national administrative database.

METHODS

The 2001 National Inpatient Sample database was retrospectively reviewed. This database represents 20% of all-payer stratified sample of non-federal US hospitals. Patients older than 49 years were identified by primary diagnostic codes (International Classification of Disease, ninth revision [ICD-9], 441.4, intact, nonruptured AAA) and procedure codes (ICD-9 38.44 for open, 39.71 for endovascular repair). Patient demographic data (age, sex), comorbid conditions (ICD-9 coded), inpatient complications (ICD-9 coded), length of stay, final discharge disposition (home vs institution vs death), and hospital charges were examined with univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

In calendar year 2001, 7172 patients underwent either open (64%) or endovascular (36%) repair of intact, nonruptured AAAs. Despite comparable rates of preoperative comorbid conditions and a greater proportion of octogenarians (23% vs 16%%; P =.0001), morbidity (18% vs 29%; P =.0001) and mortality (1.3% vs 3.8%; P =.0001) were significantly lower for endovascular repair than for open repair. The median length of stay (2 vs 7 days; P =.0001) and the rate of discharge to an institutional facility versus home (6% vs 14%; P =.0001) were also much lower in the endovascular group than in the open repair group. At multivariate analysis, open AAA repair and age older than 80 years were strong independent predictors (P =.0001 for all) for death (open repair: odds ratio [OR], 3.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3-4.9; age: OR, 14.2; 95% CI, 3.5-58.1), complications (open repair: OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.7-2.1; age: OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.5-2.5), and not being discharged to home (open repair: OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.9-4.1; age: OR, 12.0; 95% CI, 7.0-20.4). Mean hospital charges were significantly greater (difference, $3337; P =.0009) for endovascular repair than for open repair. Extrapolated to the total number of endovascular AAA repairs performed during the single 2001 calendar year, this resulted in a staggering $50.3 million in additional hospital charges.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular repair of intact AAAs results in a significantly lower number of complications and deaths, shorter hospital stay, and improved likelihood of discharge to home, even in older patients, when compared with open surgical repair. These impressive gains in clinical outcome, however, are achieved at similarly impressive increases in health care costs.