Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Results from a Series of Young Patients

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

Objectives

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

Design

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

Materials and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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.

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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