Age is not a sole predictor of outcomes in octogenarians undergoing complex endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

To examine the perioperative, postoperative, and long-term outcomes of fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) in octogenarians compared with nonoctogenarians.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Vascular Quality Improvement database, which prospectively captures information on patients who undergo vascular surgery across 1021 academic and community hospitals in North America. All patients who underwent F/BEVAR endovascular aortic repair from 2012 to 2022 were included. Patients were stratified into two groups: those aged <80 years and those aged ≥80 years at the time of the procedure. The preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors were compared between the two groups. The primary outcome was long-term all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes included aortic-specific mortality and aortic-specific reintervention.

RESULTS

A total of 6007 patients (aged <80 years, n = 4860; aged ≥80 years, n = 1147) who had undergone F/BEVAR procedures were included. No significant difference was found in technical success, postoperative length of stay, length of intensive care unit stay, postoperative bowel ischemia, and spinal cord ischemia. After adjustment for baseline covariates, octogenarians were more likely to suffer from a postoperative complication (odds ratio [OR]: 1.16; [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98-1.37], P < .001) and be discharged to a rehabilitation center (OR: 1.60; [95% CI: 1.27-2.00], P < .001) or nursing home (OR: 2.23; [95% CI: 1.64-3.01], P < .001). Five-year survival was lower in octogenarians (83% vs 71%, hazard ratio [HR]: 1.70; [95% CI: 1.46-2.0], P < .0001). Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis demonstrated that age was associated with increased all-cause mortality (HR: 1.72, [95% CI: 1.39-2.12], P < .001) and aortic-specific mortality (HR: 1.92, [95% CI: 1.04-3.68], P = .038). Crawford extent II aortic disease was associated with an increase in all-cause mortality (HR 1.49; [95% CI: 1.01-2.19], P < .001), aortic-specific mortality (HR: 5.05; [95% CI: 1.35-18.9], P = .016), and aortic-specific reintervention (HR: 1.91; [95% CI: 1.24-2.93], P = .003). Functional dependence was associated with increased all-cause mortality (HR: 2.90; [95% CI: 1.87-4.51], P < .001) and aortic-specific mortality (HR: 4.93; [95% CI: 1.69-14.4], P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that octogenarians do have a mildly increased mortality rate and rate of adverse events after F/BEVAR procedures. Despite this, when adjusted for other risk factors, on par with other medical comorbidities and therefore age should be strict exclusion criterion for F/BEVAR procedures, rather age should be considered in the global context of patient's aortic anatomy, health, and functional status.

Outcomes in octogenarians after thoracoabdominal and juxtarenal aortic aneurysm repair using fenestrated-branched devices justifies treatment

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes between octogenarians and nonoctogenarians undergoing thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair and juxtarenal aortic aneurysm repair using branched and/or fenestrated endovascular devices (F/BEVAR) and compare octogenarian survival to population survival statistics from Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

Patients who underwent F/BEVAR at a single institution between 2007 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed with a median follow-up of 3.3 years (interquartile range, 1.6-5.3). The median survival of an average 84-year-old Ontarian from Canada, adjusted for a male:female ratio of 4:1, was retrieved from publicly available Statistics Canada data.

RESULTS

In total, 68 octogenarians (25.8%) and 196 nonoctogenarians (74.2%) were included (mean age, 83.5 ± 3.0 vs 71.9 ± 5.8 years; P ≤ .001). The maximum aneurysm size was significantly larger in octogenarians (68.9 ± 11.4 mm vs 65.4 ± 10.0 mm; P = .017). No differences in the number of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repairs (29.4% vs 38.3%; P = .19) or operative technical success (92.6% vs 85.7%; P = .136) were observed between the two cohorts. Postoperatively, no significant differences in overall in-hospital mortality (7.3% vs 5.1%; P = .49), elective in-hospital mortality (6.1% vs 4.4%; P = .49), stroke (1.5% vs 3.6%; P = .384), or spinal cord ischemia (2.9% vs 9.2%; P = .094) were seen between octogenarians and nonoctogenarians. There was no difference in survival at 4 years between the two cohorts (62.9% vs 71.1%; P = .22), however, survival at 6 years was significantly lower for octogenarians (44.5% vs 64.1%; hazard ratio, 1.96; P = .02). The cumulative rate of reintervention (44.1% vs 41.3%; P = .84) and freedom from branch instability (67.6% vs 73.5%; P = .33) at 6 years were not different between the two groups. When comparing octogenarians who survived to discharge from index hospitalization after F/BEVAR with 84-year-old Ontarians unmatched for comorbidities, a survival difference of 4.8% and 11.1% was noted at 4 and 6 years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

F/BEVAR in octogenarians is associated with no differences in technical success or postoperative adverse outcomes when compared with their younger counterparts. Octogenarians had increased mortality after 4 years and their survival at 4 years was comparable with that of an 84-year-old Ontarian. F/BEVAR was safe and effective in octogenarians deemed fit for intervention. Further research into preoperative patient selection and improving perioperative outcomes is needed.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Quality of Life for Patients Receiving Elective Interventions for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Objectives: Information on the quality of life of patients operated on for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is scarce. The objective of this study was to analyse these patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Materials and Methods: This was a cross-sectional observational study. Patients undergoing elective AAA surgery from January 2013 to December 2020 were included. The Spanish version of the SF-36 questionnaire was administered to participants one to sixty months after surgery. Results: During the study period, 178 patients underwent surgery for AAA, 109 (61.23%) had open abdominal aortic repair (AAR) and 69 (38.54%) had endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Mortality before the month of surgery was higher among those treated by AAR than EVAR (2.7% and 1.45%, respectively), while late mortality was higher in the EVAR group than in the AAR group (11.5% and 2.7%, respectively). In the late postoperative period, 12.5% of patients who underwent AAR presented complications compared to 25% of those treated with EVAR. The questionnaire was administered to 151 patients (91 AAR and 60 EVAR patients). The AAR patients compared to the EVAR patients had significantly higher mean scores on the health scales of the SF-36 questionnaire in Physical Function (p = 0.001), Vitality (p = 0.003), General Health (p = 0.37), Social Function (p = 0.023) and Mental Health (p = 0.006). Scores on the Mental Summary Component were significantly higher in the AAR group (p = 0.026). Conclusions: The group of patients treated with AAR showed the highest average scores on the scales of the SF-36 questionnaire in Physical Function, Vitality, General Health and Mental Health. The worst result was found in the Social Function scale for EVAR patients and was related to a higher rate of late complications.

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.

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

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

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.