腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术单中心治疗经验

目的 评价腔内修复术(endovascular aneurysm repair,EVAR)治疗肾下型腹主动脉瘤(abdominal aortic aneurysm,AAA)的围术期和中远期效果.方法 回顾性分析131例AAA行EVAR的临床资料,评价EVAR治疗AAA的安全性和中远期疗效.结果 手术时间(137±29) min,术中出血(142±20) ml、输血(46±26) ml、ICU恢复时间为(17±4)h.围术期主要并发症包括重度心功能不全8例、心肌梗死2例、肺部并发症5例,内漏4例等;随访中发现内漏15例,Ⅰ型8例,Ⅱ型5例,Ⅲ型和Ⅳ型各1例,死亡2例;Kaplan-Meier生存分析无并发症生存率及再次处理率提示60个月后仍有并发症发生,其中40％是需要再次处理的并发症.结论 EVAR是AAA的安全治疗方法,但需要长期严格随访并及时处理并发症.     

破裂腹主动脉瘤开放手术与腔内治疗早期疗效的分析

目的比较破裂腹主动脉瘤(r AAA)接受开放手术和腔内手术(EVAR)的早期疗效。方法回顾南京医科大学第一附属医院1998年1月至2017年6月间行急症手术治疗r AAA的31例患者临床资料。比较开放手术组和EVAR组病例的围术期死亡率、严重并发症发生率、出血量、输血量、ICU住院时间及总住院时间。结果开放手术组12例,围术期死亡率50%,术后发生严重并发症发生率58.3%;EVAR组19例,围术期死亡率21%,术后发生严重并发症发生率31.6%,二组围术期死亡率及严重并发症发生率无显著差异(P0.05)。EVAR组在在术中出血量[(143.7±86.7)ml vs(3775.0±1801.1)ml]、输血量[(1331.6±967.3)ml vs(4158.3±1661.0)ml]、补液量[(2514.2±978.2)ml vs(4850.0±1306.3)ml]、术后ICU住院时间[(1.2±2.6)天vs(5.3±2.9)天]、总住院时间[(10.3±4.6)天vs(17.8±4.4)天]较开放手术组具有显著优势(P0.05)。结论 EVAR是r AAA的一种有效治疗方法 ,但需要结合患者一般情况及动脉瘤解剖条件等因素综合考虑。     

主动脉腔内修复术后支架相关并发症分析

主动脉瘤的腔内修复术最早为Balko提出,并于1986年通过将支架外覆聚乙烯膜,经股动脉导入成功治疗了绵羊的腹主动脉瘤(abdominal aortic aneurysm,AAA)模型[1].1991年,阿根廷的Parodi等[2]用市售聚四氟乙烯人造血管,将其两端固定在Palmaz内支架上,成功实行首例AAA腔内治疗.随着血管支架的发展与腔内操作技术的改进,主动脉血管腔内修复术(endovascular aneurysm repair,EVAR)的应用越来越广泛,与传统的开放手术相比,EVAR有更高的手术成功率、更低的围手术期死亡率和术后早期并发症发生率[3,4].近年来评价其中远期疗效的报道开始出现,由支架移植物(stentgraft,SG)导致的并发症也愈发受到重视[5],现就该一问题作如下分析.     

腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术后内漏的诊断和处理

<正>腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术(endovascular aneurysm repair,EVAR)近年来得到迅速发展,与传统开放手术相比具有创伤小、操作简单、手术死亡率低和适应证广等优点[1,2]。但EVAR治疗仍有许多问题有待解决,据EUROSTAR的大宗病例统计,术后并发症发生率达6%~27%,约有10%~30%的腹主动脉瘤EVAR术后需要再次施行某种治疗。内漏是EVAR术后最常见的并发症,在随访期间大约有25%患者发生内漏[3]。White等[4]于1997年最早     

腹主动脉瘤治疗方法的选择

腹主动脉瘤(abdominal aortic aneurysm,AAA)是临床常见疾病.随着人口老龄化的发展,AAA的发病率逐年增高,并成为导致老年患者死亡的主要疾病之一.自1951年首次报道应用人工移植物治疗AAA后,开放手术已经走过了60年的历程,技术已经相当成熟,也积累了相当多的经验,远期疗效十分理想.AAA的腔内修复(endovascular aortic aneurysm repair,EVAR)在1991年首次应用于临床后发展迅速,已经有多个随机对照研究的结果,显示其在降低围手术期死亡率等方面具有比较明显的优势.     

腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术后瘤腔变化的影响因素与防治进展

腹主动脉瘤(abdominal aortic aneurysm,AAA)是指腹主动脉管壁永久性局限性扩张超过正常血管直径的50%[1],危险因素包括吸烟、高龄、血脂异常、高血压等,最终表现为主动脉中层退行性变。动脉瘤一经发现,须监测其大小、生长速度等指标,并决定是否通过外科干预预防瘤体破裂。目前,AAA手术方式有开放手术和腔内修复术(endovascular aneurysm repair,EVAR)。其中,EVAR已成为在主动脉解剖条件允许情况下修复AAA的首选方法。既往的RCT研究证明,与开放手术相比,EVAR的早期死亡率更低,但术后发生内漏与破裂的风险更高,严重者需要进行二次手术干预[2]。因此,AAA患者EVAR治疗要求更为严格的术后随访,其中瘤腔体积变化是提示预后的重要监测指标,本文就其影响因素与防治进展进行综述如下。     

腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术后Ⅱ型内漏治疗进展

<正>近年来,腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术(endovascular aortic aneurysm repair,EVAR)因其微创、术后并发症少、围手术期死亡率低、住院时间少等优势已成为治疗腹主动脉瘤的首选~([1-2]),但其远期随访研究~([3-6])表明,EVAR后远期再干预率逐渐增高,有的因瘤体增大破裂而导致远期死亡~([3, 5-6])。EVAR后远期再干预的最常见原因为内漏~([7]),其中Ⅱ型内漏最为常见,发生率可达10%～44%~([8-9])。Ⅱ型内漏的成     

腹主动脉瘤腔内治疗81例临床分析

目的 评估腔内修复术(EVAR)治疗腹主动脉瘤(AAA)的疗效及安全性,并比较不同年龄阶段患者的预后情况.方法 回顾性分析2005年5月到2011年5月接受EVAR的81例AAA 患者的住院和随访资料,将所有患者划分为高龄组(年龄≥75岁)和相对低龄组(年龄＜75岁),分别为24例和57例.对两组患者的一般状况、合并症、手术情况、院内并发症和随访等资料进行对比.结果 所有覆膜支架均顺利植入,技术成功率91.4％ (74/81).术中无死亡病例,住院病死率1.2％( 1/81).74例获得随访,随访率91.4％,平均随访47.5个月.随访期间死亡12例,1、2、3、4和5年生存率分别为98.6％、92.2％、80.8％、58.7％和44.1％.与相对低龄组比较,高龄组出现腹部疼痛症状比例较低,而合并肾脏疾病和冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病比例较高,术后重症监护时间较长,内漏发生率明显增加,而肺部感染和穿刺点血肿发生率也有增高趋势,其余住院及随访情况则无明显差异.结论 EVAR治疗AAA创伤小,安全,短中期疗效满意.高龄患者接受EVAR治疗后部分并发症发生率更高,围手术期应充分准备和密切观察,更好地防治可能的并发症,进一步改善预后.     

腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术后Ⅰa型内漏原因分析及处理

正腹主动脉腔内修复术(endovascular aortic aneurysm repair,EVAR)自1991年问世以来~([1]),因其较传统开放手术有着微创、围手术期并发症发生率低、术后早中期疗效理想等优势,逐渐成为腹主动脉瘤的主要治疗方式~([2-5]),与此同时,其术后并发症也越来越引起血管外科医生的关注~([6])。EVAR后瘤腔与覆膜支架之间出现持续血流的现象被称为内漏,为EVAR后最常见的并发症之一,主要分为     

腔内修复治疗破裂性腹主动脉瘤合理性、有效性、安全性研究

目的 探讨腹主动脉腔内修复（EVAR）治疗破裂性腹主动脉瘤（RAAA）的合理性、有效性和安全性。方法 回顾性分析2005年8月至2020年1月首都医科大学附属北京安贞医院收治的112例RAAA病人资料，对EVAR组和开放手术（OSR）组围手术期结果进行比较分析。结果 EVAR组和OSR组30 d病死率分别为12.3%（8/65）和12.8%（6/47），两组差异无统计学意义（P=0.942），围手术期各种并发症发生率及二次手术干预率两组差异均无统计学意义。EVAR组和OSR组手术时间分别为（3.5±1.7）h和（7.2±3.1）h，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.01）；EVAR组和OSR组术中出血量分别为（267.7±433.9）mL和（2721.3±2112.1）mL，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.01）；EVAR组和OSR组术中输红细胞量分别为（2.2±4.2）U和（7.2±3.1）U，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.01）；EVAR组和OSR组术中输血浆量分别为（147.7±324.6）mL和（1121.3±754.1）mL，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.01）。EVAR组ICU时间为（6.9±8.0） d，低于OSR组（8.6±8.4） d，但差异无统计学意义（P=0.285）；EVAR组住院时间为（13.3±10.4） d，低于OSR组（21.8±11.1） d，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.01）。结论 EVAR治疗RAAA有与OSR相似的30 d病死率和并发症发生率，而EVAR有更短的手术时间，更少的术中出血量和输血量、更短的住院时间。EVAR治疗RAAA是合理、有效、安全的。     

Outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs: Endovascular vs open surgical repairs

BackgroundOperative mortality after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been reported as lower than open surgical repair (OSR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in randomized controlled trials. However, many cohort studies have demonstrated similar mortality rates for both procedures. We compared operative mortality between EVAR and OSR, at our institution.MethodsAll AAA operations from 2012 to 2017 were reviewed, and baseline characteristics were collected. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, operative data, complications, length of hospital stay (LOS), costs, re-intervention, and survival rates were compared. A multivariable analysis with unbalanced characteristics was performed.ResultsWe had a total of 162 patients, 100 having OSR and 62 for EVAR. The EVAR group was older, with higher ASA classification. Thirty-day mortality rate did not significantly differ (0/100 for OSR and 2/62 (3%) for EVAR; p = 0.145), while the EVAR group had less blood loss, shorter operative times, and LOS, but higher re-intervention rates (adjusted hazard ratio 6.4 (95%CI: 1.4, 26.8)). Survival rates did not significantly differ between the groups. EVAR cost approximately 1-million yen more.ConclusionsOSR had low 30-day mortality rate in selected low-risk patients whereas EVAR had less blood loss, shorter operative times, LOS and could be done in high-risk patients with low 30-day mortality but with higher re-intervention rate.     

腹主动脉瘤开腹手术与腔内治疗的比较

目的：比较腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术与开放手术的疗效。方法：对35例肾下型腹主动脉瘤患者分别进行开放手术（21例）与腔内修复术（14例）治疗,比较两组术前评估、手术、围手术期及术后随访情况。结果：腔内修复组年龄较高（P〈0.05）,手术时间、术中出血量、输血量较开腹手术低（P〈0.01）,所需营养支持、监护、卧床时间短（P〈0.01）,围手术期并发症发生率低（P〈0.05）,但远期并发症发生率较高（P〈0.05）。结论：腹主动脉瘤腔内支架治疗较为安全,创伤更小,患者恢复速度较快,适合于高龄及合并症较多的患者。传统开放手术适于年轻、合并症少及无法行腔内修复术的患者。     

Performance of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in high-risk patients: results from the Veterans Affairs National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

OBJECTIVE: Recent results after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) have brought into question its value in patients deemed at high-risk for surgical intervention. The Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) is the largest prospectively collected and validated United States surgical database representing current clinical practice. The purpose of our study was to evaluate outcomes after elective EVAR performed in high-risk veterans. METHODS: Using NSQIP data from 123 participating VA hospitals, we retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent elective aneurysm repair from May 2001 to December 2004. High-risk criteria were used to identify a cohort for analysis (EVAR, n = 788; open, n = 1580). High-risk criteria analyzed included age > or =60 years, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification 3 or 4, and the comorbidity variables of history of cardiac, respiratory, or hepatic disease, cardiac revascularization, renal insufficiency, and low serum albumin level. Our primary end points were 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality, and we evaluated a secondary end point of perioperative complications. Statistical analysis included univariate analysis and multivariate modeling. RESULTS: Veterans who were classified as high-risk underwent elective EVAR with significantly lower 30-day (3.4% vs 5.2%, P = .047) and 1-year all-cause mortality (9.5% vs 12.4%, P = .038) than patients having open repair. EVAR was associated with a decrease in 30-day postoperative mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 1.03; P = .067) as well as 1-year mortality (adjusted OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.91; P = .0094) despite the presence of severe comorbid conditions. The risk of perioperative complications was significantly lower after EVAR (16.2% vs 31.0%; P < .0001; adjusted OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.52; P < .0001). A subset analysis of higher-risk patients (ASA 4 and the above comorbidity variables) still demonstrated an acceptable 30-day mortality rate. CONCLUSION: In veterans deemed high-risk for surgical therapy, outcomes after elective EVAR are excellent, and the procedure is relatively safe in this special patient population. Our retrospective data demonstrate that patients with considerable medical comorbidities and infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms benefit from and should be considered for primary EVAR.     

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.     

Preservation of pelvic perfusion with iliac branch devices does not decrease ischemic colitis compared with hypogastric embolization in endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveIschemic colitis is a rare but devastating complication of endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. Although it is rare (0.9%) in standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), the incidence increases to 2% to 3% in EVAR with hypogastric artery embolization (HAE). This study investigated whether preservation of pelvic perfusion with iliac branch devices (IBDs) decreases the incidence of ischemic colitis.MethodsWe used the targeted EVAR module in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to identify patients undergoing EVAR of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm from 2012 to 2017. The cohort was further stratified into average-risk and high-risk groups. Average-risk patients were those who underwent elective repair for sizes of the aneurysms, whereas high-risk patients were repaired emergently for indications other than asymptomatic aneurysms. Within these groups, we examined the 30-day outcomes of standard EVARs, EVAR with HAE, and EVAR with IBDs. The primary outcome was the incidence of ischemic colitis. Secondary outcomes included mortality, major organ dysfunction, thromboembolism, length of stay, and return to the operating room. The χ² test, Fisher exact test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and multivariate regression models were used for data analysis.ResultsThere were 11,137 patients who had infrarenal EVAR identified. We designated this the all-risk cohort, which included 9263 EVAR, 531 EVAR-HAE, and 1343 EVAR-IBD procedures. These were further stratified into 9016 cases with average-risk patients and 2121 cases with high-risk patients. In the average-risk group, 7482 had EVAR, 411 had EVAR-HAE, and 1123 had EVAR-IBD. In the high-risk group, 1781 had EVAR, 120 had EVAR-HAE, and 220 had EVAR-IBD. There was no significant difference in 30-day outcomes (including ischemic colitis) between EVAR, EVAR-HAE, and EVAR-IBD in the all-risk and high-risk groups. In the average-risk cohort, EVAR-HAE was associated with a higher mortality rate than EVAR (2.2% vs 1.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.58; P = .01). Although EVAR-IBD was not superior to EVAR-HAE in 30-day mortality, major organ dysfunction, or ischemic colitis in this average-risk cohort, EVAR-IBD exhibited a trend toward lower mortality compared with EVAR-HAE in this cohort, but it was not statistically significant (1.0% vs 2.2%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.42; P = .07).ConclusionsIschemic colitis is a rare complication of EVAR. HAE does not appear to increase the risk of ischemic colitis, and preservation of pelvic perfusion with IBDs does not decrease its incidence. Although HAE is associated with significantly higher mortality than standard EVAR in average-risk patients, the preservation of pelvic perfusion with IBDs does not appear to improve mortality over HAE.     

腹主动脉瘤腔内修复与开放手术疗效初探

目的 比较腹主动脉瘤开放手术与腔内治疗的效果.方法 对42例分别行开放手术和腔内修复的腹主动脉瘤患者的手术相关情况、围手术期并发症发生率、病死率、随访情况以及相关的费用进行对比分析.结果 腔内修复组手术时间、术中出血量、输血量均少于开放手术组(P<0.01),两组围手术期并发症差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),两组术后2年生存率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但腔内修复组术后远期并发症发生率高于开放手术组(P<0.01).住院费用腔内修复组明显高于开放手术组(P<0.01).结论 腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术具有手术时间短、微创的特点,但具有较高的远期并发症,开放手术组6个月生存质量优于腔内修复组.     

Open versus endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in VA hospitals

BACKGROUND: Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), when compared with conventional open surgical repair, has been shown to reduce perioperative morbidity and mortality. We performed a retrospective cohort study with prospectively collected data from the Department of Veterans Affairs to examine outcomes after elective aneurysm repair. STUDY DESIGN: We studied 30-day mortality, 1-year survival, and postoperative complications in 1,904 patients who underwent elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR n=717 [37.7%]; open n=1,187 [62.3%]) at 123 Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals between May 1, 2001 and September 30, 2003. We investigated the influence of patient, operative, and hospital variables on outcomes. RESULTS: Patients undergoing EVAR had significantly lower 30-day (3.1% versus 5.6%, p=0.01) and 1- year mortality rates (8.7% versus 12.1%, p=0.018) than patients having open repair. EVAR was associated with a decrease in 30-day postoperative mortality (adjusted odds ratio[OR]=0.59; 95% CI=0.36, 0.99; p=0.04). The risk of perioperative complications was much less after EVAR (15.5% versus 27.7%; p<0.001; unadjusted OR 0.48; 95% CI=0.38, 0.61; p<0.001). Patients operated on at low volume hospitals (25% of entire cohort) were more likely to have had open repair (31.3% compared with 15.9% EVAR; p<0.001) and a nearly two-fold increase in adjusted 30-day mortality risk (OR=1.9; 95% CI=1.19, 2.98; p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: In routine daily practice, veterans who undergo elective EVAR have substantially lower perioperative mortality and morbidity rates compared with patients having open repair. The benefits of a minimally invasive approach were readily apparent in this cohort, but we recommend using caution in choosing EVAR for all elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs until longer-term data on device durability are available.     

Sex differences in perioperative outcomes after complex abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveFemale sex is associated with worse outcomes after infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. However, the impact of female sex on complex AAA repair is poorly characterized. Therefore, we compared outcomes between female and male patients after open and endovascular treatment of complex AAA.MethodsWe identified all patients who underwent complex aneurysm repair between 2011 and 2017 in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted vascular module. Complex repairs were defined as those for juxtarenal, pararenal, or suprarenal aneurysms. We compared rates of perioperative adverse events between female and male patients stratified by open AAA repair and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). We calculated propensity scores and used inverse probability-weighted logistic regression to identify independent associations between female sex and our outcomes.ResultsWe identified 2270 complex aneurysm repairs, of which 1260 were EVARs (21.4% female) and 1010 were open repairs (30.7% female). After EVAR, female patients had higher rates of perioperative mortality (6.3% vs 2.4%; P = .001) and major complications (15.9% vs 7.6%; P < .001) compared with male patients. In contrast, after open repair, perioperative mortality was not significantly different (7.4% vs 5.6%; P = .3), and the rate of major complications was similar (29.4% vs 27.4%; P = .53) between female and male patients. Furthermore, even though perioperative mortality was significantly lower after EVAR compared with open repair for male patients (2.4% vs 5.6%; P = .001), this difference was not significant for women (6.3% vs 7.4%; P = .60). On multivariable analysis, female sex remained independently associated with higher perioperative mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-4.9; P = .007) and major complications (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-3.2; P = .002) in patients treated with EVAR but showed no significant association with mortality (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5-1.6; P = .69) or major complications (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8-1.5; P = .74) after open repair. However, the association of female sex with higher perioperative mortality in patients undergoing complex EVAR was attenuated when diameter was replaced with aortic size index in the multivariable analysis (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 0.9-3.9; P = .091).ConclusionsFemale sex is associated with higher perioperative mortality and more major complications than for male patients after complex EVAR but not after complex open repair. Continuous efforts are warranted to improve the sex discrepancies in patients undergoing endovascular repair of complex AAA.     

Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in octogenarians: an analysis based on EUROSTAR data

PURPOSE: To investigate the early and late outcome after endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR) in octogenarians compared with patients aged < 80 years. METHODS: Patients treated for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with endovascular repair during the period 1996 to 2004 were collated in the EUROSTAR registry. This study group consisted of 697 patients aged > or = 80 years. Comparison was made with 4198 patients aged < 80 years with regard to the incidence of preoperative characteristics and outcomes of the procedure. RESULTS: The proportion of octogenarians treated by EVAR increased during the study period, from 11% in the first year to 18% in the last year. Octogenarians more frequently had cardiac disease, impaired renal function, and pulmonary disease (P = .03, P < .0001 and P = .0001). Thirty-two percent of the octogenarians were recorded unfit for open surgery as opposed to 22% in younger patients (P < .0001); they also had a larger aneurysm diameter (62 vs 58 mm, respectively; P < .0001). The 30-day and in-hospital mortality in octogenarians was 5% vs 2% in the younger group (P < .0001). More device-related complications and systemic complications, including cardiac disease, were noted in octogenarians (7% vs 5% and 19% vs 11%, P = .03 and P < .0001, respectively). This group of patients also had a higher incidence of postoperative hemorrhagic complications, including hematoma (7% vs 3%, P < .0001, respectively). No differences in conversion to open repair and post-EVAR rupture rate were observed. Aneurysm-related mortality and late all-cause mortality was 7% vs 3% and 10% vs 7%, both P < .0001. CONCLUSION: Our study supports that EVAR might be considered when treating elderly patients, provided their aneurysms are anatomically suited for the endovascular technique. The risk for late complications compared with open repair may be outweighed by a lower early mortality as well as a shorter time for physical recovery.