A prospective clinical, economic, and quality-of-life analysis comparing endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), open repair, and best medical treatment in high-risk patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms suitable for EVAR: the Irish patient trial.

PURPOSE: To report the results of a trial comparing endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) to open repair (OR) and best medical therapy (BMT) involving high-risk patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) suitable for EVAR. METHODS: From 2002 to 2007, 1083 patients with aortic aneurysm disease were referred to a tertiary care university hospital. Of these, 162 (119 men; mean age 76 years) were high-risk patients with AAAs anatomically suitable for EVAR. Following comprehensive consultation with the patient, the family, and the primary physician, elective treatment was selected: OR (n=52), EVAR (n=66), or BMT (n=44). Outcomes were compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and a parameter that measured the quality time spent without symptoms of disease or toxicity of treatment (Q-TWIST). RESULTS: Four-year freedom from aneurysm-related death following EVAR (96.7%) was markedly better compared to BMT (66.8%; p=0.002) and was similar to OR (93.9%, p=0.483). Four-year freedom from major adverse clinical events was significantly better with EVAR (78%) compared with BMT (28%; p=0.001) and was equivalent to OR (75%; p=0.519). The 4-year intervention-free survival rate for EVAR (95%) almost matched OR (98%; p=0.410). At 4 years, Q-TWIST was 3.64 years for EVAR patients, 3.60 years for OR, and 2.22 years for BMT. Q-TWIST significantly improved with EVAR compared to OR (p<0.003). In the cost analysis, 52 high-risk patients were treated with OR over the 5-year period (2002-2007) at a total inpatient cost of 1,257,457 euro. The 66 patients treated with EVAR (14 patients more than OR) incurred a lower cost of 1,129,138 euro. Including the cost of follow-up over 4 years, the mean cost per patient was 18,476 euro for EVAR and 24,252 euro for OR, a savings of 5,776 euro per patient treated with EVAR. CONCLUSION: In high-risk patients, EVAR reduces aneurysm-related death compared to BMT. Equated to the gold standard of open repair, EVAR, as a "one-time procedure," substantially reduces operative morbidity, hospital stay, costs, and utilization of intensive care facilities if performed in a high-volume center.     

腹主动脉瘤开放手术和腔内修复术的短期随访研究

目的:比较腹主动脉瘤(AAA)腔内修复术(EVAR)和开放手术(OR),术后6个月内的疗效。方法:选择同时满足OR和EVAR手术条件的AAA患者共100例,随机分配接受OR或EVAR手术,随访至术后6个月,记录分析两组术中情况、病死率、全身并发症及手术相关并发症。结果:至术后6个月,仅OR组死亡1例,两组病死率差异无统计学意义。EVAR组中位手术时间更短、出血量及输血量更少(P<0.05)。EVAR组患者可以更早出院,但是花费也远高于OR组(P<0.05)。EVAR组围术期全身并发症发生率略低于OR组(16.4%vs.20.5%),但手术相关并发症高于OR组(29.5%vs.12.8%),差异无统计学意义。随访至术后6个月,两组各项并发症情况差异无统计学意义。结论:对于AAA来说,OR与EVAR手术都是安全有效的治疗方法。EVAR手术在围术期显示出微创手术的优势。     

Similar cost for elective open and endovascular AAA repair in a population-based setting.

PURPOSE: To compare cost differences between elective open repair (OR) and endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm in a population-based setting. METHODS: Clinical data and hospital-related costs (pre-, peri-, and postoperative) were analyzed for 109 consecutive AAA procedures (98 men; mean age 73 years, range 48-95; mean aneurysm diameter 61 mm, range 42-120) performed from 2001 to 2005 (58 OR, 51 EVAR) in our primary catchment area. Data were obtained through case records and hospital accounting systems. Nonparametric bootstrap was used for cost comparison. RESULTS: EVAR patients were older (76 versus 70 years, p<0.001) and had more comorbidities (ASA class 2.6 versus 2.3, p = 0.025). OR patients more often had anatomically complex aneurysms (52% versus 14%, p<0.001). Comparison of data with diagnosis-based reimbursement levels nationally and internationally indicated adequate cost level in the study. No difference was observed in total cost between OR and EVAR (euro29,786 versus euro26,382; p = 0.336). Preoperative cost was lower for OR compared to EVAR (euro661 versus euro1494, p = 0.002). OR patients had higher cost of intensive care [36% (euro8921) of perioperative cost versus 7% (euro1460), p = 0.001], while EVAR had higher implant cost [36% (euro7468) versus 2% (euro448), p<0.001]. Mean follow-up was 2.5 years (range 0.5-5.4). Mean postoperative cost was similar (OR euro4613 versus EVAR euro4403, p = 0.209; 16% and 17% of total cost, respectively). Postoperative cost after OR was high early on, with lower cost thereafter. Postoperative cost after EVAR was more homogeneously distributed, leveling off at euro500 to euro1000 annually over 5 years. CONCLUSION: In a population-based setting, total cost was similar for OR and EVAR. There were, however, important differences in patient characteristics and cost structure.     

Sexual dysfunction after conventional and endovascular AAA repair: results of the DREAM trial.

PURPOSE: To assess sexual function in the first postoperative year after elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open repair (OR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). METHODS: In the Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management (DREAM) trial, 153 patients (141 men; mean age 71 years, range 53-85) were randomly allocated to EVAR (n=77) or OR (n=76). Sexual functioning was evaluated preoperatively and at 5 times in the first postoperative year (3, 6, 13, 26, and 52 weeks) using a questionnaire derived from the Medical Outcomes Study. The proportions of patients reporting sexual dysfunction for any of 5 aspects (interest, pleasure, engagement, orgasm, and erection) and any increase in the magnitude of dysfunction were compared between EVAR and OR. RESULTS: Preoperatively, the proportion of patients reporting sexual dysfunction in at least 1 aspect was 66% for the OR group and 74% in the EVAR group (p=NS). Surgery had a clear impact on sexual dysfunction. The proportion of patients reporting sexual dysfunction on at least 1 aspect increased to 79% in the OR group and 82% in the EVAR group. The magnitude of sexual dysfunction increased in both groups on all 5 aspects at 3 weeks postoperatively, but this was more pronounced in the OR group (interest: OR p=0.038 vs. EVAR p=0.071; pleasure: OR p=0.009 vs. EVAR p=0.065; engagement: OR p=0.006 vs. EVAR p=0.054; orgasm OR p=0.023 vs. EVAR p=0.112, and erection: OR p=0.046 vs. EVAR p=0.030). At 6 weeks, the OR group still reported a significant increase in 3 aspects (pleasure p=0.031, engagement p=0.010, and orgasm p=0.003), whereas the EVAR group no longer showed a significant difference. From 3 months on, both groups had returned to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR and open elective AAA repair both have an impact on sexual function in the early postoperative period. After EVAR, recovery to preoperative levels is faster than after open repair, but at 3 months, sexual dysfunction levels are similar in both groups.     

Surgical Versus Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Evidence to Guide the Optimal Approach for the Individual Patient

The choice between an open surgical and an endovascular approach for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair remains an individualized clinical decision. As the technology and applications of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) continue to evolve, so does the literature investigating its outcomes. Multiple high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing EVAR to open surgical repair (OSR) have now been published with long-term follow-up. Experience with ruptured aneurysms and the use of complex endografts is growing as well. This review is an up-to-date compilation of pertinent clinical trials for practitioners placed in the context of individual patient considerations to guide the choice of an optimal approach to the management of AAAs.     

Paradigm shifts in abdominal aortic aneurysm management based on vascular registries

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a relatively common and potentially fatal disease. The management of AAA has undergone extensive changes in the last two decades. High quality vascular surgical registries were established early and have been found to be instrumental in the evaluation and monitoring of these changes, most notably the wide implementation of minimally invasive endovascular surgical technology. Trends over the years showed the increased use of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) over open repair, the decreasing perioperative adverse outcomes and the early survival advantage of EVAR. Also, data from the early EVAR years changed the views on endoleak management and showed the importance of tracking the implementation of new techniques. Registry data complemented the randomized trials performed in aortic surgery by showing the high rate of laparotomy‐related reinterventions after open repair. Also, they are an essential tool for the understanding of outcomes in a broad patient population, evaluating the generalizability of findings from randomized trials and analysing changes over time. By using large‐scale data over longer periods of time, the importance of centralization of care to high‐volume centres was shown, particularly for open repair. Additionally, large‐scale databases can offer an opportunity to assess practice and outcomes in patient subgroups (e.g. treatment of AAA in women and the elderly) as well as in rare aortic pathologies. In this review article, we point out the most important paradigm shifts in AAA management based on vascular registry data.     

Endografting increases total volume of AAA repairs but not at the expense of open surgery: experience in more than 1000 patients.

PURPOSE: To compare the volume of open graft replacements (OGR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) versus endovascular aneurysm repairs (EVAR) over time and after modifying selection criteria. METHODS: A review was conducted of 1021 consecutive patients who underwent AAA repair from 1989 through 2002: 496 elective OGRs for infrarenal AAAs (STANDARD), 289 elective EVARs for infrarenal AAAs, 59 complex OGRs for suprarenal AAAs, and 177 emergent OGRs for ruptured AAAs. Patients from 1995 to 2002 were divided into 2 groups based on shifting treatment strategies; 454 patients were treated by STANDARD or EVAR at the surgeon's discretion between 1995 and 2000 (post EVAR). The second group comprised 161 patients treated in 2001-2002 after the introduction of "high-risk" screening criteria (age > or = 72 years, diabetes mellitus, renal dysfunction, impaired pulmonary function, or ASA class IV) that dictated EVAR whenever anatomically feasible. For comparison, 170 STANDARD repairs performed in the 6 years prior to EVAR served as a control. RESULTS: While surgery for ruptured AAAs remained fairly stable over the 14-year period, the number of patients undergoing elective repair increased due to the implementation of EVAR. During the 6 years after its introduction, EVAR averaged 34.3 patients per year; after 2001, the annual frequency of EVAR increased to 41.5 (p > 0.05). In like fashion, the rate of STANDARD repairs increased to 41.3 patients per year versus 28.3 before EVAR (p = 0.032). ASA class IV patients increased by almost 9 fold in the recent period versus pre EVAR (p = 0.006). The overall mortality after elective infrarenal AAA repair decreased between the pre and post EVAR periods (6.5% versus 3.7%, p > 0.05) and fell still further to 1.2% in the most recent period (p = 0.021 versus pre EVAR). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of an EVAR program increases the total volume of AAA repairs but does not reduce open surgical procedures. By allocating patients to EVAR or open repair based their risk factors, mortality was markedly reduced.     

Endovascular Treatment versus Open Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: The Influence of Fitness in Decision Making

Two methods of repair are currently available for an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), open aneurysm repair and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The decision making depends on the balance of risks and benefits. The treating physician must take into account the patient''s life expectancy, the patient''s fitness, the anatomic suitability that makes endovascular repair possible, and finally the patient''s preference. The patient''s fitness is an important variable predicting the outcome of AAA surgical reconstruction. The hypothesis is that the impact of risk factors upon perioperative mortality might differ between patients undergoing open repair and endovascular repair. The purpose of this review article is to investigate whether fitter patients with a large AAA benefit more from having endovascular rather than open repair. According to the available data, there is emerging evidence that patients at high medical risk for open repair may benefit from EVAR while in low risk patients with suitable anatomy for EVAR, both techniques have similar effects. There is rising evidence that a patient with ruptured AAA would benefit more from an endovascular procedure if eligible, and thus fitness in such emergencies is not the first priority but anatomical suitability for EVAR.     

The Impact of Atrial Fibrillation on Hospitalization Outcomes of Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

ObjectiveWe aimed to study the impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) on hospitalization outcomes of abdominal aortic artery (AAA) endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) at a large-scale sample size representative of the entire United States (U.S.) population.MethodsWe included all adults who were hospitalized in the U.S. for AAA repair with EVAR between 2016 and 2017 using the International Classification of Diseases—10th Revision, Clinical procedural diagnosis codes. The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were stroke, myocardial infarction, respiratory failure, acute kidney injury (AKI), bleeding event, vascular complications, aortic dissection, length of stay (LOS), and hospitalization cost. Hospitalization outcomes were modeled using logistic regression for binary outcomes and Poisson or log-gamma regression for count or right-skewed numeric outcomes, respectively.ResultsWe included a total of 39,330 records for patients with AAA who underwent EVAR. There were 5.940 patients with AF. On multivariable analysis, EVAR patients with AF had significantly higher odds for mortality with adjusted OR 2.06 (95%CI: 1.09–3.91). They also had significantly higher odds for AKI (A-OR: 1.79 (95%CI: 1.38–2.32), p < 0.001), acute myocardial infarction (A-OR: 2.72 (95%CI: 1.39–5.32), p = 0.004), post procedural bleedings (A-OR: 1.51 (95%CI: 1.20–1.89), p < 0.001), LOS (1.35 (95%CI: 1.24–1.47) p < 0.001) and higher cost (A-OR: 1.06 (9% CI, 1.03–1.09) p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in risk of stroke, vascular complications, and aortic dissection.ConclusionAF is an important independent predictor for mortality and adverse outcomes in patients with AAA undergoing EVAR.     

Endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysms: State of the art

Opinion statement  Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) continue to be a leading cause of death, with increasing incidence and prevalence. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) now represents the most common method of AAA repair in the United States. Ongoing improvements in endovascular stent-graft technology have occurred since the first published report of EVAR in 1991. These improvements have led to multiple US Food and Drug Administration-approved devices, streamlined operative techniques, and extended applicability of EVAR. Despite these facts, basic anatomic considerations still eliminate many patients from being offered EVAR. Distinct advantages of EVAR over open repair have been demonstrated, including a less invasive operative exposure, decreased transfusion requirements, shortened intensive care unit and hospital stay, and decreased perioperative mortality. It is our opinion that in 2009, anatomically suitable patients should be offered EVAR as first-line therapy, except for the less common scenario of the young and fit patient, for which open repair should be strongly considered. Use of EVAR for ruptured AAAs also has shown promise, yielding survival results commensurate with the best single-center results with open repair for rupture. However, questions remain regarding the long-term efficacy of EVAR in preventing aneurysm-related death for all patients treated with this technique. As device improvements and technical advances continue, it is reasonable to expect that long-term results will improve as well. Furthermore, the advent of fenestrated and multi-branch endograft technology is expanding indications, and will continue to enlarge the percentage of patients who will be considered acceptable candidates for EVAR. Lastly, randomized clinical trials are under way to determine whether the generally accepted threshold of 5.5 cm for elective open AAA repair should be decreased in patients who are candidates for EVAR. Until further data emerge, standard guidelines for elective aneurysm repair should remain the norm.     

Late aneurysm rupture after repressurization of a thrombosed stent-graft.

PURPOSE: To report late abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture after endovascular stent-graft repair despite complete thrombotic stent-graft occlusion. CASE REPORT: A 65-year-old man underwent successful endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with a Stentor device in 1995. In the interim course, the patient developed complete thrombotic stent-graft occlusion, which was treated with an axillobifemoral bypass. After 8 years, the patient presented with a reperfused and ruptured infrarenal AAA. Open repair was performed, with a good clinical result and exclusion of the AAA. CONCLUSION: Thrombosed stent-grafts and aneurysms can transmit systemic arterial pressure and cause late rupture. Lifelong surveillance is mandatory in EVAR patients.     

Experience with endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in nonagenarians.

PURPOSE: To report a single-institution experience with endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (EVAR) in nonagenarians. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients >90 years old undergoing EVAR over an 8-year period at a major academic medical center. The patient population was investigated for the presence of various comorbidities, initial aneurysm size, successful aneurysm exclusion, perioperative complications, disposition, endoleaks, secondary interventions, and overall survival. RESULTS: EVAR was performed in 18 male nonagenarians (mean age 92.4 years, range 90- 95). Mean aneurysm diameter was 7.3 cm (range 5.5-9.8). The cohort had an average of 3.2 comorbid conditions. Sixteen patients were treated electively, while 2 patients underwent emergent repair for contained rupture and bleeding aortoenteric fistula, respectively. Immediate technical success was 100%. Perioperative local/vascular complications occurred in 4 (22%) patients. Perioperative systemic complications occurred in 3 (17%) patients. There were 2 (11%) perioperative (<30 days) deaths. Three (17%) patients required secondary interventions. Mean survival in patients who expired during the follow-up period beyond the first 30 days was 34 months (range 8-78). Mean survival in 8 patients who are still alive is 17.4 months (range 9-39). CONCLUSION: Endovascular AAA repair in nonagenarians is associated with a high rate of technical success and relatively low morbidity rate. Survival times following successful hospital discharge are significant. Suitable patients over 90 years of age may benefit from an endovascular AAA repair.     

Sequential trans‐catheter aortic valve implantation and abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Aortic stenosis in the elderly population is an increasing problem, with many patients being considered too high risk for surgery, and therefore being denied treatment. A percutaneous method of treatment in the form of trans‐catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is becoming an increasingly attractive option in this group of patients. Although, TAVI has been shown to be successful and improve cardiovascular haemodynamics, assessment of other comorbidities in this susceptible group of patients is essential to ensure good clinical outcomes. The presence of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in our patient was an example of an important comorbidity which could have a significant impact on the outcome of TAVI, if not managed appropriately. The increased systolic pressure post successful TAVI will result in an increased strain within the AAA with an increased risk of rupture. Therefore, a timely management strategy for the AAA was necessary. Our case is of sequential TAVI followed by Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The patient underwent uncomplicated TAVI. There was complete abolition of trans‐aortic gradient. EVAR was successfully undertaken three weeks post TAVI. The patient made an excellent recovery and remained well at six months follow‐up. Our case highlights the importance of a detailed assessment in all patients prior to consideration for TAVI and the importance of having a management strategy for both pathologies tailored to the patient. This case demonstrates the benefits of development of trans‐catheter techniques for two different conditions. Future developments including reduction of sheath size reduction and EVAR and TAVI device evolution, may enable simultaneous treatment of aortic stenosis and abdominal aortic aneurysm as a combined percutaneous procedure under local anaesthetic. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Spiral-CT angiography to assess feasibility of endovascular aneurysm repair in patients with ruptured aortoiliac aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate spiral computed tomography (SCT) angiography for assessment of feasibility of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with ruptured aortoiliac aneurysm (AAA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: 24 patients (mean age 74 years; range, 69 to 82 years) with suspicion of ruptured AAA and stable hemodynamics were preoperatively examined by using a SCT scanner in the emergency room. SCT angiography was performed from the suprarenal aorta to the femoral bifurcation after a fixed injection delay time of 30 seconds. After that a venous phase SCT scan, beginning at the last image position and ending at the upper thoracic aperture, was performed. RESULTS: The mean acquisition time of the SCT scan was 80 seconds (range 70 to 100 seconds), the mean overall procedure time, including image reconstruction, 5 minutes (range, 4 to 6 minutes). 2D images were directly evaluated during CT data acquisition, and 3D image reconstructions within 10 minutes (range, 8 to 11 minutes) after the SCT scan. AAA rupture was assessed in 14/24 patients (58%): in 10/14 patients (71%) rupture was contained to the retroperitoneum, and in 4/14 patients (29%) intraperitoneal rupture was observed. Successful EVAR was performed in 6/14 patients (43%) with ruptured AAA, and in 8/10 patients (80%) without ruptured AAA. Open surgery was exclusively performed in 6/24 patients (25%) with inappropriate anatomy for EVAR and in 4/24 patients (17%) with intraperitoneal rupture. CONCLUSIONS: Spiral computed tomography angiography is a reliable technique to assess feasibility of endovascular aneurysm repair in patients with ruptured aortic aneurysm. However, it can only be recommended for patients with stable hemodynamics, despite of the short acquisition time.     

Aortic compliance following EVAR and the influence of different endografts: determination using dynamic MRA.

PURPOSE: To utilize dynamic magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) to characterize aortic stiffness (beta) and elastic modulus (Ep) as indexes of wall compliance during the cardiac cycle and determine any influence of different endograft designs or the presence of endoleaks on these indexes. METHODS: Eleven consecutive patients (11 men; median age 74 years, range 63-78) with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) selected for endovascular repair were scanned pre- and postoperatively. Aortic area and diameter changes during the cardiac cycle were determined using dynamic MRA at 4 levels: 3 cm above the renal arteries, between the renal arteries, 1 cm below the renal arteries, and at the level of maximum aneurysm sac diameter. Ep and beta were calculated. Data are presented as median (range); p<0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Preoperatively, Ep and beta were significantly higher at the level of the aneurysm sac compared to all other levels (p<0.05). Following EVAR, stiffness increased at this level (p<0.05). After implantation, patients with an Excluder endograft demonstrated Ep and beta measurements at the aneurysm neck that were 94% and 60% higher, respectively, compared to those with a Talent (p<0.05) endograft. The presence of an endoleak had no effect on Ep or beta. CONCLUSION: This study introduces the feasibility of dynamic MRA imaging-based calculations of aortic elastic modulus and stiffness. AAA patients demonstrate increased Ep and beta at the level of the aneurysm sac. EVAR results in increased aneurysm sac Ep and beta. Stent-graft design seems to alter Ep and beta within the aneurysm neck, which may have consequences for endograft durability. The presence of an endoleak does not seem to have an effect on Ep or beta.     

Use of dynamic computed tomography to evaluate pre- and postoperative aortic changes in AAA patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair.

PURPOSE: To utilize dynamic computed tomographic angiography (CTA) on pre- and postoperative endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) patients to characterize cardiac-induced aortic motion within the aneurysm neck, an essential EVAR sealing zone. METHODS: Electrocardiographically-gated CTA datasets were acquired utilizing a 64-slice Philips Brilliance CT scanner on 15 consecutive pre- and postoperative AAA patients. Axial pulsatility measurements were taken at 2 clinically relevant levels within the aneurysm neck: 2 cm above the highest renal artery and 1 cm below the lowest renal artery. Changes in aortic area and diameter were determined. RESULTS: Significant aortic pulsatility exists within the aneurysm neck during the cardiac cycle. Preoperative aortic area increased significantly, with a maximum increase of up to 12.5%. The presence of an endograft did not affect aortic pulsatility (p=NS). Postoperative area also changed significantly during a heart cycle, with a maximum increase of up to 14.5%. Diameter measurements demonstrated an identical pattern, with significant pre- and postoperative intracardiac pulsatility within and above the aneurysm neck (p<0.05). An increase in maximum diameter change up to 15% was evident. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing EVAR experience aortic diameter changes within and above the aneurysm neck. The presence of an endograft does not abrogate this response to intracardiac pressure changes. Static CT imaging may not adequately identify patients with large aortic pulsatility, potentially resulting in endograft undersizing, stent-graft migration, intermittent type I endoleaks, and poor patient outcomes. The current standard regime of 10% to 15% oversizing based on static CT may be inadequate for some patients.     

Endovascular Aortic Repair in Nonagenarian Patients

BackgroundThe increasing proportion of elderly patients being treated for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in the endovascular era is controversial.ObjectivesThis study compared 30-day outcomes of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in nonagenarians (NAs) with non-nonagenarians (NNAs).MethodsThis retrospective analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database included EVAR procedures performed from 2011 to 2017. Multivariate logistic regression in the unadjusted cohort, followed by propensity-score matching (PSM), was performed. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major adverse events.ResultsA total of 12,267 patients were included (365 NAs). Ruptured aneurysms accounted for 6.7% (n = 819): 15.7% (n = 57) in NAs versus 6.5% (n = 762) in NNAs (p < 0.001). Mean aneurysm diameter was 6.5 ± 1.8 cm in NAs versus 5.8 ± 1.7 cm in NNAs (p < 0.001). The unadjusted 30-day mortality was 9.9% in NA versus 2.2% in NNAs (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed age ≥90 years (odds ratio [OR]: 3.36), male sex (OR: 1.78), functional status (OR: 4.22), pre-operative ventilator dependency (OR: 3.80), bleeding disorders (OR: 1.52), dialysis (OR: 2.56), and ruptured aneurysms (OR: 17.21) as independent predictors of mortality. After PSM, no differences in 30-day mortality (intact AAA [iAAA]: 5.3% NA vs. 3% NNA [p = 0.15]; ruptured AAA [rAAA]: 38% NA vs. 28.6% NNA [p = 0.32]) or 30-day major adverse events (iAAA: 7% NA vs. 4.6% NNA [p = 0.22]; rAAA: 28% NA vs. 36.7% NNA [p = 0.35]) were observed.ConclusionsAge was identified as an independent predictor of 30-day mortality after EVAR on multivariate analysis. However, no differences were found after PSM, suggesting that being ≥90 years of age but with similar comorbidities to younger patients is not associated with a higher short-term mortality after EVAR. Age ≥90 years alone should not exclude patients from EVAR, and tailored indications and carefully balanced risk assessment are advised.     

Candidates and major determinants for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in Korean patients

The purpose of this study was to determine what proportion of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) would be eligible for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and to examine the major determinants for suitability of EVAR with the currently available indications. We retrospectively reviewed 3-D reconstructed computed tomography angiography of 88 patients with an atherosclerotic AAA who underwent open repair or EVAR between October 2003 and October 2010 at the Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Of the 88 patients, 71 (80.7%) were treated with open repair and 17 (19.3%) were treated with EVAR. The rate of minor complications, postprocedural intensive care unit stay, and total hospital stay were significantly lower in the EVAR group. When the suitability of EVAR was reevaluated using morphologic criteria, a total of 33 (37.5%) patients were considered eligible for EVAR. Multivariate analysis revealed that proximal neck length, proximal neck angle, and aneurismal sac size were independent determinants for suitability of EVAR. Taking into account the increased clinical experience and the availability of new devices, EVAR would be applicable in about 40% of atherosclerotic AAA cases in this series of Korean patients. Accurate identification of candidates for EVAR by detailed preoperative evaluation, especially for morphologic characteristics, is essential.     

Change in aneurysm diameter after stent-graft repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.

PURPOSE: To compare the changes in aneurysm size following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for ruptured versus elective abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). METHODS: Aneurysm sac diameter was measured from computed tomographic (CT) scans in 14 hemodynamically stable patients (14 men; mean age 74+/-7 years, range 60 to 83) prior to emergent stent-graft repair for ruptured AAA. The aneurysm diameter change was followed postprocedurally with serial CT and the outcomes compared to 74 AAA patients (58 men; mean age 74+/-7 years, range 56 to 87) having elective EVAR in the same time period. The mean rate of sac decrease (mm/month) was calculated for each group. RESULTS: There were 3 postoperative deaths in the ruptured AAA cohort, leaving 11 patients available for follow-up analysis (mean 16 months, range 2-49). Eight (73%) patients with ruptured AAA demonstrated significantly decreased (>5 mm) aneurysm diameters compared with 32 (43%) elective cases (p=0.07) followed a mean 20 months (range 3-51). The mean rate of sac diameter decrease was 1.50+/-1.03 mm/month in the rupture group versus 0.73+/-0.86 mm/month in the elective group (p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that ruptured AAAs treated with stent-graft experience sac regression at a higher rate compared with electively treated AAA. The reasons for these findings remain unclear.     

Early and midterm results after open and endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms in a comparative analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare early and midterm results of open versus endovascular aortic repair of ruptured abdominal aneurysms (rAAA). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of 58 consecutive patients with rAAA who were treated with open or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) at a single center between January 2000 and December 2005. Patients without definitive signs of rupture (symptomatic patients) were excluded from the study. Twenty-nine patients (21 men; median age 71 years) were treated using endovascular techniques (EVAR group) and 29 (28 men; median age 71 years) with open repair (OR group).The hemodynamic status at the time of admission was evaluated with respect to blood pressure, pulse rate, and hemoglobin level to reduce selection bias. Patients underwent follow-up by clinical examination and computed tomography. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality rate was 31% (9/29) in each group (p = 1.0); the morbidity rates also did not differ between groups [16 (55.2%) EVAR vs. 18 (62.1%) OR; p = 0.9]. There was 1 (3.4%) primary conversion in the EVAR group and 7 (24.1%) endoleaks [3 (10.3%) primary; 4 (13.8%) secondary]. There was no difference between the groups with regard to intensive care unit stay (4 days for EVAR vs. 3 days for OR, p = 0.98) or total hospital stay (9 days for EVAR vs. 12 days for OR, p = 0.69). After a mean follow-up of 40.25 months (range 1-70), the midterm mortality rates did not differ [5 (17.2%) EVAR vs. 3 (10.3%) OR, p = 0.41]. CONCLUSION: EVAR of rAAAs is feasible, with equal early and midterm mortality rates compared to open repair. When a defined patient selection is used for rupture, including hemodynamic status, there is no evidence of a better outcome with EVAR in emergency cases.