Long-term outcomes comparing endovascular and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in octogenarians

ObjectivePatients older than 80 years have significantly lower early mortality with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), but long-term results remain poorly studied. We analyzed the results of both emergent and elective AAA repair in patients aged 80 years or older who had at least 5 years of follow-up.MethodsRetrospective review of a prospectively collected vascular surgery database was performed to identify all patients who underwent elective repair of an AAA between 2007 and 2012 and were 80 years of age or older at the time of surgery. Open and EVAR groups were compared using univariate statistics.ResultsThe study cohort was composed of 314 patients 80 years of age or older (median, 83 years; interquartile range, 5 years) who underwent repair (96 open, 218 EVAR). The groups had similar comorbidities, except that EVAR patients were more likely to be male and open repair patients were more likely to have larger aneurysms. Compared with open repair, elective early postoperative mortality was significantly lower for EVAR patients (1% vs 14%; P < .001). Overall mean life expectancy was 5.9 years (EVAR, 5.8 years; open repair, 5.8 years; P = .98). The 1-year survival was significantly higher for EVAR (92.9%) than for open repair (84.1%; P = .02). The 2-year survival (EVAR, 83.4%; open repair, 74.6%; P = .07) and 5-year survival (EVAR, 57.8%; open repair, 60.3%; P = .98) did not differ between EVAR and open repair. Reintervention rates (EVAR, 18%; open repair, 2%; P = .05) were higher in the endovascular treatment group.ConclusionsEVAR results in an improved 1-year mortality in octogenarians compared with open repair, although 5-year survival is similar between the groups. With average life expectancies of >5 years and an 18% reintervention rate, diligent follow-up is required after EVAR even in elderly patients.     

Analysis of medical risk factors and outcomes in patients undergoing open versus endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE: The emergence of endovascular repair (ER) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has provided surgeons with a new technique that should ideally improve patient outcomes. To more accurately characterize the advantages of ER versus traditional/open AAA repair (TOR), we compared the preoperative medical risk factors (PMRFs) and perioperative outcomes (PO) of those patients undergoing elective treatment of infrarenal AAA with ER and TOR over a recent 18-month period at our center. METHODS: Through our institutional vascular surgery patient registry, all patients undergoing aortic aneurysm repair of any type between December 1999 and June 2001 were identified. Only those patients undergoing elective infrarenal AAA repair were analyzed. Hospital records were examined for all patients, and PMRF and PO were assessed via Society for Vascular Surgery/International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery reporting guidelines. Student t, chi(2), Fisher exact, or Wilcoxon rank sum tests were applied where appropriate to determine differences among PMRF and PO according to method of aneurysm repair. RESULTS: During the 18-month study period, a total of 199 aortic aneurysms were repaired at our institution. Ninety-nine elective infrarenal AAA repairs made up the study cohort (ER, n = 33; TOR, n = 66). When examined by method of aneurysm repair, no differences existed in demographics or AAA size. Patients undergoing ER had a significantly greater degree of preoperative pulmonary comorbidity than patients undergoing TOR (P <.001). However, no differences existed in terms of American Society of Anesthesiologists classification or cardiac (P =.52), cerebrovascular (P =.44), diabetic (P =.51), hypertensive (P =.90), hyperlipidemia (P =.91) or renal (P =.23) comorbidities between the two groups. Perioperative morbidity and mortality rates were also not significantly different by method of repair. ER was associated with shorter operative time, intensive care unit stay, and overall hospital length of stay (P <.0001). However, subsequent operative procedures related to the AAA repair were performed more frequently after ER (TOR = 1.5% versus ER = 15.2%; P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that ER offers improvements in hospital convalescent and operating room times but no beneficial impact on overall morbidity and mortality rates when similar PMRFs exist, especially when used at medical centers where low morbidity and mortality rates are already established for TOR. Other centers performing ER should undertake such an analysis to assess its impact on their patients.     

Perioperative and long-term outcomes after open conversion of endovascular aneurysm repair versus primary open aortic repair

BackgroundThe use of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has superseded that of open aneurysm repair (OAR) as the procedure of choice for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. However, significant rates of late reintervention and aneurysm rupture have been reported after EVAR, resulting in the need for conversion to OAR (C-OAR). To assess the relative effects of C-OAR on patients, we compared the outcomes of these patients to those of patients who had undergone P-OAR.MethodsThe data from all patients who had undergone C-OAR and P-OAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network database from 2003 to 2018 were queried. Multivariable logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to assess the perioperative long-term outcomes.ResultsA total of 4763 patients were included (91.4%, P-OAR; 8.6%, C-OAR). C-OAR was associated with a significant increase in the odds of perioperative mortality (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.7; P = .027) and renal complications (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2; P = .004) vs P-OAR. At 5 years, conversion was associated with a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.9; P < .001), aneurysmal rupture (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.1; P = .007), and reintervention (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.05-1.97; P = .022) compared with P-OAR. These results also persisted at 10 years, with conversion associated with a higher risk of mortality (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8; P < .001), rupture (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.8; P = .018), and reintervention (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1; P = .010).ConclusionsThe results from the present study have demonstrated that C-OAR is associated with a significantly higher risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with P-OAR. We found a significant increase in mortality, aneurysm rupture, and reintervention at 5 and 10 years of follow-up.     

Population-based long-term outcomes of open versus endovascular aortic repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveExisting data regarding endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) are conflicting in their findings. The purpose of this paper was to determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR vs open surgical repair (OSR) for treatment of rAAA.MethodsA population-based retrospective cohort study of all patients 40 years or more that underwent OSR or EVAR of rAAA in Ontario, Canada, from 2003 to 2016 was conducted. Administrative data from the province of Ontario was used as the data source. The propensity for repair approach was calculated using a logistic regression model including all covariates and used for inverse probability of treatment weighting. Cox proportional hazards regression was conducted using the weighted cohort to determine the survival and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-free survival of EVAR relative to OSR for rAAA up to 10 years after repair.ResultsA total of 2692 rAAA (261 EVAR [10%] and 2431 OSR [90%]) repairs were recorded from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2016. Mean follow-up for the entire cohort was 3.4 years (standard deviation [SD], 3.9 years), with a maximum follow-up of 14.0 years. OSR patients were followed for a mean of 3.5 years (SD, 4.0 years) and maximum of 14.0 years, and EVAR patients were followed for a mean of 2.7 years (SD, 2.7 years) and a maximum of 11.4 years. Median survival was 2.7 years overall, and 2.5 and 3.7 years for OSR and EVAR patients, respectively. There were no significant baseline differences between EVAR and OSR patients after inverse probability of treatment weighting. EVAR patients were at lower hazard for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.65; P < .01), and MACE (hazard ratio, 0.51, 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.66; P < .01) within 30 days of repair. There were no statistically significant differences between EVAR and OSR in the hazard for all-cause mortality or MACE from 30 days to 5 years, and 5 to 10 years. Despite this, the upfront mortality and MACE benefits of EVAR persisted for more than 4.5 years after repair.ConclusionsThis population-based cohort study using administrative data from Ontario, Canada, demonstrated lower hazards for all-cause mortality and MACE within 30 days of operation in favor of EVAR, but no differences in the mid- or longer-term results. More work is needed to understand and improve the long-term outcomes of ruptured endovascular aortic aneurysm repair and ruptured open surgical repair.     

Pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokine release in open versus endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND: Pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokine release occurs with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair although the relative contribution of each is currently poorly understood. Ischaemia-reperfusion injury is thought to play a greater role following open (OR) than endovascular (ER) repair, with resultant greater perioperative morbidity. METHODS: Thirty-two patients undergoing OR (n = 16) and ER (n = 16) of AAA were studied. Systemic venous (SV) blood was taken at induction (baseline), 0 h (last clamp off), 4, 24, 72 and 144 h, and femoral venous (FV) blood (indwelling catheter; lower torso venous effluent) at 0, 4 and 24 h. The cytokines interleukin (IL) 6, IL-8 and IL-10 were measured in these samples. RESULTS: In OR, SV and FV IL-6 increased from baseline to a peak at 24 h (SV 589 pg/ml (P = 0.001 versus baseline) and FV 848 pg/ml (P = 0.05)) before declining at 144 h. In ER, there was a similar pattern but the increase was smaller (24 h: SV 260 pg/ml (P = 0.003 versus baseline) and FV 319 pg/ml (P = 0.06)) at all equivalent timepoints compared with OR. IL-8 peaked earlier (4 h) from baseline in both groups before declining by 144 h, and significant differences between SV and FV were seen only in the OR group. IL-10 levels peaked in both groups at 24 h before declining at 144 h, and there were no significant locosystemic differences between the groups. CONCLUSION: Venous pro-inflammatory cytokine changes (IL-6) are consistent with significantly greater lower-torso reperfusion injury in patients undergoing OR. Smaller responses were seen after ER (IL-6 and IL-8), although both groups showed a similar anti-inflammatory response (IL-10); this pro- and anti-inflammatory imbalance may account for the increased morbidity associated with OR.     

腔内修复与开放手术治疗腹主动脉瘤的疗效比较

目的 比较腹主动脉瘤开放手术和腔内治疗的效果.方法 对223例分别行开放手术和腔内修复的腹主动脉瘤患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析,对手术相关情况、围手术期及随访中并发症发生率、生存率、生存质量以及与住院相关的费用进行了对比分析.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比较无显著差异(P>0.05);SF-36量表评估显示术后6个月开放手术组生活质量优于腔内治疗组,两组术后2年生存率比较无显著差异(P>0.05),但腔内修复组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;开放手术组术后6个月健康生存质量优于腔内修复组.     

腹主动脉瘤腔内修复与开放手术疗效比较

目的 比较腹主动脉瘤开放手术和腔内治疗的效果.方法 对2002年1月至2007年7月收治的223例分别行开放手术和腔内修复的腹主动脉瘤患者进行网顾性分析.手术组141例,男性118例,女性23例;腔内治疗组82例,男性66例,女性16例.对手术相关情况、围手术期并发症发生率、病死率、随访中并发症发生率等进行对比分析.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),围手术期并发症两组无显著差异(P>0.05),SF-36量表评估显示术后6个月开放手术组优于腔内治疗组,术后2年生存率两组无明显差异(P>0.05),但腔内修复组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个月健康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.     

高风险患者腹主动脉瘤手术与腔内治疗效果的比较

目的 比较高风险患者腹主动脉瘤(abdominal aortic aneurysm,AAA)手术治疗(opensurgical repair,OSR)与腔内治疗(endovascular aneurysm repair,EVAR)的效果,探讨高风险患者AAA治疗方式的选择.方法 利用(customized probability index,CPI)危险评分方法[1]筛选出我院1998年至2008年高风险患者55例,比较OSR组(20例)与EVAR组(35例)围手术期及术后近期结果.结果 OSR组随访率100%,平均随访6年3个月.EVAR组随访率94%,平均随访5年10个月.(1)手术时间高风险患者EVAR组(3.1±0.6)h短于OSR组[(4.9±0.9)h(P<0.05)];(2)EVAR组术中出血、ICU时间和住院时间均短于OSR组(P<0.01);(3)围手术期死亡率EVAR组(2.86%)明显低于OSR组(15.00%);(4)术后并发症发生率EVAR组(17%)明显低于OSR组(40%);(5)EVAR组术后并发症主要为内漏(8.57%);(6)OSR组并发症主要为心脏相关性疾病(25%).结论 EVAR对于高风险患者AAA的治疗可以更少的导致围手术期心血管事件的发生,降低围手术期的死亡率和并发症发生率.CPI可以相对准确评估血管手术围手术期死亡率和并发症的发生率,可用于指导围手术期的治疗策略.     

Functional status as a predictor of outcomes in open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Background

Functional status is a simple and rapidly assessable metric that may be used as a predictor for surgical outcomes. This study examined the association of functional status with short-term mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in octogenarians to characterize the utility of functional status as a means of preoperative risk assessment.

Activated coagulation during open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE: The study was conducted to determine activation of coagulation in patients undergoing open and endovascular infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: In a prospective, comparative study, 30 consecutive patients undergoing open repair (n = 15) or EVAR (n = 15) were investigated. Blood samples to determine fibrinopeptide A, fibrin monomer, thrombin-antithrombin complex, and D-dimer were taken up to 5 days postoperatively. Routine hematologic and hematochemical parameters as well as clinical data were collected. RESULTS: Both groups showed comparable demographic variables. Operating time was longer in open repair (249 +/- 77 minutes vs 186 +/- 69 minutes, P < .05). Perioperatively elevated markers of coagulation were measured in both groups. Fibrinopeptide A levels did not differ significantly between the groups (P = .55). The levels of fibrin monomer and thrombin-antithrombin complex were significantly higher in patients undergoing EVAR (P < .0001), reflecting increased thrombin activity and thrombin formation compared with open surgery. The D-dimer level did not differ significantly between the groups. These results were also valid after correction for hemodilution. CONCLUSION: These data suggest increased procoagulant activity in EVAR compared with open surgery. A procoagulant state may favor possible morbidity derived from micro- and macrovascular thrombosis, such as in myocardial infarction, multiple organ dysfunction, venous thrombosis and thromboembolism, or disseminated intravascular coagulation.