Perioperative outcomes after open and endovascular repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysms in the United States during 2001

OBJECTIVE: Small patient numbers, mixed data from clinical trials, and longitudinal series representing institutional learning curves have characterized previous studies of early outcomes after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. We compared the perioperative outcomes of endovascular and open surgical AAA repair in an unselected sample of patients in a single calendar year using a national administrative database. METHODS: The 2001 National Inpatient Sample database was retrospectively reviewed. This database represents 20% of all-payer stratified sample of non-federal US hospitals. Patients older than 49 years were identified by primary diagnostic codes (International Classification of Disease, ninth revision [ICD-9], 441.4, intact, nonruptured AAA) and procedure codes (ICD-9 38.44 for open, 39.71 for endovascular repair). Patient demographic data (age, sex), comorbid conditions (ICD-9 coded), inpatient complications (ICD-9 coded), length of stay, final discharge disposition (home vs institution vs death), and hospital charges were examined with univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: In calendar year 2001, 7172 patients underwent either open (64%) or endovascular (36%) repair of intact, nonruptured AAAs. Despite comparable rates of preoperative comorbid conditions and a greater proportion of octogenarians (23% vs 16%%; P =.0001), morbidity (18% vs 29%; P =.0001) and mortality (1.3% vs 3.8%; P =.0001) were significantly lower for endovascular repair than for open repair. The median length of stay (2 vs 7 days; P =.0001) and the rate of discharge to an institutional facility versus home (6% vs 14%; P =.0001) were also much lower in the endovascular group than in the open repair group. At multivariate analysis, open AAA repair and age older than 80 years were strong independent predictors (P =.0001 for all) for death (open repair: odds ratio [OR], 3.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3-4.9; age: OR, 14.2; 95% CI, 3.5-58.1), complications (open repair: OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.7-2.1; age: OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.5-2.5), and not being discharged to home (open repair: OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.9-4.1; age: OR, 12.0; 95% CI, 7.0-20.4). Mean hospital charges were significantly greater (difference, $3337; P =.0009) for endovascular repair than for open repair. Extrapolated to the total number of endovascular AAA repairs performed during the single 2001 calendar year, this resulted in a staggering $50.3 million in additional hospital charges. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair of intact AAAs results in a significantly lower number of complications and deaths, shorter hospital stay, and improved likelihood of discharge to home, even in older patients, when compared with open surgical repair. These impressive gains in clinical outcome, however, are achieved at similarly impressive increases in health care costs.     

Durability of benefits of endovascular versus conventional abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

PURPOSE: Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair is reported to result in less initial patient morbidity and a shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) when compared with conventional AAA repair. We sought to examine the durability of this result during the intermediate follow-up interval. METHODS: The records of all admissions for all patients who underwent AAA repair during a 26-month interval were reviewed. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-seven (337) patients underwent procedures to repair AAAs (163 open and 174 endovascular). Endovascular procedures were performed with a variety of devices (Talent, 108; Ancure, 36; AneuRx, 26; Zenith, 2; and Cordis, 2) and configurations (141 bifurcated and 33 aortomonoiliac). The mean follow-up period was 10.6 months (endovascular repair) and 12.3 months (open repair). LOS did not significantly vary by device (P =.24 to P =.92) or configuration (P =.24). The initial median LOS for procedures was significantly shorter (P =.009) for endovascular repairs (5 days) than for open procedures (8 days). However, the patients who underwent endovascular repair were more likely to be readmitted during the follow-up interval when compared with patients who underwent open procedure. The readmission-free survival rate after AAA repair at 12 months was 95% for patients for open AAA repair versus 71% for patients for endovascular repair (P <.001). If the total hospital days were compared, including the initial and all subsequent AAA-related admissions, there was no significant difference for mean LOS for patients who underwent endovascular versus open AAA procedures (11 days versus 13.6 days; P =.21). The patients for endovascular AAA repair most commonly needed readmission for treatment of endoleak (n = 31), wound infection (n = 12), and graft limb thrombosis (n = 9). Although women had similar LOS to men for endovascular repair (P =.44), they had longer initial LOS for open AAA repair (15 versus 10 days; P =.03). After endovascular repair, women were more likely than men to be readmitted by 12 months (51% versus 71% readmission-free survival rate; P =.03) and they had longer LOS on readmission (13.2 versus 5.2 days; P =.006). No gender differences were identified for patients after open AAA repair regarding readmission-free survival rate (P =.09) or LOS on readmission (P =.98). CONCLUSION: Although initial LOS was shorter for the patients who underwent endovascular as compared with conventional AAA repair, this advantage was lost during the follow-up interval because of frequent readmission for the treatment of procedure-related complications, chiefly endoleak. These readmissions frequently involved the performance of additional invasive procedures. Gender differences existed regarding LOS and the likelihood of complications after open and endovascular AAA repair.     

Morbidity with retroperitoneal procedures during endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

PURPOSE: Retroperitoneal iliac procedures can enable successful endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in patients who otherwise would not be anatomically eligible. The purpose of this study was to determine perioperative outcome with adjunctive retroperitoneal procedures compared with standard bilateral femoral exposure. METHODS: Between August 1997 and November 2002, 164 patients underwent elective endovascular AAA repair at a single university medical center. Anatomic, demographic, and early postoperative outcome data gathered prospectively were analyzed. Thirty-two patients (20%) underwent 38 separate adjunctive retroperitoneal procedures. Indications included small external iliac arteries (16 of 32 patients; 50%) and concomitant iliac aneurysm that precluded fixation of the endograft limbs in the common iliac arteries (16 of 32 patients; 50%). The 38 procedures consisted of 8 iliac conduits only, 14 iliac conduits with iliofemoral bypass grafts, and 16 hypogastric revascularization procedures. Data for the study patients were compared with data for 132 patients who underwent endovascular AAA repair through femoral incisions. Primary end points were hospital length of stay, and early morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Retroperitoneal procedures enabled an additional 14% of patients with AAA to undergo endovascular techniques. However, there was a significantly higher proportion of women and patients at high risk for anesthesia (American Society of Anesthesiologists class IV or higher) in the group who underwent retroperitoneal procedures. On average, retroperitoneal procedures were associated with 2.6-fold greater blood loss, 82% longer procedure time, 1.5 days additional hospital stay, and 1.8-fold higher rate of perioperative complications, compared with endovascular AAA repair with femoral exposure alone. In contrast, early mortality was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive retroperitoneal procedures during endovascular AAA repair are associated with increased risk for complications and longer hospital length of stay, compared with AAA repair with standard femoral exposure only. They do not, however, increase early mortality, even in patients at high risk, and enable a larger subset of patients with AAA to undergo endovascular repair.     

Predictors of Early Discharge following Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Patients undergoing endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair have lower perioperative morbidity and leave the hospital earlier than patients undergoing open repair. However, potential complications require continuous surveillance of endografts and there are few data regarding their long-term fate. If an open operation were well tolerated, this might be a preferable alternative. The purpose of this study was to identify patients with lower morbidity and shorter hospital stay following open AAA repair and to analyze factors that might point to open repair as the preferred approach. We performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent AAA repair between 1995 and 2000 at our institution. All patients with ruptured aneurysms and those that required renal, celiac, or superior mesenteric reconstructions during the AAA repair were excluded. Patient demographics, preoperative comorbid conditions, intraoperative data, and postoperative complications were analyzed in detail. A total of 115 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was only one perioperative death (0.9%). The mean hospital stay was 8.1 days. A history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and longer operative time were independent factors associated with prolonged hospital stay. Forty-one patients (35.6%) left the hospital in 5 or less days. Compared to the group with hospital stay >5 days, these patients had a lower incidence of COPD (7.3% vs. 25.7%, p < 0.05) and smaller-size AAAs (5.6 vs. 6.4 cm, p < 0.0001), and were more often operated on via a retroperitoneal approach (61% vs. 40.5%, p < 0.05). Their time in the operating room was less (3.5 vs. 4.5 hr, p < 0.0001), and they had less estimated blood loss (750 vs. 1500 cc, p < 0.001) and fewer transfusions (0.95 vs. 2.45 units, p < 0.0001). Patients without COPD and smaller AAAs that can be repaired via a retroperitoneal approach have a lower incidence of perioperative complications and a shorter hospital stay following open AAA repair. Until long-term results for endografts are available, our data suggest that these patients are well served with an open repair.     

Minimal incision aortic surgery.

PURPOSE: In this study we evaluated the clinical and economic impact of minimal incision aortic surgery (MIAS) for treatment of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) and aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD). METHOD: Fifty patients with either AAA (34) or AIOD (16), prospectively treated with the MIAS technique, were compared with 50 patients (40 AAA and 10 AIOD) treated in the same time period with long midline incision and extracavitary small bowel retraction. MIAS was also compared with a cohort of 32 patients with AAA treated by means of endoaortic stent-grafts. Outcomes and cost (based on metric mean length of stay) were compared for the open and endoaortic techniques. RESULTS: Patients who experienced no perioperative complications after the MIAS or endovascular repair technique had shorter hospital stays than patients with uncomplicated aortic repairs performed with a traditional long midline abdominal incision (3 days vs 3 days vs. 7.2 days). Hospital stay was also significantly shorter for the less invasive procedures when perioperative complications were included (4.8 days vs. 4.3 days vs 9.3 days). The MIAS and endovascular aortic repair groups had a shorter intensive care unit stay (< or = 1.0 day) and a quicker return to general dietary feeding (2.5 days) than patients treated with standard open repair (1.8 days, 4.7 days). The overall morbidity for the MIAS technique (14%) and endovascular technique (21%) was not significantly different from standard open repair (24%). The mortality rate for the different treatment groups was equivalent (MIAS, 2%; endovascular repair, 3%; standard repair, 2%). The MIAS was more cost-efficient than standard open repair ($12,585 vs $18,445) because of shorter intensive care unit and hospital stay and was more cost-efficient than endoaortic repair ($12,585 vs $32,040) because of reduced, direct intraoperative costs. CONCLUSIONS: MIAS is as safe as standard open or endovascular repair in the treatment of AAA and AIOD. MIAS is more cost-efficient than standard open or endoaortic repair.     

Impact of endovascular repair on early outcomes of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to examine the impact of the introduction of endovascular treatment on the early outcomes of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) during 2 consecutive time periods at a single institution. METHODS: The hospital records of a single tertiary care center from 1997 to 2004 were retrospectively reviewed, and 36 consecutive patients who underwent treatment for acute ruptured AAA were identified. They were divided into 19 (53%) patients who were all treated with conventional open surgery from 1997 to 2001 (early) and 17 (47%) patients who were treated either with open (n = 4, 24%) or endovascular (n = 13, 76%) methods from 2002 to 2004 (late). All endovascular repairs were performed with commercially available bifurcated devices. Outcome measures included death, major complications, disposition at discharge (home or extended care facility), procedure time, blood loss, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: Age, sex, and AAA size were similar between the 2 groups. Perioperative mortality in the early and late periods were 37% versus 12%, respectively (P =.13); rates of major complications were 84% versus 65%, respectively (P =.26); and discharge to home rather than extended care facility was 32% versus 59%, respectively (P =.18). Median procedure times (275 vs 149 minutes, P <.01), blood loss (3800 vs 138 mL, P <.0001), and length of stay (18 vs 6 days, P <.05) were all higher during the early period than in the late period. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study suggests that introduction of endovascular therapies may be potentially beneficial in the overall treatment scheme of patients with ruptured AAAs. However, longer follow-up and larger cohorts are needed to better establish its feasibility and efficacy compared with conventional open surgical repair.     

Identifying Patients With AAA With the Highest Risk Following Endovascular Repair

Introduction: It has been demonstrated that endovascular repair of arterial disease results in reduced perioperative morbidity and mortality compared to open surgical repair. The rates of complications and need for reinterventions, however, have been found to be higher than that in open repair. The purpose of this study was to identify the predictors of endograft complications and mortality in patients undergoing endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair; specifically, our aim was to identify a subset of patients with AAA whose risk of periprocedure mortality was so high that they should not be offered endovascular repair. Methods: We undertook a prospective review of patients with AAA receiving endovascular therapy at a single institution. Collected variables included age, gender, date of procedure, indication for procedure, size of aneurysm (where applicable), type of endograft used, presence of rupture, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, major medical comorbidities, type of anesthesia (general, epidural, or local), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and length of hospital stay. These factors were correlated with the study outcomes (overall mortality, graft complications, morbidity, and reintervention) using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Results: A total of 199 patients underwent endovascular AAA repair during the study period. The ICU stay, again, was significantly correlated with the primary outcomes (death and graft complications). In addition, length of hospital stay greater than 3 days, also emerged as a statistically significant predictor of graft complications in this subgroup (P = .024). Survival analysis for patients with AAA revealed that age over 85 years and ICU stay were predictive of decreased survival. Statistical analysis for other subgroups of patients (inflammatory AAA or dissection) was not performed due to the small numbers in these subgroups. Conclusions: Patients with AAA greater than 85 years of age are at a greater risk of mortality following endovascular repair. In addition, patients who are expected to require postprocedure ICU admission are also at an increased risk of mortality following endovascular repair.     

Open aneurysm repair at an endovascular center: value of a modified retroperitoneal approach in patients at high risk with difficult aneurysms

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to evaluate elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair and the role of a modified retroperitoneal approach in a high-volume endovascular center. METHODS: We reviewed prospectively collected data for 175 elective infrarenal open AAA repairs performed over 6 years. A transperitoneal approach was used in 118 procedures, and a modified retroperitoneal approach was used in 57 procedures. The incisional modification, which facilitated repair in patients with massive obesity, scarring, or ventral hernia, included a higher, more posterolateral location in the ninth intercostal space. Risk factors that added to the difficulty of the repair included aneurysms with a short (<1 cm) or no aortic neck in 45 patients; large, angled or flared aortic neck in 32 patients;, tortuous and calcified iliac arteries in 6 patients; morbid obesity in 10 patients; low ejection fraction (15%-30%) in 14 patients; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, with forced expiratory volume at 1 second less than 55% in 4 patients; previous laparotomy in 18 patients; previous left-sided colectomy in 11 patients; large right iliac aneurysm in 8 patients; large ventral hernia in 8 patients; pelvic irradiation in 4 patients; failed endovascular repair in 5 patients; and previous failed open repair attempt in 2 patients. Many of these factors occurred with significantly greater frequency (P =.04-.001) in the retroperitoneal group. All factors were correlated with outcome. RESULTS: Despite these risk factors, overall 30-day mortality was 3.5% (retroperitoneal group, 3.8%), and mean length of hospital stay was 9 days (retroperitoneal group, 8 days). There was no significant correlation between mortality or length of stay and any of the mentioned risk factors (P >.2). CONCLUSION: In the era of endovascular aneurysm exclusion, open AAA repair is generally used to treat anatomically complex or difficult aneurysms, many of which are present in patients at high risk. Despite this combination of anatomic and systemic risk factors, the modified retroperitoneal approach facilitates treatment in difficult circumstances and enables open AAA repair to be performed with acceptable mortality and morbidity.     

"Fast-track" abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

The "open" repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) continues to evolve with incorporation of less invasive methods for surgical exposure and the use of patient care pathways for shorter hospital stays. In a consecutive series of 30 patients with infrarenal AAA, a "fast-track" hospital care pathway was implemented that included the following: AAA exposure via a limited (10-15 cm) retroperitoneal incision, use of self-retaining retractor and special vascular clamps/instruments, and prosthetic graft endoaneurysmorrhaphy. Excellent anatomic exposure for graft implantation was achieved with an average operative time of 175 minutes. Use of oral metoclopromide and patient-controlled epidural analgesia resulted in patient ambulation and oral diet on postoperative day 1. Average length of hospital stay was 3.6 days (range: 3-7 days), and no patient required readmission for AAA repair-related or gastrointestinal problems. One patient died (30-day mortality rate of 3.3%) caused by delayed recognition of a splenic injury, and 1 patient sustained an intraoperative ureter injury that was repaired and stented. Although stent-graft exclusion for AAA repair has become popular, the major advantages of endovascular therapy, such as shorter ICU and hospital stays, earlier dietary feeding, and reduction in postoperative morbidity, can also be achieved by using minimal incision exposure for AAA interposition grafting combined with traditional hand-sewn vascular anastomoses. "Fast-track" AAA repair is applicable to the majority of patients with infrarenal AAAs, and vascular surgeons can easily master the technique of "limited" incision retroperitoneal exposure. This approach avoids the concerns of endovascular stent-graft durability and the mandatory vascular imaging follow-up to identify endoleak development and AAA enlargement.     

Evolving strategies for the treatment of aortoenteric fistulas

BACKGROUND: Aortoenteric fistulas (AEFs) are a rare but often fatal cause of gastrointestinal bleeding. Operative repair of AEF has been historically associated with extremely high morbidity and mortality. We reviewed our experience of open surgical and endovascular treatment of AEF to compare outcomes over a contemporaneous time period. METHODS: Over a 9-year period between January 1997 and January 2006, 16 patients (11 men and 5 women) were diagnosed with and treated for AEFs. Seven patients underwent open surgical repair, and nine, with anatomically suitable lesions, underwent endovascular repair. The outcome after treatment of these patients was investigated for survival, perioperative complications, length of hospital stay, and long-term disposition. RESULTS: Three primary and 13 secondary AEFs were treated. The mean time from the initial aortic operation until AEF diagnosis was 5.9 years (range, 0.7-12.2 years) for patients with secondary AEFs. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 18.8%. One intraoperative death and one in-hospital death secondary to multisystem organ failure occurred in patients undergoing open repair. One in-hospital death related to persistent sepsis occurred in the endovascular group. The overall perioperative complication rate was 50.0%. Complications in the open group included sepsis, renal failure, bowel obstruction, and pancreatitis. Complications in the endovascular group were related to persistent sepsis. The mean in-hospital length of stay was significantly longer for patients undergoing open repair compared with endovascular repair (44.0 vs 19.4 days; P = .04). Four (80%) of five patients who were discharged from the hospital in the open group were placed in skilled nursing facilities, and seven (87.5%) of eight patients discharged in the endovascular group returned home. The median overall survival after hospital discharge was 23.1 months. There were no late aneurysm-related deaths or late deaths related to septic complications. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AEFs have limited overall survival. Endovascular therapy offers an alternative to open surgical repair, seems to be associated with decreased perioperative morbidity and mortality and a shorter in-hospital stay, and allows for acceptable survival given the presence of coexisting medical comorbidities. Furthermore, endovascular repair provides a therapeutic option to control bleeding and allow for continued intervention in a stabilized setting.     

A statewide experience with endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: rapid diffusion with excellent early results

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare survival and outcomes of endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in New York State (NYS). METHODS: We used the NYS discharge dataset Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) to analyze the outcomes of elective admission for nonruptured (International Classification of Diseases-9th revision [ICD-9] 441.4) open aneurysm repair (38.44) and endovascular aneurysm repair (39.71) during the years 2000-2002. The ICD-9 code for endovascular repair was introduced in late 2000, thus capturing 3 months of empiric data for 2000. RESULTS: There has been a significant increase in the number of AAA procedures performed in NYS (comparing before and after 2000: average, 1419 vs 1701; P =.0001), temporally coinciding with the implementation of training programs after US Food and Drug Administration approval of endovascular grafts and the new payment code. From 2000 to 2002 the number of NYS hospitals performing endovascular repairs increased from 24 to 60. By 2002 there were more endovascular repairs being performed than open repairs (871 vs 783). The target population for these surgical interventions showed interesting differences. In 2002, women had a 43% chance of receiving an endograft, whereas men had a 55% probability. The use of endovascular repair over the observation period was relatively constant in patients younger than 65 years. In patients older than 65 years, and especially those older than 75 years, endovascular use increased substantially, so that by 2002 older patients were more likely to undergo endovascular repair than open repair. Patients who underwent endovascular repair had significantly more hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia than did patients who underwent open repair. Yet the mean length of stay for endovascular procedures was approximately 3.6 days, and for open procedures was about 10.3 days, across all 3 years (P = <.0001). Moreover, patients who underwent endovascular repair had statistically fewer postoperative complications and significantly lower mortality. In-hospital mortality in 2001 was 3.55% for open repair and 1.14% for endovascular repair (P =.0018), and in 2002 these rates were 4.21% versus 0.8% (P <.0001), respectively. CONCLUSION: This dataset suggests that endovascular AAA repairs are being performed in a patient population with a higher frequency of comorbidities. However, endovascular repairs still are associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality, fewer postoperative complications, and a dramatically shorter length of stay. These results suggest that, despite the rapid diffusion of this new technique, early perioperative outcomes may be superior to those with conventional open repair. However, prospective clinical studies are needed to confirm these insights, and such studies may require the infrastructure of consortia of hospitals or society-based registries.     

Reduction of in-hospital mortality among California hospitals meeting Leapfrog evidence-based standards for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND: The Leapfrog Group established evidence-based standards for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, including targets for case volume and perioperative beta-blocker usage. The purpose of this study was to determine whether meeting these benchmarks correlated with improved patient outcomes over time. METHODS: We studied California hospitals that responded to consecutive Leapfrog Group Hospital Quality and Safety Surveys between 2000 and 2005. Survey results of compliance with Leapfrog standards were linked to patient outcomes for AAA repair using the California state discharge database for the corresponding years. A random-effects Poisson regression analysis was performed to measure the effect of meeting beta-blocker and case volume standards on hospital mortality and average length of stay after elective open and endovascular AAA repair (EVAR) during the early (2000-2002) and later (2003-2005) phase of Leapfrog implementation. RESULTS: Among 140 hospitals that performed open AAA repair, 25 (17.4%) met the Leapfrog case volume standard, 32 (22.2%) were compliant with routine perioperative beta-blocker use, 5 hospitals (3.5%) met both criteria, and 78 control hospitals failed to meet either standard. After controlling for temporal differences in hospital and patient characteristics, hospitals that implemented a policy for perioperative beta-blocker usage were found to have an estimated 51% reduction of in-hospital mortality (relative risk, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.99; P < .05) after open AAA repair cases compared with control hospitals over time. There was no improvement in mortality outcomes over time, however, after open AAA repair in hospitals meeting case volume standards. Among 111 California hospitals in which EVAR was performed, there was an estimated 61% reduction of in-hospital mortality over time (relative risk, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-1.80) among hospitals meeting Leapfrog case volume standards compared with control hospitals, although these results did not reach statistical significance. Finally, there was no reduction in length of hospital stay over time after either EVAR or open AAA repair for hospitals meeting Leapfrog standards compared with control hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: This population-based study supports the effectiveness of meeting Leapfrog AAA repair standards towards improving mortality outcomes over time and suggests that their impact depends upon procedure type. Further studies are needed to help promote the standardization of evidence-based measures that may improve vascular surgery outcomes.     

Cost-effectiveness of conventional and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: results of a randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Two randomized trials have shown similar mid-term outcomes for survival and quality of life after endovascular and conventional open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). With reduced hospital and intensive care stay, endovascular repair has been hypothesized to be more efficient than open repair. The Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management (DREAM) trial was undertaken to assess the balance of costs and effects of endovascular vs open aneurysm repair. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing endovascular repair with open repair in 351 patients with an AAA and studied costs, cost-effectiveness, and clinical outcome 1 year after surgery. In addition to clinical outcome, costs and quality of life were recorded up to 1 year in 170 patients in the endovascular repair group and in 170 in the open repair group. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated for cost per life-year, event-free life-year, and quality adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Uncertainty regarding these outcomes was assessed using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Patients in the endovascular repair group experienced 0.72 QALY vs 0.73 in the open repair group (absolute difference, 0.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.038 to 0.058). Endovascular repair was associated with additional euro 4293 direct costs (euro 18,179 vs euro 13.886; 95% CI, euro 2,770 to euro 5,830). Most of the bootstrap estimates indicated that endovascular repair resulted in slightly longer overall and event-free survival associated with respective incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of euro76,100 and euro 171,500 per year gained. Open repair appeared the dominant strategy in costs per QALY. CONCLUSION: Presently, routine use of endovascular repair in patients also eligible for open repair does not result in a QALY gain at 1 year postoperatively, provides only a marginal overall survival benefit, and is associated with a substantial, if not prohibitive, increase in costs.     

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with open repair for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveThe Zenith Fenestrated Endovascular Graft (ZFEN; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) has expanded the anatomic eligibility of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Current data on ZFEN mainly consist of single-institution experiences and show conflicting results. Therefore, we compared perioperative outcomes after repair using ZFEN with open complex AAA repair and infrarenal EVAR in a nationwide multicenter registry.MethodsWe identified all patients undergoing elective AAA repair using ZFEN, open complex AAA repair, and standard infrarenal EVAR between 2012 and 2016 within the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted vascular module. Open complex AAA repairs were defined as those with a juxtarenal or suprarenal proximal AAA extent in combination with an aortic cross-clamping position that was above at least one renal artery. The primary outcome was perioperative mortality, defined as death within 30 days or within the index hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included postoperative renal dysfunction (creatinine concentration increase of >2 mg/dL from preoperative value or new dialysis), occurrence of any complication, procedure times, blood transfusion rates, and length of stay. To account for baseline differences, we calculated propensity scores and employed inverse probability-weighted logistic regression.ResultsWe identified 6825 AAA repairs—220 ZFENs, 181 open complex AAA repairs, and 6424 infrarenal EVARs. Univariate analysis of ZFEN compared with open complex AAA repair demonstrated lower rates of perioperative mortality (1.8% vs 8.8%; P = .001), postoperative renal dysfunction (1.4% vs 7.7%; P = .002), and overall complications (11% vs 33%; P < .001). In addition, fewer patients undergoing ZFEN received blood transfusions (22% vs 73%; P < .001), and median length of stay was shorter (2 vs 7 days; P < .001). After adjustment, open complex AAA repair was associated with higher odds of perioperative mortality (odds ratio [OR], 4.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-18), postoperative renal dysfunction (OR, 13; 95% CI, 3.6-49), and overall complication rates (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.3-7.5) compared with ZFEN. Compared with infrarenal EVAR, ZFEN presented comparable rates of perioperative mortality (1.8% vs 0.8%; P = .084), renal dysfunction (1.4% vs 0.7%; P = .19), and any complication (11% vs 7.7%; P = .09). Furthermore, after adjustment, there was no significant difference between the odds of perioperative mortality, postoperative renal dysfunction, or any complication between infrarenal EVAR and ZFEN.ConclusionsZFEN is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with open complex AAA repair, and outcomes are comparable to those of infrarenal EVAR. Long-term durability of ZFEN compared with open complex AAA repair warrants future research.     

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.     

Percutaneous closure devices for endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms: a prospective, non-randomized comparative study.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to describe and evaluate our preliminary results with a percutaneous arterial closure device as compared to those obtained with conventional femoral surgical cut down during endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between January 2004 and December 2006, 40 of 86 AAA patients selected for endovascular repair met the criteria for inclusion in this study. Nineteen of these patients (Group A) received a bifurcated endograft placed by direct puncture of the femoral arteries (38 femoral triangles) with closure by a Prostar((R)) percutaneous arterial closure device (Abbott). The other 21 patients (control group B) were managed with a bifurcated endograft placed by conventional open surgery (42 femoral triangles). Data concerning all 40 patients were collected prospectively and analyzed. RESULTS: The technical success rate was 92% (group A) vs 90% (group B), P=0.79. The incidence of perioperative complications was 16% (3/19) in group A and 14% (3/21) in group B (P=0.89). The mean hospital stay was 5.8 days in group A and 7.8 days in group B (P=0.05). The difference in the length of hospitalisation was associated with reduced cost for the percutaneous group (5579.60 euros vs. 7503.60 euros; P=0.04), that counterbalanced the cost induced by the Prostar XL((R)) suture mediated device. Mean follow-up in both groups was 12 months. The overall incidence of locoregional complications after one year of follow-up was 11% (2/19) in group A and 19% (4/21) in group B (P=0.45). CONCLUSION: This study confirms the feasibility and safety of total percutaneous endovascular AAA repair. Our preliminary results suggest that the costs paid by healthcare providers for endovascular AAA repair might not be increased with the selective use of percutaneous closure devices.     

Cost of endovascular versus open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND: Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is a new minimally invasive method of aneurysm exclusion that has been adopted with increasing enthusiasm, and with acceptable clinical results. It is important, however, to assess new health-care technologies in terms of their economic as well as their clinical impact. The aim of the present study was to compare the total treatment costs for endovascular (EVR) and open surgical repair (OSR) for AAA. METHODS: A retrospective review of patient hospital and outpatient records for 62 patients undergoing either EVR (n = 31) or OSR (n = 31) was carried out between June 1996 and October 1999. Resource utilization was determined by a combination of patient clinical and financial accounting data. Costs were determined for preoperative assessment, inpatient hospital stay, cost of readmissions and follow up, and predicted lifetime follow-up costs. RESULTS: The two groups were well matched, with no significant difference with respect to age, gender, maximum aneurysm diameter or comorbid factors. Endovascular treatment resulted in a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay (mean: 0.07 vs 2.9 days, P < 0.001; mean: 6.0 vs 13.4 days, P < 0.001; respectively) and fewer postoperative complications (P = 0.003). The cost of hospitalization was less for EVR ($7614 vs $15092, P < 0.001), but this was offset by the more costly vascular prosthesis ($10284 vs $686). Costs were higher for the EVR group for preoperative assessment ($2328 vs $1540, P < 0.001) and follow up ($1284 vs $70, P < 0.001). Lifelong follow up could be expected to cost an additional $4120 per patient after EVR. Total lifetime treatment costs including costs associated with readmission for procedure-related complications were higher for EVR ($26909 vs $17650). CONCLUSION: Treatment costs for endovascular repair are higher than conventional surgical repair due to the cost of the vascular prosthesis and the greater requirement for radiological imaging studies.     

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.     

Indications,risk factors,and outcomes of 30-day readmission after infrarenal abdominal aneurysm repair

Objective

Reducing readmissions is an important target for improving patient care and enhancing health care quality and cost-effectiveness. The aim of this study was to assess rates, risk factors, and indications of 30-day readmission after open aortic repair (OAR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs).