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.     

Renal response to open and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: a prospective study

Because of incompatible reports about the renal impairment to abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, we conducted a prospective study to determine the differences in renal response between open (OR) and endovascular (EVAR) aneurysm repair. In a prospective, nonrandomized, single-center study, we evaluated 485 patients with AAAs undergoing OR or EVAR between January 2000 and December 2005. Only electively performed procedures were analyzed in detail. The OR group included 229 patients (males/females 203/26, median age 69.8 [range 43-90] years, aneurysm diameter in median 57 [26-95] mm), and the EVAR group integrated 144 patients (males/females 129/15, 73.1 [49-90] years [p=.001], 55 [33-100] mm). Renal function was assessed by determinating the preoperative serum creatinine (SCr) level and SCr clearance according to Cockcroft-Gault. Postoperatively, SCr level and SCr clearance were determined at defined intervals, reported as highest postoperative SCr level, SCr level at time of discharge, lowest postoperative SCr clearance, and SCr clearance at time of discharge. The parameters of height, weight, diabetes, smoking habit, serum cholesterol level, and hemoglobin were not different between the groups. Significantly different were the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, the Society for Vascular Surgery Comorbidity Score, and the exposure to contrast dye. Moreover, significantly different were intraoperatively measured median blood loss (1,200 vs. 400 mL) and the median time of operation (164 vs. 135 min). Although, the preoperative SCr levels between the groups were not statistically different (OR group 1.0 [0.87-1.23] mg/dL [median, interquartile range], EVAR group 1.0 [0.9-1.3]; p > 0.05), the SCr clearance was (OR group 72.8 [58.2-98.8] mL/min, EVAR group 67.6 [51.3-85.1] mL/min; p = 0.007). In the postoperative period, SCr level did not change significantly in the OR group but did in the EVAR group to a level of 1.08 (0.9-1.36) mg/dL (p = 0.007). Similarly, SCr clearance decreased significantly in the EVAR group to a level of 66.7 (49.9-81.4) mL/min. These results were influenced by the stent graft design (deployment under the renal arteries vs. covering the renals with bared stents). Mortality was 3/229 in the OR group and 4/144 in the EVAR group. Acute renal impairment occurred in a subset of patients with AAAs with regard to the type of repair. EVAR showed a slight deterioration of renal function, but the evaluated tests are insensitive and without prognostic value concerning mortality or hospitalization. More sensitive markers of the differentiated renal functions (cystatin C for renal glomerular function, N-acetyl-ss-d-glucosamidase for proximal tubular function) should be evaluated in future studies.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

覆膜支架腔内隔绝和开腹手术治疗腹主动脉瘤破裂疗效比较

目的比较开腹手术和腔内隔绝术治疗腹主动脉瘤破裂的手术效果。方法 2000年3月-2011年7月,收治48例腹主动脉瘤破裂患者,其中40例行腹动脉瘤切除、人工血管移植术治疗(开腹组),8例行覆膜支架腔内隔绝术治疗(腔内隔绝组)。两组患者性别、年龄、瘤颈长度≤2 cm构成比、瘤颈成角≥60°构成比、髂外动脉严重扭曲构成比、术前收缩压、术前合并症组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),具有可比性。术后对两组患者输血量、手术时间、重症监护时间、术后并发症、二期手术率、术后24 h内死亡率和术后30 d内死亡率进行比较。结果两组术后24 h死亡率、术后30 d死亡率以及非移植物相关并发症发生率比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);但组间手术时间、输血量、重症监护时间、二期手术率及移植物相关并发症发生率比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论腔内隔绝术对解剖条件良好的腹主动脉瘤破裂患者是一种可行的手术方式,在输血量、手术时间、重症监护时间方面与传统开腹手术相比具有明显优势。     

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.     

Simultaneous endovascular exclusion of thoracic aortic aneurysm with open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of aneurysms at multiple sites within the aorta is problematic. METHODS: Between March 2002 and June 2003 in the Department of General, Vascular and Transplant Surgery, Medical University of Warsaw six patients with coexisting abdominal and descending thoracic aortic aneurysms underwent simultaneous open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair and endoluminal thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) repair. The indication for a combined procedure was a diagnosed descending TAA and AAA with no significant risk factors for open aortic surgery or technical contraindications for endovascular treatment of TAA. RESULTS: One patient died in the peri-operative period while the other five patients all recovered well after surgery and were discharged with both aneurysms excluded. CONCLUSION: Endovascular treatment of TAA combined with a simultaneous open AAA repair is an efficient and relatively safe treatment modality in patients with TAA and AAA disqualified from endovascular repair. The fact that thoracotomy is not a necessity significantly lowers the complication rate in these patients.     

Hospital costs for endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND: To evaluate hospital costs and reimbursement for open (OAAA) and endovascular (EVAAA) repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. STUDY DESIGN: Review of all patients who underwent OAAA or EVAAA in two teaching hospitals during the period January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2000, was completed for the following: demographics, Diagnosis Related Group (DRG), resource use, length of stay, hospital costs, and reimbursement data. RESULTS: There were 130 abdominal aortic aneurysm procedures performed. Fifty-seven (44%) OAAA were completed; EVAAA was attempted in 73 (56%). Seventy EVAAA patients (96%) had endografts placed, and three (4%) required conversion to open repair. Significant differences were noted between OAAA and EVAAA in operative time (311.7 +/- 107.5 minutes versus 263.4 +/- 110.8 minutes, respectively, p = 0.02), ICU admission and length of stay (100%, 5.0 +/- 6.1 days versus 29%, 1.4 +/- 7.1 days, respectively, p = 0.003), and hospital length of stay (12.6 +/- 14.8 days versus 4.9 +/- 13.4 days, respectively, p = 0.002). Total costs were $17,539.00 for EVAAA and $9,042.00 for OAAA. EVAAA was profitable ($3,072.00) for Medicare DRG 110 classification, but significant loss occurred with DRG 111 ($5,065.00). Contract renegotiation with private payers (to cover graft costs) was necessary to avoid substantial per- patient loss ($12,108.00). Overall net per-patient profit for EVAAA was $737.00. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is significantly more expensive than open repair, with the major portion attributed to graft cost. Although ICU use and total length of stay decreased with EVAAA, overall costs were not substantially reduced. Hospitals must develop new financial strategies and improve the efficiency of their infrastructures in order to offer EVAAA.     

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

In treating uncomplicated abdominal aortic aenurysm, endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been employed as a good alternative to open repair with low perioperative morbidity and mortality. However, the aneurysm can enlarge or rupture even after EVAR as a result of device failure, endoleak, or graft migration. We experienced two cases of aneurismal rupture after EVAR, which were successfully treated by surgical extra-anatomic bypass.     

完全穿刺技术在腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术中的应用

目的 探讨应用Perclose ProGlide缝合器完全穿刺技术行腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术的安全性和有效性.方法 2008年5月至2010年4月,36例腹主动脉瘤患者完全穿刺下行腔内修复术治疗.其中男性30例,女性6例;平均年龄68岁.所应用的支架型血管包括:3例Endurant,13例Talent,20例Zenith.18～24 F的鞘管预置两把ProGlide,14～16 F的鞘管预置单把ProGlide.缝合动脉切口时取出鞘管并将线结下滑收紧.统计技术成功率、相关并发症及手术操作时间.术后3、6、9、12个月及其后每年进行CT血管造影随访.结果 20例局部麻醉,16例全身麻醉.68条股动脉共应用128把ProGlide,其中38条股动脉各应用2把,8条各应用3把,2条各应用4把,20条各应用1把.63条股动脉(63/68,92.6%)技术操作成功,2条中转切开缝合,3条出现血肿,无需手术处理.平均随访时间(12±3)个月.1例于术后3个月出现无症状的动脉夹层.结论 完全穿刺技术在腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术中的应用是安全和有效的.由于可能需要切开缝合,建议在杂交手术室中操作.     

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm after endovascular repair

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to present the experience with aneurysm rupture after deployment of Guidant/EVT (Guidant) endografts and review previously reported cases with other devices. METHODS: Records from Guidant/EVT clinical trials and postmarket approval databases from February 1993 to August 2000 were analyzed to identify patients with rupture and to extract pertinent data. Previously reported cases were obtained with a Medline search. RESULTS: Seven ruptures were found with Guidant/EVT devices. Five of these occurred among the 686 patients in US Food and Drug Administration protocols (group I) who were followed for a mean of 41.8 +/- 21.9 months and limited to the subgroup of 93 first generation tube endografts. Two ruptures occurred in group II (3260 patients after market approval with limited follow-up), specifically in the subgroup of 166 patients who underwent treatment with second generation tube grafts. No ruptures were found in patients with bifurcation or unilateral iliac implants followed for a mean of 37.5 months. All ruptures were caused by distal aortic type I endoleaks on the basis of attachment system fractures (first generation devices only), aortic neck dilatations, persistent primary endoleaks, migration, overlooked imaging abnormalities, refused reintervention, and poor patient selection. The mortality rate was 57% (4/7) overall and was 50% for surgical repair (3/6). A literature search identified 40 additional ruptures related to other devices, for a total of 47. All 44 that were documented with adequate data were caused by endoleaks (26 type I, 2 type II, 11 type III, and 5 source not reported). Other contributing factors were graft module separation and graft wall deterioration. The overall mortality rate for the combined series was 50%, with an operative mortality rate of 41%. CONCLUSION: Postendograft AAA rupture is infrequent, although the true incidence rate is unclear because of inadequate follow-up of individual device designs. Tube endografts should be limited to the rare patient with ideal anatomy, no other alternatives, and at high risk for standard open repair. Prevention of aneurysm rupture requires long-term surveillance with attention to subtle imaging abnormalities and the establishment of reliable follow-up protocols for specific devices. The outcome of postendograft aneurysm rupture is similar to that of rupture without prior endograft therapy.