Endovascular aneurysm repair at 5 years: does aneurysm diameter predict outcome?

OBJECTIVE: The appropriate size threshold for endovascular repair of small abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is unclear. We studied the outcome of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) as a function of preoperative aneurysm diameter to determine the relationship between aneurysm size and long-term outcome of endovascular repair. METHODS: We reviewed the results of 923 patients treated in a prospective, multicenter clinical trial of EVAR. Small aneurysms were defined according to two size thresholds of 5.5 cm and 5.0 cm. Two-way analysis was used to compare patients with small aneurysms (<5.5 cm, n = 441) to patients with large aneurysms (> or =5.5 cm, n = 482). An ordered three-way analysis was used to compare patients with small AAA (<5.0 cm, n = 145), medium AAA (5.0 to 5.9 cm, n = 461), and large AAA (> or =6.0 cm, n = 317). The primary outcome measures of rupture, AAA-related death, surgical conversion, secondary intervention, and survival were compared using Kaplan-Meier estimates at 5 years. RESULTS: Median aneurysm size was 5.5 cm. The two-way comparison showed that 5 years after EVAR, patients with small aneurysms (<5.5 cm) had a lower AAA-related death rate (1% vs 6%, P = .006), a higher survival rate (69% vs 57%, P = .0002), and a lower secondary intervention rate (25% vs 32%, P = .03) than patients with large aneurysms (> or =5.5 cm). Three-way analysis revealed that patients with small AAAs (<5.0 cm) were younger (P < .0001) and were more likely to have a family history of aneurysm (P < .05), prior coronary intervention (P = .003), and peripheral occlusive disease (P = .008) than patients with larger AAAs. Patients with smaller AAAs also had more favorable aortic neck anatomy (P < .004). Patients with large AAAs were older (P < .0001), had higher operative risk (P = .01), and were more likely to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = .005), obesity (P = .03), and congestive heart failure (P = .004). At 5 years, patients with small AAAs had better outcomes, with 100% freedom from rupture vs 97% for medium AAAs and 93% for large AAAs (P = .02), 99% freedom from AAA-related death vs 97% for medium AAAs and 92% for large AAAs (P = .02) and 98% freedom from conversion vs 92% for medium AAAs and 89% for large AAAs (P = .01). Survival was significantly improved in small (69%) and medium AAAs (68%) compared to large AAAs (51%, P < .0001). Multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling revealed that aneurysm size was a significant independent predictor of rupture (P = .04; hazard ratio [HR], 2.195), AAA-related death (P = .03; HR, 2.007), surgical conversion (P = .007; HR, 1.827), and survival (P = .001; HR, 1.351). There were no significant differences in secondary intervention, endoleak, or migration rates between small, medium, and large AAAs. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative aneurysm size is an important determinant of long-term outcome following endovascular repair. Patients with small AAAs (<5.0 cm) are more favorable candidates for EVAR and have the best long-term outcomes, with 99% freedom from AAA death at 5 years. Patients with large AAAs (> or =6.0 cm) have shorter life expectancy and have a higher risk of rupture, surgical conversion, and aneurysm-related death following EVAR compared to patients with smaller aneurysms. Nonetheless, 92% of patients with large AAAs are protected from AAA-related death at 5 years. Patients with AAAs of intermediate size (5 to 6 cm) represent most of the patients treated with EVAR and have a 97% freedom from AAA-related death at 5 years.     

Elective treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm with endovascular or open repair: the first decade

OBJECTIVES: The development of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) as an alternative to open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) has led to an increasing number of patients being treated by this less-invasive technique. It was anticipated that EVAR would reduce the operative mortality and morbidity compared with open repair. This study examined the initial 10-year experience in one center when both techniques were available to determine if there were advantages to one technique or the other, putting the results into the perspective of routine clinical care of patients with infrarenal AAA. METHODS: From June 1996 to May 2005, 677 patients underwent elective repair of their infrarenal AAA, of which 417 were treated with open repair and 260 by EVAR. Demographic and aneurysm-specific data, comorbidities, operative morbidity, mortality, and late outcome were analyzed. RESULTS: Open repair patients were 2 years younger (71 vs 74 years, P < .001), had larger aneurysms (6.01 +/- 1.38 cm vs 5.45 +/- 0.99 cm, P < .001), greater familial predisposition, a higher incidence of current smokers, and a higher incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than the EVAR group. There were no differences in renal function, hypertension, coronary artery disease, or heart failure between the two groups. Overall operative mortality was 3.1%; operative mortality per group was 3.5% for open and 2.7% for EVAR (P = .627). Procedure-related outcomes showed significant differences in operative blood loss and length of hospital stay in favor of EVAR, and 95% of the EVAR patients were discharged home vs 83% in the open repair group (P < .001). A Kaplan-Meier log-rank analysis showed no difference in early or long-term survival between open repair and EVAR (P = .20), but did show a difference in mid-term (3-year) survival favoring open repair (P < .002). Survival analysis by age (<70 and > or =70 years) showed no difference between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Open repair and EVAR are both performed safely in patients treated for elective infrarenal AAA. EVAR has the perioperative advantages of reduced blood loss, reduced length of intensive care unit and hospital stay, and increased number of patients discharged to home. The mid-term survival advantage of open repair has been observed in other reports and deserves further study.     

Perioperative complications and early outcome after endovascular and open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND: Open repair (OR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is a major surgical procedure with elevated morbidity and a low but definite mortality. Advocates of endovascular repair (EVAR) claim decreased complication rates and outcome equal to OR. METHODS: Data of all patients with infrarenal AAA that was treated electively, both with OR and EVAR, at Mayo Clinic Rochester between December 1, 1999 and December 1, 2001 were retrospectively reviewed. Thirty-day morbidity and mortality and early clinical outcomes were assessed and compared. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-five patients underwent treatment: 261 patients, including 229 males and 32 females (mean age: 73 years; range: 52 to 90 years) underwent OR, and 94 patients including 85 males and 9 females (mean age: 77 years; range: 61 to 98 years) underwent EVAR (AneuRx: 53, Ancure: 38, Endologix: 3). Median AAA size was 57 mm in both groups. There were more high-risk patients in the EVAR group (27% vs 14%, P =.007). Thirty-day mortality rates were 1.1 % (3/261) for OR and 0 for EVAR (P = NS). Cardiac and pulmonary complications were less frequent after EVAR (11% vs 22%, P =.02, and 3% vs 16%, P =.001, respectively), but graft-related complications were more frequent (13% vs 4%, P =.002). The association between type of repair and cardiac, pulmonary, and graft complications remained statistically significant after adjusting for age, gender, and high-risk status. The multivariate odds ratios (EVAR vs OR) for cardiac, pulmonary, and graft complications were 0.35 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17 to 0.74), 0.14 (95% CI: 0.04 to 0.47), and 3.81 (95% CI: 1.51 to 9.58), respectively. Primary and secondary patency and freedom-from-reintervention rates at 1 year were lower after EVAR (83% vs 98%, P <.001; 96% vs 99%, P =.02; 65% vs 93%, P <.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Both elective OR and EVAR can be performed with low mortality, but cardiac and pulmonary complications are less frequent and less severe after EVAR. The tradeoff of EVAR is a higher rate of graft-related complications, with more reinterventions and a lower graft patency rate at 1 year. These results should be considered before EVAR is offered to patients with AAA.     

Clinical effect of abdominal aortic aneurysm endografting: 7-year concurrent comparison with open repair

OBJECTIVE: We compared the effectiveness and clinical outcome of open repair versus endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in achieving prevention of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA)-related death and graft-related complications. METHODS: Over 7 years from 1997 to 2003, 1119 consecutive patients underwent elective treatment of infrarenal AAAs, 585 with open repair and 534 with EVAR. Patients were regularly followed up at 1, 6, 12 months, and every 6 months thereafter, in EVAR group, and at 3 and 12 months, and yearly thereafter after open repair. Preoperative, intraoperative, and follow-up data were stored in a prospective database. RESULTS: Median follow-up was similar in the 2 groups: 33 months (interquartile range [IQR], 13-50 months) in the EVAR group vs 35 months (IQR, 15-54 months) in the open repair group. EVAR group patients were older than patients in the open repair group: 73 years vs 72 years (P = .04). There were statistical significant differences between the EVAR group and the open repair group with respect to AAA median diameter (52 mm vs 56 mm), coronary disease rate (46% vs 37%; P = .001), pulmonary disease rate (56% vs 38%; P < .0001), and American Society of Anesthesiologists IV score rate (16% vs 6%; P < .0001). Thirty-day mortality in the EVAR group was 0.9% (5 of 534 patients), compared with 4.1% (24 of 585 patients; P = .001) in the open repair group, and major morbidity was 9.1% (49 of 534 patients) vs 18.6% (109 of 585 patients; P < .0001), respectively. The incidence of secondary procedures in the EVAR group was 15.7%, compared with 3% in the open repair group (P < .0001). There were no deaths related to secondary procedures in either group. Six AAAs (1.1%) ruptured after EVAR, 3 of which were fatal; in the open repair group 1 patient (0.2%) underwent successful repeat operatation to treat iliac pseudoaneurysm rupture 5 years after the original procedure. Kaplan-Meier estimates for freedom from aneurysm-related death at 84 months were 97.5% in the EVAR group and 95.9% in the open repair group (log rank test, P = .008). Kaplan-Meier survival estimates at 84 months were 67.1% in the open repair group and 66.9% in the EVAR group (P = NS). At the same interval the risk for secondary procedures was 49.4% for the EVAR group and 7.1% for the open repair group. Of the 11 variables analyzed with logistic analysis, open surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-54.2; P = .002), American Society of Anesthesiologists IV score (HR, 7.1; 95% CI, 2.7-18.8; P = .0001), and age (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.13; P = .04) were positive independent predictors of perioperative mortality. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that at a maximum follow-up of 7 years, patients who undergo EVAR show lower perioperative and late aneurysm-related mortality compared with a younger and substantially healthier group of patients with aneurysms treated with open repair. The higher need for secondary procedures in the endovascular group did not affect superiority of the overall performance of EVAR in the early and late intervals.     

Early outcomes of endovascular versus open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-Private Sector (NSQIP-PS)

BACKGROUND: There remains no consensus on the appropriate application of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Information from administrative databases, industry-sponsored trials, and single institutions has inherent deficiencies. This study was designed to compare early outcomes of open (OPEN) versus EVAR in a contemporary (2000 to 2003) large, multicenter prospective cohort. METHODS: Fourteen academic medical centers contributed data to the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-Private Sector (NSQIP-PS), which ensures uniform, comprehensive, prospective, and previously validated data entry by trained, independent nurse reviewers. A battery of clinical and demographic features was assessed with multivariate analysis for association with the principal study end points of 30-day operative mortality and morbidity. RESULTS: One thousand forty-two patients underwent elective infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repairs: 460 EVAR and 582 OPEN. EVAR patients were older (74 vs 71 years, P < .0001), included more men (84.6% vs 79.6%, P < .05), and had a higher incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (25.4% vs 17.9%, P < .01). EVAR resulted in significantly reduced overall morbidity (24% vs 35%, P < .0001) and hospital stay (4 vs 9 days, P < .0001). Cardiopulmonary and renal function-related comorbidities had the expected significant impact on mortality for both procedures at univariate analysis ( P < .05). While crude mortality rates between EVAR and OPEN did not differ significantly (2.8% vs 4.0%) ( P = 0.32). After multivariate analysis, correlates of operative mortality included OPEN (odds ratio [OR], 2.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 5.78; P < .05), advanced age (OR, 1.11; P < .001), history of angina (OR, 5.54; P < .01), poor functional status (OR, 5.78; P < .001), history of weight loss (OR, 7.42; P < .01), and preoperative dialysis (OR, 51.4; P < .0001). EVAR also compared favorably to OPEN (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.58 to 2.89; P < .0001) for overall morbidity. CONCLUSION: Significant morbidity accompanies AAA repair, even at major academic medical centers. These data strongly endorse EVAR as the preferred approach in the presence of significant cardiopulmonary or renal comorbidities, or poor preoperative functional status.     

An analysis of standard open and endovascular surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in octogenarians

While elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair has been shown to be safe in selected octogenarians, very little is known about the role of endovascular AAA exclusion in this high-risk cohort. A retrospective review of our vascular surgical registry from January 1996 to December 2001 revealed 51 octogenarians that underwent infrarenal AAA repair. Since 1999 all octogenarians who presented for AAA repair were evaluated for preferential endovascular stent graft placement. Over the 6-year period, 35 patients underwent standard open repair while 16 patients were found to be anatomic candidates for and were treated with an endovascular stent graft. Hospital and office charts were reviewed to compare the endovascular cohort to the standard open cohort. Factors considered included patient comorbidities, perioperative data, and operative outcomes. Statistical analysis was done using Wilcoxon rank sum test and Fisher exact test. The median age for the entire group was 83 years. There were 11 females in the open group and 1 female in the endovascular group. There were no statistically significant differences in preoperative patient comorbidities between groups. Total mortality for the entire series was 11.8 per cent but this included 5 ruptured AAAs, all of which patients died, and 11 additional AAAs that were symptomatic, of which 1 patient died. Total nonruptured mortality for the entire series was 2.2 per cent (0% for the endo-group and 3.3% for the open group). There were statistically significant differences between the endovascular versus the open groups when comparing aneurysm diameter (5.6 cm vs. 6.2 cm; P = 0.016), estimated blood loss (225 cc vs. 2100 cc; P < 0.001), ICU days (0 vs. 3; P < 0.001), length of hospital stay (2 days vs. 12 days; P < 0.001), and patients with blood transfusions (1 vs. 27; P < 0.001). When comparing postoperative morbidities, 4 of the endovascular patients (25%) and 25 of the open patients (68.6%) had a complication (P = 0.006). In conclusion, endovascular stent graft treatment of nonruptured infrarenal AAAs in octogenarians led to significantly better outcomes and should probably be considered the preferred treatment whenever anatomically appropriate. Endovascular exclusion of ruptured AAAs may potentially improve future outcomes in this high-risk group.     

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.     

Abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in octogenarians: myth or reality?

AIM: We studied the thirty-day mortality and morbidity rate to assess the value of conventional open repair vs endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in an elderly population presenting with a ruptured, symptomatic or asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) undergoing emergency, urgent or elective repair. METHODS: During the period from January 2004 to May 2007, 329 consecutive patients were treated for AAA in our Department. Among these, 81 (24.6%) were aged >80 years (mean age 83.6, range 80-95 years). These older patients were divided into groups according to their clinical presentation: ruptured AAA group (rAAA) - 22 cases (4 emergency EVAR, 18 emergency open repair); symptomatic non-ruptured AAA group (sAAA) - 15 cases (11 urgent EVAR, 4 urgent open repair); asymptomatic AAA group (asAAA) - 44 cases (32 elective EVAR, 12 elective open repair). The main outcome measures were 30-day mortality and 30-day morbidity rate. RESULTS: The mortality rate following open surgery vs EVAR was 66.6% vs 50% (P=NS) in the rAAA group, 25% vs 0% (P=NS) in the sAAA group, and 9% vs 3.2% (P=NS) in the asAAA group. When comparing postoperative morbidities in the octogenarians, 3 of the patients that received EVAR (6.4%) and 15 of those that received open repair (48.4%) had a severe complication (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: The introduction of EVAR has considerably changed the balance of risks and benefits for AAA treatment. Our study confirms the high mortality rate for octogenarians with rAAA and haemodynamic instability, and supports the value of an active EVAR approach for octogenarians with AAA to prevent rupture. Moreover, the introduction of endovascular techniques as part of an overall treatment algorithm for ruptured AAAs appears to be potentially associated with improved outcomes in terms of mortality and morbidity as compared to open surgical repairs alone.     

Endovascular versus open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm with concomitant malignancy

BACKGROUND: The management of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and concurrent malignancy is controversial. This study retrospectively assessed the outcome of endovascular repair (EVAR) and open repair (OR) for the treatment of AAA in patients undergoing curative treatment for concomitant malignancies. METHODS: All patients who underwent surgery for a nonruptured infrarenal AAA of > or =5.5 cm and concomitant malignancy between 1997 and 2005 were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Identified were 25 patients (22 men; mean age, 70.3 years) with nonruptured infrarenal AAA of > or =5.5 cm (mean size, 6.4 cm) and concomitant malignancy amenable for curative treatment. EVAR was used to treat 11 patients, and 14 underwent OR. The EVAR patients had a smaller mean aneurysm size (5.9 cm vs 6.8 cm; P = .006) than the OR patients. The mean cumulative length of stay for all patients who received treatment for both AAA and cancer was 12.8 days (range, 4 to 26) for EVAR and 18.2 days (range, 9 to 42 days) for OR. In the EVAR group, no patients died perioperatively; in the OR group, three patients died perioperatively (21.4%; P = NS). Postoperative complications occurred in one patient in the EVAR group and in seven in the OR group for a morbidity rate, respectively, of 9.1% and 50% (P = .04). One late complication (9.1%) occurred in the EVAR group. The mean follow-up was 37.7 months (range, 16 to 60 months) in the EVAR group and 29.6 months (range, 11 to 55 months) in the OR group. At 1 and 2 years, survival rates were 100% and 90.9% in the EVAR group and 71.4% and 49% in the OR group (log-rank P = .103) CONCLUSIONS: With low morbidity and mortality, EVAR is a safe technique for the treatment of AAA in patients with concomitant malignancy and could be considered as an alternative to OR.     

Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal suprarenal cross-clamping for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm with a hostile infrarenal aortic neck

Infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with a hostile infrarenal aortic neck unfit for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are more likely to require open repair with suprarenal aortic cross-clamping. We compared the results of the transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approaches for repair of infrarenal AAA requiring suprarenal cross-clamping and the relative frequency of such techniques after incorporating EVAR into our clinical practice. From January 1998 through September 2005, 478 elective infrarenal aortic aneurysms were repaired. There were 160 (33%) open repairs (71% transperitoneal and 29% retroperitoneal) and 318 (67%) endovascular repairs. In 38 cases (24%) suprarenal cross-clamping was performed (47% transperitoneal and 53% retroperitoneal incisions) for a hostile infrarenal neck. A hostile aortic neck was defined as severe angulation (>60 degrees ), short neck (<15 mm), extensive calcification, or circumferential thrombus. The median age was 70 years; 47% were men; 16% had diabetes mellitus, 29% pulmonary disease, 53% coronary artery disease, and 11% renal insufficiency. The median aneurysm size was 6.0 cm. A retrospective analysis was performed to compare 30-day postoperative outcomes between the trans- and retroperitoneal patient cohorts. The results were determined for two time periods to assess whether open repair with suprarenal cross- clamping was being performed more frequently as a result of increased utilization of EVAR in the contemporary period. After 2002, EVAR increased from 60% to 71% (p = 0.04) while open repair declined from 40% to 29% (p = 0.01). The retroperitoneal approach doubled from 19% to 39%, while the transperitoneal approach decreased from 81% to 61% (p = 0.02). Suprarenal cross-clamping increased by 11% after 2002. There was no significant difference in age, sex, aneurysm size, or comorbidities between the trans- and retroperitoneal groups with suprarenal cross-clamping. The 30-day mortality was 2/38 (5%) and occurred only in the transperitoneal group. The transperitoneal approach was associated with significantly greater blood loss and longer suprarenal cross-clamp times (2,400 vs. 1,800 mL and 38.0 vs. 29.5 min; p = 0.03), but there were no significant differences in 30-day postoperative complications. In our 7 years' experience, there has been a gradual increase in the utilization of EVAR for infrarenal AAAs. At the same time, more infrarenal AAAs with hostile aortic necks requiring suprarenal aortic cross-clamping were encountered. In such instances, the retroperitoneal approach is safer, with less perioperative blood loss and shorter suprarenal cross-clamp time. This is likely attributed to better exposure of the suprarenal abdominal aorta, allowing a more secure proximal anastomosis.     

Complex endovascular aneurysm repair is associated with higher perioperative mortality but not late mortality compared with infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair among octogenarians

Objective

As our collective experience with complex endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has grown, an increasing number of older patients are being offered endovascular repair of juxtarenal aneurysms. Outcomes after complex EVAR in this older subpopulation are not well-described. We sought to specifically evaluate clinical outcomes after complex EVAR compared with infrarenal EVAR in a cohort of octogenarians.

Surveillance of small aortic aneurysms does not alter anatomic suitability for endovascular repair

OBJECTIVE: Small abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs; 4-5.4 cm) are more likely to be suitable for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) than large aortic aneurysms (>5.5 cm). The purpose of this study was to determine whether small AAA growth is associated with the development of morphologic characteristics that decrease eligibility for EVAR. METHODS: We studied 54 patients who underwent 2 or more computed tomography scans with 3-dimensional reconstruction during surveillance of small AAAs. Morphologic aortic aneurysm features and changes were measured according to Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards. Suitability for EVAR was determined by neck anatomy (diameter, length, and angulations), iliac artery morphology, and total aortic aneurysm angulation and tortuosity. RESULTS: The median age of the study cohort was 73 years (interquartile range [IQR], 65-77 years). The median follow-up period was 24 months (IQR, 15-36 months). The median small AAA diameter increased from 44.5 mm (IQR, 41-48 mm) to 48.9 mm (IQR, 45.7-52.0 mm). The median aortic neck diameter increased from 23.0 to 24.0 mm (P = .002), whereas median neck length decreased from 26.5 to 20.0 mm (P = .001). Aortic aneurysm median tortuosity index increased from 1.09 to 1.11 (P = .05). No significant changes in iliac artery morphology occurred. Overall, the anatomic suitability for endovascular repair did not significantly change during the study period (74% vs 69%; McNemar test; P = .25). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in aortic morphology are frequently associated with small AAA growth at mid-term follow-up, but such changes are minor and do not affect overall anatomic suitability for EVAR. These data reveal that continued surveillance of small AAAs does not threaten the window of opportunity for EVAR.     

Anatomic predictors for late mortality after standard endovascular aneurysm repair

ObjectiveAbdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) management involves a decision process that takes into account anatomic characteristics, surgical risks, patients' preferences, and expected survival. Whereas larger AAA diameter has been associated with increased mortality after both standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open repair, it is unclear whether survival after EVAR is influenced by other anatomic characteristics. The purpose of this study was to determine the importance of baseline anatomic features on survival after EVAR.MethodsAll patients treated at a tertiary teaching center with EVAR for intact standard infrarenal AAA from 2000 to 2014 were included. The civil data registry was queried to determine survival status; causes of death were obtained from death certificates. The primary study end point was to determine the impact of baseline morphologic features on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality after EVAR.ResultsThis study included 404 EVAR patients (12.1% women; mean age, 73 years) with a median follow-up of 5.8 years (interquartile range, 3.1-7.4 years). The 5- and 10-year overall survival rates for the entire population after EVAR were 70% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66%-75%) and 43% (95% CI, 37%-50%), respectively. Only AAA diameter >70 mm (hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; 95% CI, 1.20-3.56) was identified as an independent anatomic predictor of all-cause mortality. Death due to cardiovascular causes occurred in 60 (38.5%) patients. Aneurysm-related mortality was responsible for six of the cardiovascular-related deaths. In multivariable analysis, both neck diameter ≥30 mm (HR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.05-4.43) and AAA diameter >70 mm (HR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.34-4.46) were identified as independent morphologic risk factors for cardiovascular mortality, whereas >25% circumferential neck thrombus (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13-0.77) was protective.ConclusionsThis study suggests that patients with AAA diameters >70 mm are at increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. In addition, patients with infrarenal neck diameters ≥30 mm have a greater risk of cardiovascular mortality, although AAA-related deaths were not more frequent in this group of patients. Consequently, a more aggressive management of cardiovascular medical comorbidities may be warranted to improve survival after standard EVAR in these patients.     

Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Retrospective Assessment of Open Versus Endovascular Repair

Aortic stent graft repair has recently been applied as an alternative therapy for infrarenal ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs). We retrospectively assessed outcome in a continuous series at a single institution (an academic tertiary referral center) of patients with infrarenal rAAAs treated by either open or endovascular repair. Between October 1999 and July 2004, 24 patients were treated at the University of Alabama Hospital for infrarenal rAAA. They were treated by either open procedure (n = 15) or endovascular stent graft repair (n = 9). Outcome parameters included mortality, morbidity, procedure time, blood loss, and length of stay. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) was performed whenever the anatomy was deemed suitable and experienced personnel were available. Age (mean 70.8 years for EVAR vs. 72.2 years for open), gender (men 71% vs. women 75%), AAA size (mean 6.7 vs. 6.4 cm), early mortality (22% vs. 26%), and major morbidity (56% vs. 53%) were similar in both groups. Blood loss difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p = 0.0001). Our series supports the feasibility and short-term viability of EVAR for infrarenal rAAA when anatomy is suitable and patient and facility conditions are favorable. Presented at the Fifteenth Annual Winter Meeting of the Peripheral Vascular Surgery Society, Steamboat Springs, CO, January 28-30, 2005.     

To what extent has endovascular aneurysm repair influenced abdominal aortic aneurysm management in the state of Illinois?

PURPOSE: This study was performed using population-based data to determine the changing trends in the techniques for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in the state of Illinois during the past 9 years and to examine the extent to which endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has influenced overall AAA management. METHODS: All records of patients who underwent AAA repair (1995 to 2003 inclusive) were retrieved from the Illinois Hospital Association COMPdata database. The outcome as determined by in-hospital mortality was analyzed according to intervention type (open vs EVAR) and indication (elective repair vs ruptured AAA). Data were stratified by age, gender, and hospital type (university vs community setting) and then analyzed using both univariate (chi 2 , t tests) and multivariate (stepwise logistic regression) techniques. RESULTS: Between 1995 and 2003, 14,517 patients underwent AAA repair (85% for elective and 15% for ruptured AAA). The average age was 71.4 +/- 7.9 years, and 76% were men. For elective cases, open repair was performed in 86% and EVAR in 14%; and for ruptured cases, open repair in 97% and EVAR in 3%. Elective EVAR was associated with lower in-hospital mortality compared with open repair regardless of age. No differences were observed with age after either type of repair for a ruptured aneurysm. Men had a lower in-hospital mortality compared with women for open repair of both elective and ruptured aneurysms. For EVAR, the mortality of an elective repair was lower in men, but there was no difference after a ruptured AAA. In men, the difference in mortality between elective open repair and EVAR was significant; the type of institution did not influence outcome. Patients >80 years of age had a higher mortality after open repair for both elective and ruptured AAA and after EVAR of a ruptured AAA. The average length of stay was 9.9 days for open elective repair, 13.1 days after open repair of a ruptured AAA, and 3.6 days for EVAR. The independent predictors of higher in-hospital mortality were female gender, age >80 years, diagnosis (ruptured vs open), and procedure (open vs EVAR). The year of the procedure and type of hospital (university vs community) were not predictive of outcome. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR has had a significant impact on AAA management in Illinois over a relatively short time period. In this population-based review, EVAR was associated with a significantly decreased in-hospital mortality and length of stay. Octogenarians had higher mortality after both types of repair, with the exception of elective EVAR.     

Influence of age, aneurysm size, and patient fitness on suitability for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

Prior to approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of larger endografts (main body diameters up to 36 mm), small abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs, <5.5 cm) were shown to be more suitable for endovascular repair (EVAR) than large AAAs (> or =5.5 cm). The purpose of this study was to assess changes in EVAR suitability with the potential use of larger endografts in unselected consecutive patients. The influence of age, aneurysm size, and patient fitness on EVAR suitability was also assessed. We studied 186 male patients referred for evaluation of nonruptured AAAs who underwent contrast-enhanced computed tomographic scans with three-dimensional reconstructions. Morphologicall AAA features and neck characteristics were measured according to Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards to determine EVAR suitability. Patient fitness for repair was assessed using the customized probability index, a validated fitness score for vascular surgery procedures. Suitability for EVAR was determined by neck anatomy, iliac artery morphology, and total aortic aneurysm angulation and tortuosity according to the clinicians' experience and current practice. The median age of the study cohort was 72 years (interquartile range [IQR] 65-79 years). The median maximum AAA diameter was 5.4 cm (IQR 4.1-5.9). Median fitness score was +7 (IQR -7 to +14). EVAR suitability for large AAAs significantly increased with larger endografts (35-63%, p<0.001). Changes in EVAR suitability for small AAAs were not significant (69-75%, p=0.06). Maximum AAA diameter was not an independent predictor for EVAR suitability with larger endografts after adjusting for neck anatomy. Aortic neck length (odds ratio [OR]=1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-1.2) and diameter (OR=0.78, 95% CI 0.63-0.96) were the only independent predictors for EVAR suitability with larger endografts. Age, AAA size, and fitness did not differ between patients suitable and unsuitable for EVAR with larger endografts. In conclusion, introduction of larger endografts (up to 36 mm in main body diameter) in the United States has resulted in significantly increased anatomic suitability for EVAR for large AAAs. Conversely, suitability has not significantly changed for small AAAs. Overall, EVAR suitability is not influenced by age, aneurysm size, or patient fitness.     

Surgical Repair of Juxtarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms and safety of Suprarenal Aortic Clamping

Background

Juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) comprises 15–20% of all AAAs and often requires open surgical repair (OSR) due to anatomical limitations associated with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), particularly in the case of hostile proximal necks. This study aimed to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes of suprarenal clamping during OSR of juxtarenal AAAs and compare the outcomes of this technique with those of infrarenal clamping for AAAs.

Methods

Between January 1 2014, and December 31 2016, 289 consecutive patients aged ≥40 years underwent primary repair for infrarenal AAAs, including 141 OSRs and 148 EVARs. Of the 141 patients, 20 were excluded and totally, 121 patients were included.

Results

All patients had fusiform-type AAAs and were divided into infrarenal (N = 98) or suprarenal (N=23) clamp groups. The mean follow-up period was 51.4 months (95% CI: 48.6–54.2). Mean survival time was 51.4 months (95% CI: 48.6–54.2). Thirty-day mortality was 0.8%, and there was no significant difference between two groups (P > .999). Renal complication in infrarenal clamp group was 4.1% and suprarenal clamp group was 4.3% (P > .999). Old age (HR: 1.084; 95% CI: 1.025–1.147; P=.005) and high ASA score (HR: 2.361; 95% CI: 1.225–4.553; P = .010) were substantially associated with in-hospital complications.

Conclusions

Although endovascular procedures for repairing juxtarenal AAAs, such as fenestrated EVAR, have been developed, surgical repair is the standard treatment for juxtarenal AAAs. Morbidity and mortality due to open surgery were not higher in the juxtarenal AAA group than in the infrarenal AAA group. Therefore, need for suprarenal clamp should not preclude OSR and also there is continued need for training in surgical exposure of juxtarenal AAA and OSR.

     

The outcome of endovascular repair of small abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcome of endovascular repair (EVAR) of small abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA, 相似文献   

Randomized EVAR Trials and Advent of Level I Evidence: A Paradigm Shift in Management of Large Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms?

The recent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) 1 and 2 and Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management (DREAM) trials addressed management of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) larger than 5.5 cm in diameter. The DREAM and EVAR 1 trials randomized patients appropriate for open repair between endovascular repair (EVAR) and open repair (OR), and the EVAR 2 trial randomized patients unfit for OR between EVAR and conservative nonoperative management (No Rx). The EVAR 1 trial showed a 3% lower initial mortality for EVAR, with a persistent reduction in aneurysm-related death at 4 years. Improvement in overall late survival was not demonstrated. Similarly, the DREAM trial observed an initial mortality advantage for EVAR, but overall 1-year survival was equivalent in both groups. Both trials found significantly higher complication and intervention rates and higher hospital costs with EVAR, and by 1 year a quality of life (QOL) benefit was not evident. The EVAR 2 trial did not demonstrate a survival advantage of EVAR with respect to nonoperative management, while noting that EVAR was associated with greater likelihood of treatment complications, subsequent interventions, and threefold higher costs. Both EVAR trials were limited by long delays between randomization and treatment. Moreover, 27% of patients in EVAR 2 crossed over from nonoperative to endovascular repair, and these patients had a lower procedure mortality from EVAR than those originally assigned to it (2% v 9%). These 47 cases, and the exclusion of 14 patients dying while waiting for EVAR, appears to confer a survival advantage to those receiving EVAR over those receiving no treatment in a post-hoc analysis, but per-protocol analysis of the EVAR 2 trial data performed by the EVAR investigators did not show a significant difference in either all-cause or aneurysm-related mortality. Thus, outcomes of the EVAR 2 trial have not settled the choice between EVAR and no treatment in this scenario to everyone's satisfaction. In patients with large AAAs who are fit for OR, EVAR offers an initial mortality advantage over OR, with a persistent reduction in AAA-related death at 4 years. However, EVAR offers no overall survival benefit, is more costly, and requires more interventions and indefinite surveillance with only a brief QOL benefit. It may or may not offer a mortality benefit over nonoperative management in patients with large AAAs who are unfit for open repair, but the statistical significance of this comparison is inconclusive.     

Comparable perioperative mortality outcomes in younger patients undergoing elective open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BackgroundEvidence for benefit of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) over open surgical repair for de novo infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in younger patients remains conflicting because of heterogeneous study populations and small sample sizes. The objective of this study was to compare perioperative and short-term outcomes for EVAR and open surgery in younger patients using a large national disease and procedure-specific data set.MethodsWe identified patients 65 years of age or younger undergoing first-time elective EVAR or open AAA repair from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2003-2014). We excluded patients with pararenal or thoracoabdominal aneurysms, those medically unfit for open repair, and those undergoing EVAR for isolated iliac aneurysms. Clinical and procedural characteristics were balanced using inverse propensity of treatment weighting. A supplemental analysis extended the study to those younger than 70 years.ResultsWe identified 2641 patients, 73% (n = 1928) EVAR and 27% (n = 713) open repair. The median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 59-64 years), and 13% were female. The median follow-up time was 401 days (interquartile range, 357-459 days). Unadjusted perioperative survival was 99.6% overall (open repair, 99.1%; EVAR, 99.8%; P < .001), with 97.4% 1-year survival overall (open repair, 97.3%; EVAR, 97.4%; P = .9). Unadjusted reintervention rates were five (open repair) and seven (EVAR) reinterventions per 100 person-years (P = .8). After propensity weighting, the absolute incidence of perioperative mortality was <1% in both groups (open repair, 0.9%, EVAR, 0.2%; P < .001), and complication rates were low. Propensity-weighted survival (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.38; P = .6) and reintervention rates (open repair, 6; EVAR, 8; reinterventions per 100 person-years; P = .8) did not differ between the two interventions. The analysis of those younger than 70 years showed similar results.ConclusionsIn this study of younger patients undergoing repair of infrarenal AAA, 30-day morbidity and mortality for both open surgery and EVAR are low, and the absolute mortality difference is small. The prior published perioperative mortality and 1-year survival benefit of EVAR over open AAA repair is not observed in younger patients. Further studies of long-term durability are needed to guide decision-making for open repair vs EVAR in this population.