A randomised trial of endovascular and open surgery for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm - results of a pilot study and lessons learned for future studies.

INTRODUCTION: EVAR has the potential to improve outcome after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Published series have been based upon selected populations. METHODS: An interim analysis of a single centre prospective randomised controlled trial comparing endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with open aneurysm repair (OAR) in patients with ruptured AAA was performed. Patients who had a ruptured AAA and who were considered fit for open repair were randomised to EVAR or OAR after consent had been obtained. Those in the EVAR group had pre-operative spiral computed tomographic angiography (CTA). The primary endpoint was operative (30-day) mortality and secondary endpoints were moderate or severe operative complications, hospital stay and time between diagnosis and operation. A power study calculation required 100 patients to be recruited. RESULTS: Between September 2002 and December 2004, 103 patients were admitted with suspected ruptured AAA. Only 32 patients were recruited to the study. Of these, four patients died before receiving surgical treatment. On an intention to treat basis the 30-day mortality rate was 53% in the EVAR group and 53% in the OAR group. Moderate or severe operative complications occurred in 77% in the EVAR group and in 80% in the OAR group. Median total hospital stay in the EVAR group was 10 days (inter-quartile range 6-28) and 12 days (4-52) in the OAR group. Median time between diagnosis and operation was 75 minutes (64-126) in the EVAR group and 100 minutes (48-138) in the OAR group. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the relative high operative mortality in the EVAR group, these preliminary results show that it is possible to recruit patients to a randomised trial of OAR and EVAR in patients with ruptured AAA. CT scanning does not delay treatment.     

Emergency Endovascular Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Feasibility and Comparison of Early Results with Conventional Open Repair

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) on patients presenting with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in a teaching hospital, and to compare there post-operative outcomes with contemporaneous patients treated with open repair (OR). METHODS: A series of consecutive of patients presenting ruptured AAA with retro/intraperitoneal haematoma were included in the study. EVAR was attempted whenever possible. In all other cases (severe haemodynamic instability, adverse anatomy, device unavailability), ruptured AAA were treated by OR. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were enrolled between January 2001 and July 2004. Seventeen (46%) patients were treated using adapted designed aortoiliac endografts (eight bifurcated, eight aorto-uniiliac, one iliac extension). Twenty (54%) patients unfit for EVAR because of severe haemodynamic instability (n=8), adverse anatomical configuration (n=7), or unavailability of an appropriate endograft (n=5) were treated by OR. Twenty-seven (73%) had a retrospective suitable anatomy for EVAR. Three early conversions from EVAR to OR were performed. Blood loss, operating time, and intensive care stay were significantly decreased in EVAR patients (respectively: 156 min+/-60, 1520 ml+/-1175, 3 days for EVAR; vs. 222 min+/-82, 3075 ml+/-1750, 13 days for OS; P<.01). The 30-day mortality rate was 23.5% for EVAR vs. 50% for OR (P=0.09). CONCLUSION: EVAR of ruptured AAA is feasible for selected patients based on haemodynamic and morphologic criteria, and should be associated with improved immediate outcomes as compared with OR. These results should be tempered by the fact that these patients have heavy comorbidities which explains the absence of difference in mid-term mortality rates between the two groups, but should also encourage surgical institutions that are managing such life-threatening emergencies to introduce EVAR as part of their therapeutic arsenal for ruptured AAA.     

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.     

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.     

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: endovascular repair is feasible in 40% of patients.

INTRODUCTION: Open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) still has a high mortality. Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) may be the way to improve survival rates. However, it is not clear how many patients with rAAA will be suitable for acute EVAR. METHODS: Between October 2000 and April 2002 all patients with acute symptomatic or ruptured AAA were assessed for EVAR on an intention-to-treat basis with emergency computed tomographic angiography (CTA). Patient and logistic characteristics were analysed. We used two commercially available aorto uni-iliac devices with a maximum proximal diameter of 28 and 34 mm. RESULTS: Five out of 26 patients were excluded for CTA and EVAR because of severe and persistent hypotension (3 pts) or logistic reasons (2 pts, both eligible). Twelve patients were found not eligible for EVAR due to unsuitable infrarenal aortic neck length (3 pts), neck diameter (1 pt) or a combination of both (8 pts). The remaining six patients were treated with EVAR. After 6 months no graft failure or aneurysm related deaths were recorded in the EVAR group. CONCLUSION: A total of 28% of patients with symptomatic or ruptured AAA was treated with EVAR. A potential 42% of patients could have been suitable for EVAR, if the correct devices had been in stock and all patients had been properly assessed.     

Elective endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in octogenarians

OBJECTIVES: Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is an increasingly popular treatment option for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA), although open repair is considered the standard by virtue of its durability. Octogenarians, as a subgroup, may stand to benefit the most by EVAR. The purpose of this study is to review operative results and durability of open AAA repair and EVAR in octogenarians. METHODS: From May 1996 to August 2006, 150 patients aged >or=80 years underwent elective repair of their infrarenal AAA. Eighty-one underwent EVAR and 69 had open repair. Demographic data, aneurysm specifics, comorbidities, operative morbidity and mortality, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and late outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: In the EVAR group, 27 of 81 (33%) patients died during a mean follow-up of 25 months. In the open repair group, 34 of 69 (49%) patients died during a mean follow-up of 43 months. The median survival time for EVAR was 350 weeks (range, 145-404 weeks) compared with 317 weeks (range, 233-342 weeks) for the open repair group. A Kaplan-Meier log-rank analysis showed no difference in early or long-term survival between EVAR and open repair (P = .13). EVAR was associated with decreased blood loss, decreased length of intensive care unit and hospital stays, and a greater number of patients discharged to home. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR and open repair are comparable in safety and efficacy in octogenarians. Operative repair outcomes remain acceptable. Mid- and long-term survival are similar, indicating no survival advantage of one procedure compared with the other.     

Improving aneurysm-related outcomes: nationwide benefits of endovascular repair

OBJECTIVES: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has changed the practice of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery. We examined a national Medicare database to establish the effect of EVAR introduction into the United States. METHODS: A 5% random sample of inpatient Medicare claims from 2000 to 2003 was queried using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis and procedure codes. An EVAR procedure code was available after October 2000. Occurrences were multiplied by 20 to estimate yearly national volumes and then divided into the yearly Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) population of elderly Medicare recipients for rates per capita, reported as cases per 100,000 elderly Medicare recipients. Statistical analysis was performed by using chi2, Student's t test, nonparametric tests, and multiple regression analysis, with significance defined as P < or = .05. RESULTS: Elective AAA repairs averaged 87.7 per 100,000 Medicare patients between 2000 and 2003, with EVAR has steadily increasing to 41% of elective repairs in 2003. From 2000 to 2003, overall elective AAA mortality declined from 5.0% to 3.7% (P < .001), while open repair mortality remained unchanged. EVAR patients are significantly older than patients treated with open repair. From 2000 to 2003 patients >84 years receiving EVAR increased to 62.7% (P < .001). Overall hospital length of stay (LOS) decreased from 8.6 days in 2000 to 7.3 days in 2003, P < .001, but increased for open AAA patients. EVAR patients were more likely to be discharged home rather than to skilled facilities. Average elective repair hospital charges were not different between groups, but Medicare reimbursement was lower for EVAR, with a higher proportion cases classified as DRG 111 (major cardiovascular procedure without complications). EVAR was used in 10.6% of ruptured AAA repairs in 2003, with a significant reduction in mortality compared with open repairs for rupture (31.8% vs 50.8%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: EVAR is replacing open surgery without an increase in overall case volume. EVAR is responsible for overall decrease in operative mortality even in ruptured aneurysms while decreasing utilization variables. Reimbursement to hospitals is shrinking, however.     

Endovascular repair for ruptured AAA: a literature review

The reduced physiological impact of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with conventional open repair has been demonstrated. If this technique could be used routinely in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) it may reduce the high peri-operative mortality. This review of the literature identified the current experience with EVAR of ruptured AAA. Only a small number of case series with selected patients are reported. These patients were selected for their haemodynamic stability, and their suitable aneurysm morphology. The overall anatomic suitability rates for EVAR reported, suggest an applicability of 58% to 80% from an intent-to-treat experience. The average post-operative mortality rate was 24%, ranging from 9 to 45% and may reflect increasing experience and patient selection. Important lessons have been learned from these first experiences that help to define a clear position of EVAR as an additional therapeutic option for ruptured AAA.     

Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm – a Challenge to Open Repair? Results of a Single Centre Experience in 20 Patients

Introduction: the mortality from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) remains in the region of 50% despite advances in critical care. Endovascular repair of AAA has been shown to be associated with reduced physiological stress in the elective setting. It is hypothesised that the reduced physiological stress associated with EVAR may improve the outcome in patients with ruptured AAA. Methods: a feasibility study of endovascular repair of ruptured AAA was undertaken at the University Hospital, Nottingham, U.K. between 1994 and 2000. Patients admitted with ruptured AAA were assessed by a team familiar with endovascular techniques for elective repair of AAA. After giving informed consent patients underwent spiral computed tomographic angiography (CTA) in the majority of cases. Patients were then transferred to the operating theatre for EVAR. Results: twenty patients underwent repair of ruptured AAA. Of these 20 patients, seven were referred from another hospital. Eight patients were considered unfit for open repair. The median duration of procedure was 180 min (range 120–480) and median blood loss was 1200 ml (range 750–2000 ml). The overall peri-operative mortality was 45%. A number of intra-operative and peri-operative procedures (both open and endovascular) were required to ensure aneurysm exclusion and to deal with the complications of endovascular surgery. Conclusions: ruptured AAA remains a particularly hazardous condition to treat. There are a number of advantages of EVAR in this condition. A number of the problems early in the experience of EVAR have been addressed, but further experience is required to demonstrate its efficacy when compared with open repair.     

Endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm--a challenge to open repair? Results of a single centre experience in 20 patients.

INTRODUCTION: The mortality from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) remains in the region of 50% despite advances in critical care. Endovascular repair of AAA has been shown to be associated with reduced physiological stress in the elective setting. It is hypothesised that the reduced physiological stress associated with EVAR may improve the outcome in patients with ruptured AAA. METHODS: A feasibility study of endovascular repair of ruptured AAA was undertaken at the University Hospital, Nottingham, U.K. between 1994 and 2000. Patients admitted with ruptured AAA were assessed by a team familiar with endovascular techniques for elective repair of AAA. After giving informed consent patients underwent spiral computed tomographic angiography (CTA) in the majority of cases. Patients were then transferred to the operating theatre for EVAR. RESULTS: Twenty patients underwent repair of ruptured AAA. Of these 20 patients, seven were referred from another hospital. Eight patients were considered unfit for open repair. The median duration of procedure was 180 min (range 120-480) and median blood loss was 1200 ml (range 750-2000 ml). The overall peri-operative mortality was 45%. A number of intra-operative and peri-operative procedures (both open and endovascular) were required to ensure aneurysm exclusion and to deal with the complications of endovascular surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Ruptured AAA remains a particularly hazardous condition to treat. There are a number of advantages of EVAR in this condition. A number of the problems early in the experience of EVAR have been addressed, but further experience is required to demonstrate its efficacy when compared with open repair.     

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.     

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: endovascular repair does not confer any long-term survival advantage over open repair

Recent studies have suggested that endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) may reduce the perioperative mortality of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Whether EVAR confers any long-term survival advantage over published results for open repair of ruptured AAA has not been established. We conducted a single-center retrospective study over a 10-year period (1994-2004) examining the long-term outcome of patients who have undergone endovascular repair of ruptured AAA. Fifty-four patients underwent endovascular repair of a ruptured AAA. The median age was 75 years (interquartile range 69.5-79.5 years); 42 (78%) patients were male. The perioperative mortality rate was 37%. During a median follow-up of 32 months (range 14-48 months), there were 5 aneurysm-related and 13 non-aneurysm-related deaths. Overall, the 3- and 5-year survival rates were 36% and 26%, respectively. EVAR does not appear to confer any overall survival advantage in the mid- to long term compared with the published results for open repair. The reasons for this remain unclear. Further, larger studies are required to confirm these results.     

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.     

Endovascular Repair for Ruptured AAA: A Literature Review

The reduced physiological impact of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with conventional open repair has been demonstrated. If this technique could be used routinely in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) it may reduce the high peri-operative mortality.

This review of the literature identified the current experience with EVAR of ruptured AAA. Only a small number of case series with selected patients are reported. These patients were selected for their haemodynamic stability, and their suitable aneurysm morphology. The overall anatomic suitability rates for EVAR reported, suggest an applicability of 58% to 80% from an intent-to-treat experience.

The average post-operative mortality rate was 24%, ranging from 9 to 45% and may reflect increasing experience and patient selection.

Important lessons have been learned from these first experiences that help to define a clear position of EVAR as an additional therapeutic option for ruptured AAA.     

The 30-day mortality of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: influence of gender, age, diameter and comorbidities

AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the influence of gender, age, the aneurysm diameter and comorbidity on the 30-day mortality after open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). METHODS: Between January 1, 1993, and December 31, 2006 all consecutive patients who underwent open repair for a ruptured AAA at the tertiary care of Catharina teaching Hospital were included in this study (N=186). Patients who underwent endovascular repair of their ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms were excluded from this study. Patient and procedure characteristics were collected and analyzed in relation to 30-day mortality. The association between age, gender, diameter of AAA and comorbidity with 30-day mortality was analyzed with c2 are and logistic regression; a P value <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: In this study there were 186 patients with ruptured AAA repair with an 30-day mortality of 36.6% (68/186). Among female patient 30-day mortality was 45.8% (11/24) compared with 35.2% (57/162) among male patients (P=0.31). Patients of 80 years and older had a 61.3% (19/31) 30-day mortality where younger patients had 33% (51/155) 30-day mortality (P=0.02). Thirty-day mortality was 47.2% (17/36) for patients with an AAA less than 65 mm compared with 34% (36/104) for patients with an AAA of 65 mm or larger (P=0.16). Multivariate analysis demonstrated age was a significant predictor of ruptured AAA repair mortality (P=0.017). CONCLUSION: In this study, age was the only significant risk factor of 30-day mortality after open repair in patients with ruptured 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.     

Comparison of morphologic features of intact and ruptured aneurysms of infrarenal abdominal aorta

INTRODUCTION: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been suggested as a technique to improve outcome of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Whether this technique becomes an established treatment will depend, in part, on the anatomy of ruptured AAA. METHODS: The anatomy of intact and ruptured AAA seen in a university department of vascular surgery over 5 years was reviewed. Aneurysm anatomy was assessed with spiral computed tomographic angiography. Suitability for EVAR was assessed from the dimensions of the proximal neck and common iliac arteries. Neck length less than 15 mm, neck width greater than 30 mm, and common iliac artery diameter greater than 22 mm were declared unsuitable for EVAR. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-three patients with intact AAA and 46 with ruptured AAA were identified. Larger intact aneurysms were significantly associated with longer renal artery-bifurcation distance and more complex proximal neck architecture. In this sample, patients with ruptured AAA were more likely to have larger aneurysms with shorter and narrower proximal necks. Significantly more intact aneurysms were morphologically suitable for endovascular repair compared with ruptured AAA (78% vs 43%; P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ruptured AAA are less likely to be suitable for endovascular repair than are intact AAA, most probably because of larger diameter at presentation. Open repair will likely remain the treatment of choice in most patients with ruptured AAA, because of current morphologic constraints of endovascular repair.     

Epidemiological study of the relationship between volume and outcome after abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery in the UK from 2000 to 2005

BACKGROUND: The aim was to assess the relationship between hospital volume and outcome after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery in the UK. METHODS: Hospital Episode Statistics (2000-2005) were classified as elective, urgent or ruptured AAA repair. Analysis was by modelling of mortality rate, complication rate and length of hospital stay with regard to the annual operative volume, after risk adjustment. RESULTS: There were 112,545 diagnoses, or repairs, of AAAs, of which 26,822 were infrarenal aneurysms. The mean mortality rate was 7.4, 23.6 and 41.8 per cent for elective, urgent and ruptured AAA repair respectively. Elective AAA repair undertaken at high-volume hospitals showed volume-related improvements in mortality (P < 0.001). Patients were discharged from hospital earlier (P < 0.001). The critical volume threshold was 32 elective AAA repairs per year. For urgent repair, patients at high-volume hospitals had a reduced mortality rate (P = 0.017) with an increased length of stay (P = 0.041). There was no relationship between volume and outcome for ruptured AAA repairs. CONCLUSION: Increased annual volumes were associated with significant reductions in mortality for elective and urgent AAA repair, but not for repair of ruptured AAAs.     

Abdominal aortic aneurysms in "high-risk" surgical patients: comparison of open and endovascular repair

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the early results of endovascular grafting for high-risk surgical candidates in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Since the approval of endoluminal grafts for treatment of AAA, endovascular repair of AAA (EVAR) has expanded to include patients originally considered too ill for open AAA repair. However, some concern has been expressed regarding technical failure and the durability of endovascular grafts. METHODS: The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Computerized Vascular Registry identified all patients who underwent abdominal aneurysm repair between January 1, 2000, and June 12, 2002. Patients were stratified by type of repair (open AAA vs. EVAR) and were classified as low risk or high risk. Patients with at least one of the following classifications were classified as high risk: age more than 80 years, chronic renal failure (creatinine > 2.0), compromised cardiac function (diminished ventricular function or severe coronary artery disease), poor pulmonary function, reoperative aortic procedure, a "hostile" abdomen, or an emergency operation. Death, systemic complications, and length of stay were tabulated for each group. RESULTS: During this 28-month period, 404 patients underwent AAA repair at UAB. Eighteen patients (4.5%) died within 30 days of their repair or during the same hospitalization. Two hundred seventeen patients (53%) were classified as high risk. Two hundred fifty-nine patients (64%) underwent EVAR repair, and 130 (50%) of these were considered high-risk patients (including four emergency procedures). One hundred forty-five patients (36%) underwent open AAA repair, including 15 emergency operations. All deaths occurred in the high-risk group: 12 (8.3%) died after open AAA repair and 6 (2.3%) died after EVAR repair. Postoperative length of stay was shorter for EVAR repair compared to open AAA. CONCLUSIONS: High-risk and low-risk patients can undergo EVAR repair with a lower rate of short-term systemic complications and a shorter length of stay compared to open AAA. Despite concern regarding the durability of EVAR, high-risk patients should be evaluated for EVAR repair before committing to open AAA repair.     

Concomitant colorectal cancer and abdominal aortic aneurysm: evolution of treatment paradigm in the endovascular era

BACKGROUND: Although the incidence of patients presenting with concomitant colorectal cancer (CRC) and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is low, current treatment strategies in patients with both lesions remains controversial. Given recent advances in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), we sought to analyze the surgical outcomes of patients with concomitant CRC and AAA. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients with CRC and AAA between December 1984 and July 2007. RESULTS: A total of 108 patients with concomitant CRC and AAA were identified. Forty-six patients presented with symptomatic or obstructing CRC, which was treated with colectomy followed by either open AAA repair (n=35, group A) or EVAR (n=11, group B). Thirty-eight patients underwent either open AAA (n=26, group C) or EVAR (n=12, group D) first, followed by staged CRC resection. Eight patients underwent combined CRC and open AAA repair (group E). The time delays after CRC resection to AAA repair in groups A and B were 42 and 35 days (NS), respectively. The time delays after open AAA or EVAR procedures before CRC resection in groups C and D were 115 days and 12 days (p < 0.0001), respectively. Two patients in group B developed sigmoid ischemia after EVAR and were treated with sigmoid resection. Increased perioperative morbidity and mortality rates were noted in group C (p < 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with concomitant colorectal cancer and AAA, the symptomatic lesion should be a treatment priority. Because EVAR results in early recovery and a shorter convalescence compared with open aneurysmorrhaphy, this modality offers potential treatment benefits in patients with suitable anatomy who have concomitant CRC. But EVAR treatment should be offered with caution because of the risk of sigmoid ischemia caused by inferior mesenteric artery occlusion.