Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of endovascular versus open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm based on four randomized clinical trials

2022 ACC/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease: A report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

The contribution of matrix metalloproteinases and their inhibitors to the development, progression, and rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysms

Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) account for up to 8% of deaths in men aged 65 years and over and 2.2% of women. Patients with AAAs often have atherosclerosis, and intimal atherosclerosis is generally present in AAAs. Accordingly, AAAs are considered a form of atherosclerosis and are frequently referred to as atherosclerotic aneurysms. Pathological observations advocate inflammatory cell infiltration alongside adverse extracellular matrix degradation as key contributing factors to the formation of human atherosclerotic AAAs. Therefore, macrophage production of proteolytic enzymes is deemed responsible for the damaging loss of ECM proteins, especially elastin and fibrillar collagens, which characterise AAA progression and rupture. Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and their regulation by tissue inhibitors metalloproteinases (TIMPs) can orchestrate not only ECM remodelling, but also moderate the proliferation, migration, and apoptosis of resident aortic cells, alongside the recruitment and subsequent behaviour of inflammatory cells. Accordingly, MMPs are thought to play a central regulatory role in the development, progression, and eventual rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Together, clinical and animal studies have shed light on the complex and often diverse effects MMPs and TIMPs impart during the development of AAAs. This dichotomy is underlined from evidence utilising broad-spectrum MMP inhibition in animal models and clinical trials which have failed to provide consistent protection from AAA progression, although more encouraging results have been observed through deployment of selective inhibitors. This review provides a summary of the supporting evidence connecting the contribution of individual MMPs to AAA development, progression, and eventual rupture. Topics discussed include structural, functional, and cell-specific diversity of MMP members; evidence from animal models of AAA and comparisons with findings in humans; the dual role of MMPs and the requirement to selectively target individual MMPs; and the advances in identifying aberrant MMP activity. As evidenced, our developing understanding of the multifaceted roles individual MMPs perform during the progression and rupture of AAAs, should motivate clinical trials assessing the therapeutic potential of selective MMP inhibitors, which could restrict AAA-related morbidity and mortality worldwide.

Outcomes and Cost-Analysis of Open Versus Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in a Developing Country: A 15-year Experience at a Tertiary Medical Center

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the most common procedure for treating abdominal aortic aneurysms based on multiple studies conducted in the western world. The implication of such findings in developing countries is not well demonstrated. The objective of this study was to compare medical outcomes and costs of EVAR and open surgical repair (OSR) in a developing country.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of all patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair between 2005 and 2020 at a tertiary medical center in a developing country. Medical records were used to retrieve demographics, comorbidities, and perioperative complications. Medical records were also used to provide data on the need of reintervention, date of last follow-up, and mortality.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 164 patients. Median follow-up time was 41 months. The mean age was 69.9 +/- 7.84 years and 90.24% (n = 148) of patients were males. Regarding long-term mortality outcomes, no significant difference was detected between both groups; OSR patients had a survival rate of 91.38% and 74.86% at 5 and 10 years, compared to 77.29% and 56.52% in the EVAR group (P value = 0.10). Both groups had comparable long-term reintervention rates (P value = 0.334). The OSR group was charged significantly less than the EVAR group ($27,666.35 vs. $44,528.04, P value = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

OSR and EVAR have comparable survival and reintervention outcomes. Unlike what was reported in developed countries, patients undergoing OSR in countries with low hospital stay costs incur lower treatment costs.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. Structure: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Cost of Follow Up After Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Patients With an Initial Post-Operative Computed Tomography Angiogram Without Abnormalities

OBJECTIVE

The Observing a Decade of Yearly Standardised Surveillance in EVAR patients with Ultrasound or CT Scan (ODYSSEUS) study was conducted to assess differences in outcomes of patients with continued or discontinued yearly follow up after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Earlier results of this study showed that discontinued follow up was not associated with poor outcomes. Therefore, an incremental cost analysis and budget impact analysis of de-implementation of yearly imaging following EVAR was performed.

METHODS

In total, 1 596 patients from the ODYSSEUS study were included. The expected cost savings were assessed if yearly imaging was reduced in patients with a post-operative computed tomography angiogram without abnormalities made around 30 days after EVAR. Costs were derived from the Dutch costs manual, benchmark cost prices, and literature review. Costs were expressed in euros (€) and displayed at 2019 prices. Sensitivity analysis was performed by varying costs.

RESULTS

A difference of 24% in cost was found between patients with continued and discontinued imaging follow up. The cost per patient was €1 935 in the continued group vs. €1 603 per patient in the discontinued group at five years post-EVAR, with a mean difference of €332 (95% bias corrected and accelerated bootstrap confidence interval -741 to 114). De-implementation of yearly imaging would result in an annual nationwide cost saving of €678 471. Sensitivity analysis with variation in adherence rates, imaging, or secondary intervention costs resulted in a saving of at least €271 388 per year.

CONCLUSION

This study provided an in depth analysis of hospital costs for post-EVAR patients in the Netherlands with a modest impact on the Dutch healthcare budget.

Out of Date or Best Before? A Commentary on the Relevance of Economic Evaluations Over Time

The impact of time on the applicability and relevance of historical economic evaluations can be considerable. Ignoring this may lead to the use of weak or invalid evidence to inform important research questions or resource allocation decisions, as historical economic evaluations may have reached different conclusions compared to if a similar study had been conducted more recently. There are multiple factors that contribute towards evidence becoming outdated including changes to the relevant decision problem (e.g. comparators), changes to parameters (such as costs, utilities and resource use) and methodological updates (e.g. recommendations on uncertainty analysis). Researchers reviewing economic evaluations need to consider whether changes over time would influence the study design and results if the evaluation were repeated, to the extent that it is no longer helpful or informative. In this paper, we summarise these key issues and make recommendations about how and whether researchers can future proof their economic evaluations.

Surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms on the public health system in the largest city in Brazil: a descriptive analysis of in-hospital data on 2693 procedures over 10 years

Abstract Background From 1990 to 2015, mortality from aortic aneurysms increased 16.8% in Brazil. São Paulo is the largest city in Brazil and about 5 million people depend on the public health system there. Objectives To conduct an epidemiological analysis of abdominal aortic aneurysm surgeries in the city of São Paulo. Methods Infra-renal aortic aneurysm procedures performed over a decade (from 2008 to 2017) were studied using publicly-available platforms from the Unified Health System and DATASUS. Results 2693 procedures were analyzed; 66.73% were endovascular; 78.7% of patients were male; 70.7% were aged 65 years or more; 64.02% were elective hospital admissions. There were 288 in-hospital deaths (mortality: 10.69%). In-hospital mortality was lower for endovascular surgery than for open surgery; both for elective (4.13% versus 14.42%) and urgent (9.73% versus 27.94%) (p = 0.019) admissions. The highest volume hospital (n = 635) had the lowest in-hospital mortality (3.31%). USD 24,835,604.84 was paid; an average of $ 2,318.63 for elective open, $ 3,420.10 for emergency open, $ 12,157.35 for elective endovascular and $ 12,969.12 for urgent endovascular procedures. Endovascular procedure costs were statistically higher than the values paid for open surgeries (p <0.001). Conclusions Endovascular surgeries were performed twice as often as open surgeries; they had shorter hospital stays and lower mortality.

Intraoperative cone beam computed tomography to improve outcomes after infra-renal endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether a combination of intraoperative ceCBCT and postoperative contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) assessment after infra-renal endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) could reduce late stent-graft related complications and consequently re-interventions.

METHODS

All consecutive patients receiving infra-renal bifurcated stent-grafts in our hybrid room (IGS 730, GE Healthcare) during two discrete periods were included in this study: i) from November 2012 to September 2013, a 2D completion angiogram was performed after each EVAR, followed by computed tomography angiography (CTA) before discharge (group 1), ii) from October 2013 to January 2015, an intraoperative ceCBCT was performed, followed by CEUS within the first postoperative days (group 2). Comparative analyses of outcomes were undertaken. The primary endpoint was late stent-graft related complications, a composite factor incorporating aneurysm-related death, type 1 or 3 endoleaks, kink or occlusion of iliac limb and aortic sac enlargement beyond the first 30 postoperative days. The secondary endpoint was all stent-graft related re-interventions. All-cause and aneurysm related deaths were also reported.

RESULTS

Overall, 100 consecutive patients (50 in group 1 and 50 in group 2) were enrolled with a median follow up of 60 months [IQR 41-69]. At 60 months from the index procedure, freedom from late stent-graft related complications in each group was 61.6% (95 % CI [47.0-80.6]) for group 1 and 81.7% (95 % CI [70.1-95.2]) for group 2 (p=.033). Intraoperative CBCT was independently associated with a reduced rate of late stent-graft related complications after multivariate analysis (HR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.16-0.95, p=.038), but did not appear to significantly protect against stent-graft related re-interventions (HR=0.53; 95% CI 0.20-1.39, p=.198) or all cause death (p=.47).

CONCLUSION

This study is the first to report the influence of routine ceCBCT on late outcomes after EVAR and shows a potential reduction in late stent-graft related complications associated with its use.

Quality-adjusted life year comparison at medium term follow-up of endovascular versus open surgical repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm in young patients

Objectives

This study aimed to compare the quality of life and cost effectiveness between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) in young patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).

Design

This was a single-center, observational, and retrospective study.

Materials and methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients with AAA, who were <70 years old and underwent EVAR or OSR between January 2012 and October 2016. Only patients with aortic morphology that was suitable for EVAR were enrolled. Data on the complication rates, medical expenses, and expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were collected, and the cost per QALY at three years was compared.

Results

Among 90 patients with aortic morphology who were eligible for EVAR, 37 and 53 patients underwent EVAR and OSR, respectively. No significant differences were observed in perioperative cardiovascular events and death between the two groups. However, during the follow-up period, patients undergoing OSR showed a significantly lower complication rate (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.11; P = .021). From the three-year cost-effectiveness analysis, the total sum of costs was significantly lower in the OSR group (P < .001) than that in the EVAR group, and the number of QALYs was superior in the OSR group (P = .013). The cost per QALY at three years was significantly lower in the OSR group than that in the EVAR group (mean: $4038 vs. $10 137; respectively; P < .001)

Conclusions

OSR had lower complication rates and better cost-effectiveness than EVAR Among young patients with feasible aortic anatomy.

Endovascular aortic repair is a cost-effective option for in-hospital patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) versus open aortic repair (OAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using incremental costs per decreased in-hospital mortality rate gained through our patients' cohort.

METHODS

Medical records and healthcare costs of patients with AAA hospitalized between 2010 and 2015 were extracted from the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) of Taiwan. Multiple regression analysis was applied to adjust for confounding factors and to compare the differences in postoperative clinical outcomes between patients who received EVAR and OAR. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EVAR was determined based on the healthcare cost obtained from the analyzed data.

RESULTS

A total of 2803 AAA patients were identified (n = 559 with ruptured AAA and n = 2244 unruptured AAA). Patients with ruptured AAA who underwent EVAR compared with OAR patients had shorter hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stays (all p < 0.05). For patients with unruptured AAA, those who received EVAR compared with OAR, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of postoperative complications and in-hospital mortality were 0.371 and 0.447 (all p < 0.05). The total direct surgical costs and medical expenses during hospitalization in all AAA patients were higher for the EVAR group; however, ICER was <1 per capita gross domestic product. Stratification by age groups further suggested that ICER for patients with unruptured AAA who received EVAR, compared with OAR, decreased with age.

CONCLUSION

Total direct medical costs were higher for AAA patients receiving EVAR regardless of rupture status; however, the cost is offset by lower odds of postoperative complications and in-hospital mortality. The observed decrease in ICER with age and EVAR use warrants further analysis. Our findings further validate the use of EVAR over OAR. These results provides supporting evidence for physicians and patients with AAA to inform shared decision making regarding endovascular or OAR options.

Cost-Effectiveness of Endovascular Versus Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a life-threatening condition which, in the absence of increasing diameter or rupture, often remains asymptomatic, and a diameter greater than 5.5 cm requires elective surgical repair. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of endovascular repair (EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) in patients with AAA through a systematic review of published health economics studies.

METHODS

Using a systematic review method, an electronic search was conducted for cost-effectiveness studies published on AAA (both in English and Persian) on PubMed, Embase, ISI/Web of Science (WoS), SCOPUS, Global Health databases, and the national databases of Iran from 1990 to 2020 including the keywords "cost-effectiveness", "endovascular", "open surgical", and "abdominal aortic aneurysms". The quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklist.

RESULTS

In total, 958 studies were found, of which 16 were eligible for further study. All studies were conducted in developed countries, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and life years (LY) were used to measure the outcomes. According to the QHES checklist, most studies were of good quality. In European countries and Canada, EVAR has not been cost-effective, while most studies in the United States regard this technique as a cost-effective intervention. For example, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values ranged from $14,252.12 to $34,446.37 per QALY in the USA, while ICER was €116,600.40 per QALY in Portugal.

CONCLUSION

According to the results, the EVAR technique has been more cost-effective than OSR for high-risk patients, but the need for continuous follow-up, increased costs, and re-intervention over the long term and for low-risk patients has reduced the cost-effectiveness of this method. As the health systems vary among different countries (i.e. quality of care, cost of devices, etc.), and due to the heterogeneity of studies in terms of the follow-up period, time horizon, and threshold, all of which are inherent features of economic evaluation, generalizing the results should be done with much caution, and policymaking must be based on national evidence.

Editor's Choice - A Systemic Evaluation of the Costs of Elective EVAR and Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Implies Cost Equivalence

OBJECTIVE

The suggested high costs of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) hamper the choice of insurance companies and financial regulators for EVAR as the primary option for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. However, arguments used in this debate are impeded by time related aspects such as effect modification and the introduction of confounding by indication, and by asymmetric evaluation of outcomes. Therefore, a re-evaluation minimising the impact of these interferences was considered.

METHODS

A comparative analysis was performed evaluating a period of exclusive open repair (OR; 1998-2000) and a period of established EVAR (2010-2012). Data from four hospitals in The Netherlands were collected to estimate resource use. Actual costs were estimated by benchmark cost prices and a literature review. Costs are reported at 2019 prices. A break even approach, defining the costs for an endovascular device at which cost equivalence for EVAR and OR is achieved, was applied to cope with the large variation in endovascular device costs.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-six patients who underwent elective AAA repair between 1998 and 2000 (OR period) and 195 patients between 2010 and 2012 (EVAR period) were compared. Cost equivalence for OR and EVAR was reached at a break even price for an endovascular device of €13 190. The main cost difference reflected the longer duration of hospital stay (ward and Intensive Care Unit) of OR (€11 644). Re-intervention rates were similar for OR (24.2%) and EVAR (24.6%) (p = .92).

CONCLUSION

Cost equivalence for EVAR and OR occurs at a device cost of €13 000 for EVAR. Hence, for most routine repairs, EVAR is not costlier than OR until at least the five year follow up.

The financial evolution of endovascular aneurysm repair delivery in contemporary practice

OBJECTIVE

The fiscal impact of endovascular repair (EVR) of aortic aneurysms and the requisite device costs have previously highlighted the tenuous long-term financial sustainability among Medicare beneficiaries. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have since reclassified EVR remuneration paradigms with new Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Groups (MS-DRGs) intended to better address the procedure's cost profile. The impact of this change remains unknown. The purpose of this analysis was to compare EVR-specific costs and revenue among Medicare beneficiaries both before and after this change.

METHODS

All infrarenal EVRs performed in fiscal years (FYs) 2014 and 2015, before the MS-DRG change, and those performed in FYs 2017 and 2018, after the MS-DRG change, were identified using the DRG codes 238 (n = 108) and 269 (n = 84), respectively. We then identified those who were treated according to the instructions for use guidelines with a single manufacturer's device and billed to Medicare (n = 23 in FY14-15; n = 22 in FY17-18). From these cohorts, we determined total procedure technical costs, technical revenue, and net technical margin in conjunction with the hospital finance department. Results were then compared between these two groups.

RESULTS

The two cohorts demonstrated similar demographic profiles (FY14-15 vs FY17-18 cohort: age, 78 years vs 74 years; median length of stay, 1.0 day vs 1.0 day). Mean total technical costs were slightly higher in the FY17-18 group ($24,511 in FY14-15 vs $26,445 in FY17-18). Graft implants continued to account for a significant portion of the total cost, with the device cost accounting for 56% of the total procedure costs in both cohorts. Net revenue was greater in the FY17-18 group by $5800 ($30,698 in FY14-15 vs $36,498 in FY17-18), resulting in an increased overall margin in the FY17-18 group compared with the FY14-15 group ($6188 in FY14-15 vs $10,053 in FY17-18).

CONCLUSIONS

Device costs remain the single greatest cost driver associated with EVR delivery. DRG reclassification of EVR to address total procedure and implant costs appears to better address the requisite associated procedure costs and may thereby better support long-term fiscal sustainability of this procedure for hospitals and health systems alike.

Index and follow-up costs of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study (ENGAGE PAS)

OBJECTIVE

Trials for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) report lower perioperative mortality and morbidity, but also higher costs compared with open repair. However, few studies have examined the subsequent cost of follow-up evaluations and interventions. Therefore, we present the index and 5-year follow-up costs of EVAR from the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study.

METHODS

From August 2011 to June 2012, 178 patients were enrolled in the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study de novo cohort and treated with the Medtronic Endurant stent graft system (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, Calif), of whom 171 (96%) consented for inclusion in the economic analysis and 177 participated in the quality-of-life (QOL) assessment over a 5-year follow-up period. Cost data for the index and follow-up hospitalizations were tabulated directly from hospital bills and categorized by Uniform Billing codes. Surgeon costs were calculated by Current Procedural Terminology codes for each intervention. Current Procedural Terminology codes were also used to calculate imaging and clinic follow-up reimbursement as surrogate to cost based on year-specific Medicare payment rates. Additionally, we compared aneurysm-related versus nonaneurysm-related subsequent hospitalization costs and report EuroQol 5D QOL dimensions.

RESULTS

The mean hospital cost per person for the index EVAR was $45,304 (interquartile range [IQR], $25,932-$44,784). The largest contributor to the overall cost was operating room supplies, which accounted for 50% of the total cost at a mean of $22,849 per person. One hundred patients had 233 additional post index admission inpatient admissions; however, only 32 readmissions (14%) were aneurysm related, with a median cost of $13,119 (IQR, $4570-$24,153) compared with a nonaneurysm-related median cost of $6609 (IQR, $1244-$26,466). Additionally, 32 patients were admitted a total of 37 times for additional procedures after index admission, of which 14 (38%) were aneurysm-related. The median cost of hospitalization for aneurysm-related subsequent intervention was $22,023 (IQR, $13,177-$47,752), compared with a median nonaneurysm-related subsequent intervention cost of $19,007 (IQR, $8708-$33,301). After the initial 30-day visit, outpatient follow-up imaging reimbursement averaged $550 per person per year ($475 for computed tomography scans, $75 for the abdomen), whereas annual office visits averaged $107 per person per year, for a total follow-up reimbursement of $657 per person per year. There were no significant differences in the five EuroQol 5D QOL dimensions at each follow-up compared with baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Costs associated with index EVAR are driven primarily by cost of operating room supplies, including graft components. Subsequent admissions are largely not aneurysm related; however, cost of aneurysm-related hospitalizations is higher than for nonaneurysm admissions. These data will serve as a baseline for comparison with open repair and other devices.

Strength of public preferences for endovascular or open aortic aneurysm repair

Background

This study evaluated public preferences for the treatment processes for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in order to allow them to be incorporated into a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Methods

This was a telephone survey using a trade-off method in UK resident adults (aged at least 18 years) with no previous diagnosis of a vascular condition.

Results

Some 167 of 209 participants (79·9 per cent) stated that they would prefer endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), 40 (19·1 per cent) preferred open surgery and two (1·0 per cent) stated no preference. Participants preferred EVAR because of the less invasive nature of the intervention and quicker recovery. Participants preferring open surgery cited reasons such as having a single follow-up appointment, and a procedure that felt more permanent. When participants were asked to make a sacrifice in order to have their preferred treatment, 122 (58·4 per cent) favoured EVAR, 18 (8·6 per cent) favoured open surgery and 69 (33·0 per cent) had no preference. Those preferring EVAR were willing to give up a mean of 0·135 expected quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to have EVAR, compared with a willingness to give up 0·033 expected QALYs among those preferring open repair.

Conclusion

These results indicate a clear preference for EVAR over open surgery for aortic aneurysm.

Optimizing Surveillance and Re-intervention Strategy Following Elective Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

BACKGROUND

EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysm has an initial survival advantage over OR, but more frequent complications increase costs and long-term aneurysm-related mortality. Randomized controlled trials of EVAR versus OR have shown EVAR is not cost-effective over a patient's lifetime. However, in the EVAR-1 trial, postoperative surveillance may have been sub-optimal, as the importance of sac growth as a predictor of graft failure was overlooked.

METHODS

Real-world data informed a discrete event simulation model of postoperative outcomes following EVAR. Outcomes observed EVAR-1 were compared with those from 5 alternative postoperative surveillance and re-intervention strategies. Key events, quality-adjusted life years and costs were predicted. The impact of using complication and rupture rates from more recent devices, imaging and re-intervention methods was also explored.

RESULTS

Compared with observed EVAR-1 outcomes, modeling full adherence to the EVAR-1 scan protocol reduced abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) deaths by 3% and increased elective re-interventions by 44%. European Society re-intervention guidelines provided the most clinically effective strategy, with an 8% reduction in AAA deaths, but a 52% increase in elective re-interventions. The cheapest and most cost-effective strategy used lifetime annual ultrasound in primary care with confirmatory computed tomography if necessary, and reduced AAA-related deaths by 5%. Using contemporary rates for complications and rupture did not alter these conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

All alternative strategies improved clinical benefits compared with the EVAR-1 trial. Further work is needed regarding the cost and accuracy of primary care ultrasound, and the potential impact of these strategies in the comparison with OR.

[New developements in endovascular infrarenal aortic aneurysm treatment]

CLINICAL/METHODICAL ISSUE

New technical developments in endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) have broadened the range of patients eligible for minimally invasive aneurysm treatment. Optimization of delivery sheaths and catheters by considerable downsizing of diameters, increase of pushability and stability combined with flexibility are important parameters.

PERFORMANCE

Especially patients characterized by small and tortuous iliac access vessels can nowadays be treated by EVAR. Ease and effectiveness of applicability guarantee safety and quality improvement, which results in better treatment of patients. Progress in stent-graft design with integrated options for repositioning, active positioning and aneurysm sealing facilitate treatment of angulated vessel segments or hitherto unsuitable sealing zones.

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Interventionalists have to be familiar with all available stent-graft materials and techniques. Profound knowledge helps to choose the best material for a patient's individual anatomy, confident application and long-term satisfactory results.

Factors Affecting Longer Stay and Higher Costs during Elective Open Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND

Open surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has the advantage of requiring less reintervention compared with endovascular aneurysm repair. The reduction of the initial hospitalization costs can provide socioeconomic benefits. The objective of this study was to determine the factors associated with an increase in the length of hospital stay and costs of open surgery for AAA.

METHODS

A total of 579 consecutive patients who underwent open surgery for intact AAA and survived, between 1998 and 2015 at Asahi General Hospital in Japan, were included in the analysis. Patients' characteristics, aneurysm morphology, operative procedures, postoperative complications, and postoperative courses were analyzed in relation to the hospital length of stay and costs. Patients with longer stays or higher costs (exceeding the third quartile) were compared with those with stays or costs no more than the third quartile.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 75 ± 8 years, and 492 patients (85%) were male, with a mean aortic diameter of 57 ± 10 mm. The mean operation time was 214 ± 56 min with an estimated mean blood loss of 444 ± 305 g. Transfusion was required in 28 patients (4.8%) and return to the operating room (RTOR) in 18 patients (3.1%). The median postoperative hospital stay was 7 (7-8) days. Median costs of hospitalization were 12,300 (11,800-13,100) United States Dollar. In the multivariate analysis, the major factors which increased the length of stay were transfusion, late ambulation, and prolonged fasting time. Major risk factors for higher total hospitalization costs were transfusion, RTOR, and longer fasting time.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of the patients' comorbidities or aneurysm morphology, avoidance of transfusion and RTOR, combined with early ambulation and enteral feeding in the postoperative care, can reduce the length of stay and total hospitalization costs associated with open surgery for AAA.

GRADE-Based Recommendations for Surgical Repair of Nonruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

The objective of this study was to provide evidence-based recommendations for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) for patients with a nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement and adhered to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Both low- and high surgical risk patients treated with EVAR showed decreased 30-day mortality, but the low-risk group had no differences in 4-year mortality. Compared with friendly anatomy, patients with hostile anatomy had an increased risk of type I endoleak. Young patients may prefer OSR. Endovascular aneurysm repair was not cost-effective in Europe. Four conditional recommendations were formulated: (1) OSR for low-risk patients up to 80 years old, (2) EVAR for low-risk patients older than 80 years, (3) EVAR for high-risk patients as long as is anatomically feasible, and (4) OSR in patients in whom it is not anatomically feasible to perform EVAR. Based on GRADE criteria, either OSR or EVAR can be suggested to patients with nonruptured AAA taking into account their surgical risk, hostile anatomy, and age. Given the weakness of the recommendations, personal preferences are determinant.

Strategy of endovascular versus open repair for patients with clinical diagnosis of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: the IMPROVE RCT

BACKGROUND

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a common vascular emergency. The mortality from emergency endovascular repair may be much lower than the 40-50% reported for open surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether or not a strategy of endovascular repair compared with open repair reduces 30-day and mid-term mortality (including costs and cost-effectiveness) among patients with a suspected ruptured AAA.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial, with computer-generated telephone randomisation of participants in a 1 : 1 ratio, using variable block size, stratified by centre and without blinding.

SETTING

Vascular centres in the UK (n = 29) and Canada (n = 1) between 2009 and 2013.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 613 eligible participants (480 men) with a ruptured aneurysm, clinically diagnosed at the trial centre.

INTERVENTIONS

A total of 316 participants were randomised to the endovascular strategy group (immediate computerised tomography followed by endovascular repair if anatomically suitable or, if not suitable, open repair) and 297 were randomised to the open repair group (computerised tomography optional).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was 30-day mortality, with 30-day reinterventions, costs and disposal as early secondary outcome measures. Later outcome measures included 1- and 3-year mortality, reinterventions, quality of life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

The 30-day mortality was 35.4% in the endovascular strategy group and 37.4% in the open repair group [odds ratio (OR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.28; p = 0.62, and, after adjustment for age, sex and Hardman index, OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.33]. The endovascular strategy appeared to be more effective in women than in men (interaction test p = 0.02). More discharges in the endovascular strategy group (94%) than in the open repair group (77%) were directly to home (p < 0.001). Average 30-day costs were similar between groups, with the mean difference in costs being -£1186 (95% CI -£2997 to £625), favouring the endovascular strategy group. After 1 year, survival and reintervention rates were similar in the two groups, QoL (at both 3 and 12 months) was higher in the endovascular strategy group and the mean cost difference was -£2329 (95% CI -£5489 to £922). At 3 years, mortality was 48% and 56% in the endovascular strategy group and open repair group, respectively (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.00; p = 0.053), with a stronger benefit for the endovascular strategy in the subgroup of 502 participants in whom repair was started for a proven rupture (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89; p = 0.009), whereas aneurysm-related reintervention rates were non-significantly higher in this group. At 3 years, considering all participants, there was a mean difference of 0.174 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% CI 0.002 to 0.353 QALYs) and, among the endovascular strategy group, a cost difference of -£2605 (95% CI -£5966 to £702), leading to 88% of estimates in the cost-effectiveness plane being in the quadrant showing the endovascular strategy to be 'dominant'.

LIMITATIONS

Because of the pragmatic design of this trial, 33 participants in the endovascular strategy group and 26 in the open repair group breached randomisation allocation.

CONCLUSIONS

The endovascular strategy was not associated with a significant reduction in either 30-day mortality or cost but was associated with faster participant recovery. By 3 years, the endovascular strategy showed a survival and QALY gain and was highly likely to be cost-effective. Future research could include improving resuscitation for older persons with circulatory collapse, the impact of local anaesthesia and emergency consent procedures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48334791 and NCT00746122.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Trends in elective and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair by practice setting in Ontario, Canada, from 2003 to 2016: a population-based time-series analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent years have seen centralization of vascular surgery services in Ontario. We sought to examine the trends in overall and approach-specific elective and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair by hospital type (teaching v. community).

METHODS

We conducted a population-based time-series analysis of elective and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs in Ontario, Canada, from 2003 to 2016. Quarterly cumulative incidences of repairs per 100 000 Ontarians aged 40 years and older were calculated. We fit exponential smoothing models to the data stratified by approach and hospital type to examine repair trends.

RESULTS

We identified 19 219 elective and 2722 ruptured repairs between 2003 and 2016. The cumulative incidences of overall elective repair and elective open surgical repair decreased by 1.15% (p = 0.008) and 67% (p < 0.001), respectively, in teaching hospitals and by 23% (p < 0.001) and 60% (p < 0.001), respectively, in community hospitals. The cumulative incidence of elective endovascular repair increased 667% in teaching hospitals (p < 0.001). Elective endovascular repair began in community centres after 2010 and increased to 0.98/100 000 (p < 0.001), resulting in a rebound in overall elective repair in the community. Overall ruptured repairs and ruptured open repairs decreased by 84% (p < 0.001) and 88% (p = 0.002), respectively, at community hospitals. Ruptured endovascular repairs at community hospitals increased from no procedures before 2006 to 0.03/100 000 in 2016 (p = 0.005).

INTERPRETATION

There has been substantial uptake of endovascular aortic repair in teaching and community hospitals in Ontario, and community hospital uptake of endovascular repair has begun decentralization of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Increased experience and training in endovascular repair and reduced specialized care requirements will probably lead to continued decentralization.

The impact of randomized trial results on abdominal aortic aneurysm repair rates from 2003 to 2016: A population-based time-series analysis

Objectives

The uptake of endovascular aortic repair for elective and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is not well studied. We aimed to examine the trends in open surgical repair and endovascular aortic repair of eAAA and rAAA and to examine the effects of randomized trial publications on elective open surgical repair and endovascular aortic repair rates.

Methods

We conducted a population-based time-series analysis of eAAA and rAAA repairs in Ontario, Canada from 2003 to 2016. We examined changes in overall and approach-specific rates of eAAA and rAAA repair using exponential smoothing models. Interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models were fit to the eAAA rates to examine the impact of randomized trial results on these rates.

Results

We identified 19,489 eAAA (12,232 open (63%) and 7257 endovascular (37%)) and 2732 rAAA (2466 open (90%) and 266 endovascular (10%)) repairs from 2003 to 2016. The rate of eAAA repair declined from 6.39/100,000 in 2003 to 5.59/100,000 in 2016 (13% decrease, p = 0.17). The rate of elective open surgical repair decreased nearly three-fold from 6.07/100,000 to 2.12/100,000 ( p < 0.0001), while elective endovascular aortic repair increased approximately 10-fold (0.32/100,000 to 3.47/100,000, p < 0.0001). The rate of ruptured open surgical repair decreased from 1.62/100,000 to 0.37/100,000 ( p < 0.44), while ruptured endovascular aortic repair uptake increased (0.00/100,000 to 0.12/100,000, p < 0.25). The mid-term results of the DREAM and EVAR-1 trials were associated with a decrease in the rate of elective open surgical repair decline after 2010 ( p = 0.01).

Conclusions

While elective open surgical repair use has significantly decreased from 2003 to 2016, elective endovascular aortic repair use has significantly increased. The DREAM and EVAR-1 results significantly impacted the observed rates of elective open surgical repair only. The reasons for these trends require further characterization.

Predicting risk of rupture and rupture-preventing reinterventions following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Background

Clinical and imaging surveillance practices following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) vary considerably and compliance with recommended lifelong surveillance is poor. The aim of this study was to develop a dynamic prognostic model to enable stratification of patients at risk of future secondary aortic rupture or the need for intervention to prevent rupture (rupture‐preventing reintervention) to enable the development of personalized surveillance intervals.

Methods

Baseline data and repeat measurements of postoperative aneurysm sac diameter from the EVAR‐1 and EVAR‐2 trials were used to develop the model, with external validation in a cohort from a single‐centre vascular database. Longitudinal mixed‐effects models were fitted to trajectories of sac diameter, and model‐predicted sac diameter and rate of growth were used in prognostic Cox proportional hazards models.

Results

Some 785 patients from the EVAR trials were included, of whom 155 (19·7 per cent) experienced at least one rupture or required a rupture‐preventing reintervention during follow‐up. An increased risk was associated with preoperative AAA size, rate of sac growth and the number of previously detected complications. A prognostic model using predicted sac growth alone had good discrimination at 2 years (C‐index 0·68), 3 years (C‐index 0·72) and 5 years (C‐index 0·75) after operation and had excellent external validation (C‐index 0·76–0·79). More than 5 years after operation, growth rates above 1 mm/year had a sensitivity of over 80 per cent and specificity over 50 per cent in identifying events occurring within 2 years.

Conclusion

Secondary sac growth is an important predictor of rupture or rupture‐preventing reintervention to enable the development of personalized surveillance intervals. A dynamic prognostic model has the potential to tailor surveillance by identifying a large proportion of patients who may require less intensive follow‐up.

Potential to tailor surveillance

Pharmacologic Management of Aneurysms

Current management of aortic aneurysms relies exclusively on prophylactic operative repair of larger aneurysms. Great potential exists for successful medical therapy that halts or reduces aneurysm progression and hence alleviates or postpones the need for surgical repair. Preclinical studies in the context of abdominal aortic aneurysm identified hundreds of candidate strategies for stabilization, and data from preoperative clinical intervention studies show that interventions in the pathways of the activated inflammatory and proteolytic cascades in enlarging abdominal aortic aneurysm are feasible. Similarly, the concept of pharmaceutical aorta stabilization in Marfan syndrome is supported by a wealth of promising studies in the murine models of Marfan syndrome-related aortapathy. Although some clinical studies report successful medical stabilization of growing aortic aneurysms and aortic root stabilization in Marfan syndrome, these claims are not consistently confirmed in larger and controlled studies. Consequently, no medical therapy can be recommended for the stabilization of aortic aneurysms. The discrepancy between preclinical successes and clinical trial failures implies shortcomings in the available models of aneurysm disease and perhaps incomplete understanding of the pathological processes involved in later stages of aortic aneurysm progression. Preclinical models more reflective of human pathophysiology, identification of biomarkers to predict severity of disease progression, and improved design of clinical trials may more rapidly advance the opportunities in this important field.

Claims Variability in Charges and Payments for Common Open and Endovascular Procedures

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness in healthcare is being increasingly scrutinized. Data regarding claims variability for vascular operations are lacking. Herein, we aim to describe variability in charges and payments for aortoiliac (AI) and infrainguinal (II) revascularizations.

METHODS

We analyzed 2012-2014 claims data from a statewide claims database for procedures grouped by Current Procedural Terminology codes into II-open (II-O), II-endovascular (II-E), AI-open (AI-O), and AI-endovascular interventions (AI-E). We compared charges and payments in urban (≥50,000 people, UAs) versus rural areas (<50,000 people, RAs). Amounts are reported in $US as median with interquartile range. Cost-to-charge ratios (CCRs) as a measure of reimbursement were calculated as the percentage of the charges covered by the payments. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were performed to determine significant differences.

RESULTS

A total of 5,239 persons had complete claims data. There were 7,239 UA and 6,891 RA claims, and 1,057 AI claims (AI-E = 879, AI-O = 178) and 4,182 II claims (II-E = 3,012, II-0 = 1,170). Median charges were $5,357 for AI [$1,846-$27,107] and $2,955 for II [$1,484-$9,338.5] (P < 0.0001). Median plan payment was $454 for AI [$0-$1,380] and $454 for II [$54-$1,060] (P = 0.67). For AI and II, charges were significantly higher for UA than RA (AI: UA $9,875 [$2,489-$34,427], RA $3,732 [$1,450-$20,595], P < 0.0001; II: UA $3,596 [$1,700-$21,664], RA $2,534 [$1,298-$6,169], P < 0.0001). AI-E charges were higher than AI-O (AI-E $7,960 [$1,699-$32,507], AI-O $4,774 [$2,636-$7,147], P < 0.0001), but AI-O payments were higher (AI-E $424 [$0-$1,270], AI-O $869 [$164-$1,435], P = 0.0067). II-E charges were higher (II-E $2,994 [$1,552-$22,164], II-O $2,873 [$1,108-$5,345], P < 0.0001), but II-O payments were higher (II-E $427 [$50-$907], II-O $596 [$73-$1,299], P < 0.0001). CCRs were highest for II operations and UAs.

CONCLUSIONS

Wide variability in claim charges and payments exists for vascular operations. AI procedures had higher charges than II, without any difference in payments. UA charged more than RA for both AI and II operations, but RA had higher payments and CCRs. Endovascular procedures had higher charges, while open procedures had higher payments. Charge differences may be related to endovascular device costs, and further research is necessary to determine the reasons behind consistent claims variability between UA and RA.

Direct health costs and clinical outcomes of open surgery in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm in Spain. The RECAPTA study

OBJECTIVE

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a chronic, progressive disease that often requires surgical repair. This study aimed to assess the healthcare costs and clinical outcomes of open AAA repair in Spain.

METHOD

Observational, retrospective, multicenter study with a one-year follow-up. Healthcare resource use and costs related to the surgical procedure, hospital stay, and follow-up period were assessed.

RESULTS

Ninety patients with asymptomatic AAA who underwent open repair were recruited between 2003 and 2009 at three Spanish hospitals. Four patients (4.44%) died in the first 30 postoperative days. Mean [standard deviation] procedure time was 292.83 [72.10] minutes and mean hospital length of stay was 11.44 days [5.42]. Thirty two patients (35.56%) presented in-hospital complications and three patients (3.45%) underwent re-intervention during follow-up. The mean overall cost per patient during the study period was €21,622.59, of which 42.40% (€9,168.19), 52.08% (€11,261.74), and 5.52% (€1,192.66) corresponded to the surgical procedure, the inpatient stay, and the study follow-up period, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the economic burden imposed by the treatment of patients admitted with AAA on the Spanish health system, additional efforts comparing the cost of open repair with endovascular treatments are needed to ensure greater efficiency.

Is management of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms consistent? A questionnaire-based survey

BACKGROUND

Complex abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a relatively common presentation to the vascular specialist. Despite this there is little consensus on how to manage the often comorbid group of patients. Recent advances in endovascular technology have led to the availability of multiple devices, many of which could be used to treat the same aneurysm. The aim of this study was to quantify this potential variability across vascular specialists from multiple countries.

METHODS

An online survey was emailed to members of the Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland (VSGBI), the Canadian Society for Vascular Surgery (CSVS) and the Australian and New Zealand Society for Vascular Surgery (ANZSVS). The survey presented a vignette of a 63-year-old woman with significant respiratory comorbidity and a 54 mm juxtarenal AAA (7 mm neck). There were no other adverse morphological features for endovascular repair. The survey included images and questions related to management of the aneurysm.

RESULTS

The survey received 238 responses; 61 from ANZSVS, 65 from CSVS and 112 from VSGBI. VSGBI specialists were significantly more likely to continue surveillance than both ANZSVS (odds ratio [OR] 3.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.61-7.65; P<0.001) and CSVS counterparts (OR 2.61, 95% CI: 1.29-5.47; P<0.01). ANZSVS specialists were significantly more likely to perform an endovascular repair than those from CSVS (OR 3.28, 95% CI: 1.50-7.40; P<0.01) and VSGBI (OR 3.65, 95% CI: 1.81-7.59; P<0.001). CSVS specialists were significantly more likely to manage the aneurysm with open surgery than colleagues from the VSGBI (OR 6.57, 95% CI: 2.58-18.46; P<0.001) and ANZSVS (OR 7.18, 95% CI: 2.22-30.79; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant variation in the management of a juxtarenal AAA between countries was observed. The same patient would be more likely to have an endovascular repair in Australia and New Zealand, open surgery in Canada and continuing surveillance in the UK and Ireland. This variation reflects the lack of long-term evidence and international consensus on the optimal management of complex AAA.

The UK EndoVascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) randomised controlled trials: long-term follow-up and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Short-term survival benefits of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair (OR) of intact abdominal aortic aneurysms have been shown in randomised trials, but this early survival benefit is soon lost. Survival benefit of EVAR was unclear at follow-up to 10 years.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the long-term efficacy of EVAR against OR in patients deemed fit and suitable for both procedures (EVAR trial 1; EVAR-1); and against no intervention in patients unfit for OR (EVAR trial 2; EVAR-2). To appraise the long-term significance of type II endoleak and define criteria for intervention.

DESIGN

Two national, multicentre randomised controlled trials: EVAR-1 and EVAR-2.

SETTING

Patients were recruited from 37 hospitals in the UK between 1 September 1999 and 31 August 2004.

PARTICIPANTS

Men and women aged ≥ 60 years with an aneurysm of ≥ 5.5 cm (as identified by computed tomography scanning), anatomically suitable and fit for OR were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to either EVAR (n = 626) or OR (n = 626) in EVAR-1 using computer-generated sequences at the trial hub. Patients considered unfit were randomly assigned to EVAR (n = 197) or no intervention (n = 207) in EVAR-2. There was no blinding.

INTERVENTIONS

EVAR, OR or no intervention.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end points were total and aneurysm-related mortality until mid-2015 for both trials. Secondary outcomes for EVAR-1 were reinterventions, costs and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

In EVAR-1, over a mean of 12.7 years (standard deviation 1.5 years; maximum 15.8 years), we recorded 9.3 deaths per 100 person-years in the EVAR group and 8.9 deaths per 100 person-years in the OR group [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.27; p = 0.14]. At 0-6 months after randomisation, patients in the EVAR group had a lower mortality (adjusted HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.02 for total mortality; HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.93 for aneurysm-related mortality; p = 0.031), but beyond 8 years of follow-up patients in the OR group had a significantly lower mortality (adjusted HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.56, p = 0.048 for total mortality; HR 5.82, 95% CI 1.64 to 20.65, p = 0.0064 for aneurysm-related mortality). The increased aneurysm-related mortality in the EVAR group after 8 years was mainly attributable to secondary aneurysm sac rupture, with increased cancer mortality also observed in the EVAR group. Overall, aneurysm reintervention rates were higher in the EVAR group than in the OR group, 4.1 and 1.7 per 100 person-years, respectively (p < 0.001), with reinterventions occurring throughout follow-up. The mean difference in costs over 14 years was £3798 (95% CI £2338 to £5258). Economic modelling based on the outcomes of the EVAR-1 trial showed that the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the patient's lifetime exceeds conventional thresholds used in the UK. In EVAR-2, patients died at the same rate in both groups, but there was suggestion of lower aneurysm mortality in those who actually underwent EVAR. Type II endoleak itself is not associated with a higher rate of mortality.

LIMITATIONS

Devices used were implanted between 1999 and 2004. Newer devices might have better results. Later follow-up imaging declined, particularly for OR patients. Methodology to capture reinterventions changed mainly to record linkage through the Hospital Episode Statistics administrative data set from 2009.

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR has an early survival benefit but an inferior late survival benefit compared with OR, which needs to be addressed by lifelong surveillance of EVAR and reintervention if necessary. EVAR does not prolong life in patients unfit for OR. Type II endoleak alone is relatively benign.

FUTURE WORK

To find easier ways to monitor sac expansion to trigger timely reintervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55703451.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and the results will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Comparative clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of endovascular strategy v open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: three year results of the IMPROVE randomised trial

Objective To assess the three year clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of a strategy of endovascular repair (if aortic morphology is suitable, open repair if not) versus open repair for patients with suspected ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.Design Randomised controlled trial.Setting 30 vascular centres (29 in UK, one in Canada), 2009-16.Participants 613 eligible patients (480 men) with a clinical diagnosis of ruptured aneurysm, of whom 502 underwent emergency repair for rupture.Interventions 316 patients were randomised to an endovascular strategy (275 with confirmed rupture) and 297 to open repair (261 with confirmed rupture).Main outcome measures Mortality, with reinterventions after aneurysm repair, quality of life, and hospital costs to three years as secondary measures.Results The maximum follow-up for mortality was 7.1 years, with two patients in each group lost to follow-up by three years. After similar mortality by 90 days, in the mid-term (three months to three years) there were fewer deaths in the endovascular than the open repair group (hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.90), leading to lower mortality at three years (48% v 56%), but by seven years mortality was about 60% in each group (hazard ratio 0.92, 0.75 to 1.13). Results for the 502 patients with repaired ruptures were more pronounced: three year mortality was lower in the endovascular strategy group (42% v 54%; odds ratio 0.62, 0.43 to 0.88), but after seven years there was no clear difference between the groups (hazard ratio 0.86, 0.68 to 1.08). Reintervention rates up to three years were not significantly different between the randomised groups (hazard ratio 1.02, 0.79 to 1.32); the initial rapid rate of reinterventions was followed by a much slower mid-term reintervention rate in both groups. The early higher average quality of life in the endovascular strategy versus open repair group, coupled with the lower mortality at three years, led to a gain in average quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at three years of 0.17 (95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.33). The endovascular strategy group spent fewer days in hospital and had lower average costs of -£2605 (95% confidence interval -£5966 to £702) (about €2813; $3439). The probability that the endovascular strategy is cost effective was >90% at all levels of willingness to pay for a QALY gain.Conclusions At three years, compared with open repair, an endovascular strategy for suspected ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm was associated with a survival advantage, a gain in QALYs, similar levels of reintervention, and reduced costs, and this strategy was cost effective. These findings support the increasing use of an endovascular strategy, with wider availability of emergency endovascular repair.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48334791; ClinicalTrials NCT00746122.

A primer on infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms have an alarmingly high mortality rate that often exceeds 50%, even when patients survive long enough to be transported to hospitals. Historical data have shown that ruptures are especially likely to occur with aneurysms measuring ≥6 cm in diameter, but there are so many exceptions to this that several randomized clinical trials have been done in an attempt to determine whether smaller aneurysms should be repaired electively as soon as they are discovered. More recently, further trials have been conducted in order to compare the relative benefits and disadvantages of modern endovascular aneurysm repair to those of traditional open surgery. This review summarizes current evidence from randomized trials and large population-based datasets regarding two questions that are uppermost in the mind of virtually every patient who is found to have an abdominal aortic aneurysm. Should it be fixed? What are the risks?

Early extubation is associated with reduced length of stay and improved outcomes after elective aortic surgery in the Vascular Quality Initiative

OBJECTIVE

Timing of extubation after open aortic procedures varies across hospitals. This study was designed to examine extubation timing and determine its effect on length of stay (LOS) and respiratory complications after elective open aortic surgery.

METHODS

We studied extubation timing for 7171 patients undergoing elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (2687 [37.5%]) or suprainguinal bypass for aortoiliac occlusive disease (4484 [62.5%]) from October 2010 to April 2015 in hospitals participating in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). Our primary outcome was prolonged LOS (>7 days), and the secondary outcome was respiratory complications (pneumonia or reintubation). The association between extubation timing and outcomes was assessed using multivariable logistic regression mixed-effects models that adjusted for confounding factors at the patient and procedure level. A variable importance analysis was conducted using a chi-pie framework to identify factors contributing to the variability of extubation timing.

RESULTS

The 7171 patients undergoing abdominal aortic surgery were a mean age of 65.4 (standard deviation, 10.2) years, and 63% were male. Extubation occurred (1) in the operating room (76.3%), (2) <12 hours (10.9%), (3) 12 to 24 hours (7.2%), or (4) >24 hours (5.6%) after surgery. Hospitals in the top quartile for case volume had the highest percentage of patients extubated in the operating room (82.8%). Patients least likely to be extubated in the operating room were older, more likely to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, require vasopressors, have higher estimated blood loss (EBL), and longer procedure times. After adjustment for patient, procedure, and institutional factors, delayed extubation was associated with prolonged LOS (<12 hours: odds ratio [OR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-1.7; 12-24 hours: OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.7-2.7; >24 hours: OR, 5.3; 95% CI, 4.0-6.9), and pulmonary complications (<12 hours: OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6; 12-24 hours: OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.8-3.6; >24 hours: OR, 9.6; 95% CI, 7.1-13.0) compared with those extubated in the operating room. Subset analysis of patients extubated in the operating room or <12 hours showed that extubation out of the operating room was associated with prolonged LOS (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7) and pulmonary complications (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.5). The variable importance analysis demonstrated that EBL (26%) and procedure time (24%) accounted for half of the variation in extubation timing.

CONCLUSIONS

Extubation in the operating room is associated with shorter LOS and morbidity after open aortic surgery. EBL, procedure time, and center variation account for variability in extubation timing. These data advocate for standardized perioperative respiratory care to reduce variation, improve outcomes, and reduce LOS.

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Objective: To assess medical economic adequacy of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).

Methods: Cost-utility analysis. A total of 21 patients with AAA treated at Ibaraki Prefectural Central Hospital in 2014 were divided into non-ruptured EVAR (Group E) and open surgery (OS) (Group O), and ruptured OS (Group R) groups, and hospital costs were aggregated with a medical accounting system. Mid-level hospital costs were estimated by a diagnosis-procedure-combination analysis system. Incremental life years were extrapolated from the results of randomized controlled trials in the UK (EVAR Trial 1 and 2), a life table, and the Pancreas Cancer Registry in Japan. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were estimated under the assumption of a certain quality weight.

Results: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EVAR compared with the OS was calculated to be 31.0 million yen/QALY, which is economically inadequate. ICER of EVAR compared with conservative treatment was inadequate in some subgroups of extremely old patients and in patients operated for far-advanced cancer.

Conclusion: EVAR is inadequate with respect to medical economics as a substitute for OS for patients in whom both procedures are available. The indication for EVAR in patients ineligible for OS should be different from that for surgery in usual patients with AAA. (This is a translation of J Jpn Coll Angiol 2016; 56: 123–130.)

Endovascular aneurysm sealing addresses several limitations of conventional endovascular aneurysm repair

Endovascular aneurysm repair has enabled a broad population of patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm to be treated by a less-invasive technique. However, endovascular aneurysm repair has therapeutic limitations, including the need for lifelong surveillance and a higher rate of secondary interventions than open repair. These outcomes can promote patient dissatisfaction and result in increased health care costs and associated morbidity and mortality. The primary reason for secondary interventions is continued abdominal aortic aneurysm sac enlargement due to endoleaks. Conventional endovascular aneurysm repair procedures do not address aortic branch vessels that are ligated during open repairs. Secondary measures to occlude these branch vessels have shown efficacy in limiting sac growth, but do not predictably eliminate the need for further interventions. Endovascular aneurysm sealing is a new technique that addresses some of the limitations of conventional endovascular repair. Endovascular aneurysm sealing secures the stent graft flow lumens within a biostable polymer. This stability prevents stent migration while also sealing branch vessels that are otherwise not addressed by other endovascular devices. This new approach to endovascular repair has shown early promise in reducing the rates of endoleak and need for secondary interventions, while opening up the possibility of durable endovascular repair to a more challenging type of anatomy.

Endovascular anatomic reconstruction of the iliac bifurcation with covered stentgrafts in sandwich-technique for the treatment of complex aorto-iliac aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular anatomic reconstruction of iliac artery bifurcation in aorto-iliac aneurysms using commercial stentgrafts in sandwich-technique by bilateral transfemoral approach.

METHODS

24 patients (mean 73.8±standard deviation 6.8years) with complex aorto-iliac aneurysms (AAA): n=17; diameter 64±15 [48-100]mm; common-iliac-artery (CIA): n=27; 43±15 [30-87]mm; internal-iliac-artery (IIA): n=14; 28±8 [15-43]mm) were prospectively enrolled for EVAR with preservation of the IIA (n=31; bi-lateral n=7). Maintenance of antegrade flow to IIA by iliac reconstruction was performed in sandwich-technique prior to EVAR. Follow-up of 15.0±10.8 [1-40]months included contrast-enhanced ultrasound and computed-tomography after 1week, 3, 6 and every 12months.

RESULTS

Initial technical success for anatomic reconstruction of the iliac arteries in 31 instances was 100%. Primary patency of iliac neo-bifurcations was 90.9% (20/22) at 6months and 84.2% (16/19) at 1year. Postprocedural gutter-endoleaks type 1b were obvious in 6.5% (2/31) of cases, which disappeared 3months later. Aortic/iliac aneurysm-size after 1year decreased (>5mm) in 61.5% of patients. No aneurysm-size increase or late rupture occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular reconstruction of the iliac bifurcation with commercial standard stentgrafts is safe and effective. Transfemoral approach allows extension of distal landing zone for EVAR while preserving the internal iliac artery blood-flow, even in unfavorable iliac anatomy.

IL-6: A Janus-like factor in abdominal aortic aneurysm disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is part of the atherosclerotic spectrum of diseases. The disease is hallmarked by a comprehensive localized inflammatory response with striking IL-6 hyperexpression. IL-6 is a multifaceted cytokine that, depending on the context, acts as a pro- or anti-inflammatory factor. In this study, we explore a putative role for IL-6 in AAA disease.

METHODS

ELISA's, Western blot analysis, real time PCR and array analysis were used to investigate IL-6 expression and signaling in aneurysm wall samples from patients undergoing elective AAA repair. A role for IL-6 in AAA disease was tested through IL-6 neutralization experiments (neutralizing antibody) in the elastase model of AAA disease.

RESULTS

We confirmed an extreme disparity in aortic wall IL-6 content between AAA and atherosclerotic disease (median [5th-95th percentile] aortic wall IL-6 content: 281.6 [0.0-1820.8] (AAA) vs. 1.9 [0.0-37.8] μg/g protein (atherosclerotic aorta), (p < 0.001). Array analysis followed by pathway analysis showed that IL-6 hyper-expression is followed by increased IL-6 signaling (p < 0.000039), an observation confirmed by higher aneurysm wall pSTAT3 levels, and SOCS1 and SOCS3 mRNA expression, (p < 0.018). Remarkably, preventive IL-6 neutralization i.e. treatment started one day prior to the elastase-induction resulted in >40% 7-day mortality due to aortic rupture. In contrast, delayed IL-6 neutralization (i.e. neutralization started at day 4 after elastase induction) did not result in ruptures, and quenched AAA growth (p < 0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

AAA disease is characterized by increased IL-6 signaling. In the context of the elastase model of AAA disease, IL-6 appears a multi-faceted factor, protective upon acute injury, but negatively involved in the perpetuation of the disease process.

The Impact of Aneurysm Morphology and Anatomic Characteristics on Long-Term Survival after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Hostile anatomic characteristics in patients undergoing endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) and the placement of endografts not in concordance with the specific device anatomic guidelines (or instructions for use [IFU]) have shown decreased technical success of the procedure. But these factors have never been evaluated in regard to patient postoperative survival. We sought to assess the association between survival and (1) aneurysm anatomy and characteristics and (2) implantation in compliance with manufacturer's anatomic IFU guidelines in patients undergoing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

METHODS

The cohort included 273 consecutive patients who underwent EVAR at Baylor Heart and Vascular Hospital between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2009 and had their preoperative computed tomography (CT) scan digitally retrievable. The CT scans and operative notes were then reviewed, and the anatomic severity grading (ASG) score, maximum aneurysm diameter, thrombus width, patency of aortic side branch vessels, and implantation in compliance with IFU guidelines were assessed. The unadjusted association between survival (assessed until November 1, 2011) and these variables was assessed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Moreover, propensity-adjusted (for a comprehensive array of clinical and nonclinical risk factors) proportional hazard models were developed to assess the adjusted associations.

RESULTS

Seven (2.56%) patients died within 30 days from EVAR, and 88 (30.04%) patients died during the study follow-up. Patient mean survival was 6.3 years. The unadjusted analysis showed a statistically significant association between survival and thrombus width (P = 0.007), ASG score (P = 0.004), and implantation in compliance with IFU guidelines (P = 0.007). However, the adjusted analysis revealed that none of the anatomic and compliance factors were significantly associated with long-term survival (ASG, P = 0.149; diameter, P = 0.836; thrombus, P = 0.639; patency, P = 0.219; and implantation compliance, P = 0.219).

CONCLUSIONS

Unfavorable aneurysm morphologic characteristics and endograft implantation not in compliance with IFU guidelines did not adversely affect patient survival after EVAR in this group of patients. This implies that unfavorable anatomy, even that which would necessitate implantation of the EVAR device outside of the IFU guidelines, should not necessarily contraindicate EVAR.

Nellix EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing System: Device description, technique of implantation, and literature review

Clinical outcome reports document that from 30% to 60% of endovascular aneurysm repair procedures are performed outside of US Food and Drug Administration-approved Instruction for Use, or "off label." Endovascular aneurysm repair performed outside of Instruction for Use has a significantly higher rate of device failure, potentially requiring device reintervention and even planned or emergent explant. The Nellix device has the potential to reduce the rate of aneurysm device failure through its novel design. The objective of this article was to introduce the Nellix EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing System and indications for use and describe the technique of implantation. We describe various modes of endovascular aneurysm repair failure and how the Nellix system can reduce these unplanned adverse outcomes. Additional clinical applications and theoretical shortcomings of endovascular aneurysm sealing devices are detailed.

Clinical outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm complicated with hypertension: A 5-year experience

Objective:

To evaluate the therapeutic effects of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) on abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) complicated with hypertension.

Methods:

Fifty-two patients with AAA complicated with hypertension treated in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into an observation group (34 cases) and a control group (18 cases). The control group was treated by incision of AAA and artificial blood vessel replacement, and the observation group was treated by EVAR.

Results:

All surgeries were performed successfully. However, compared with the control group, the observation group had significantly less surgical time, intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion, as well as significantly higher total hospitalization expense (P<0.05). During the one-month follow-up, the observation group was significantly less prone to pulmonary infection, surgical site infection, lower-extremity deep venous thrombosis and lower extremity weakness than the control group (P<0.05). The observation group enjoyed significantly better quality of life than the control group did one and three months after surgery (P<0.05).

Conclusion:

Given sufficient funding, EVAR should be preferentially selected in the treatment of AAA complicated with hypertension due to minimal invasion, safety, stable postoperative vital signs and improved quality of life.