Proposed NICE Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Guidelines: Swinging the Pendulum too Far?

An Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness and Clinical Outcomes of a Comprehensive Aortic Service in a Tertiary Center over One Year

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is an established and attractive alternative to open surgical repair (OSR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) due to its superior short-term safety profile. However, opinions are divided regarding its long-term cost-effectiveness. We compared the total yearly cost of running endovascular and OSR services in a single tertiary center to determine whether fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR) represents a clinically efficacious, affordable treatment option.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective review was performed on 109 patients undergoing a procedure related to index or previous abdominal aortic repair, with 1 year follow-up. Data was collected from the National Vascular Registry and hospital records. The primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and morbidity, reintervention rates, length of hospital stay, aneurysm, and all-cause mortality at 1 year for elective index procedures.

RESULTS

The average cost per patient of all FEVAR was £16,041.53 (±8,857.54), £13,893.51 (±£21,425.25) for standard EVAR, and £15,357.22 (±£15,904.49) for OSR (FEVAR versus EVAR P = 0.55, FEVAR versus OSR P = 0.83, OSR versus EVAR P = 0.76). Of the secondary outcomes, significant findings included increased length of stay and respiratory morbidity for patients undergoing open versus endovascular repair. There was no significant difference in 30-day or 1-year mortality between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

FEVAR, EVAR, and OSR all represent cost-effective options for aortic repair with similar outcomes. Our data highlights the potential for FEVAR to present a viable alternative to open repair, particularly in higher-risk groups, when performed in specialist centers.

Management of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Disease: Similarities and Differences Among Cardiovascular Guidelines and NICE Guidance

The development of endovascular techniques has improved abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) management over the past 2 decades. Different cardiovascular societies worldwide have recommended the endovascular approach as the standard of care in their currently available guidelines. While endovascular treatment has established its role in daily clinical practice, a new debate has arisen regarding the indications, appropriateness, limitations, and role of open surgery. To inform this debate, the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from 2010 to May 2020; the systematic search identified 5 articles published between 2011 and 2020 by 4 cardiovascular societies and the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Four debatable domains were assessed and analyzed: diagnostic methods and screening, preoperative management, indications and treatment modalities, and postoperative follow-up and endoleak management. The review addresses controversial proposals as well as widely accepted recommendations and "gray zone" issues that need to be further investigated and analyzed, such as screening in women, medical management, and follow-up imaging. While the recommendations for AAA management have significant overlap and agreement among international cardiovascular societies, the NICE guidelines diverge regarding the role of open repair in aortic disease, recommending conventional surgery in most elective cases.

Impact of Gradual Adoption of EVAR in Elective Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Retrospective Cohort Study from 2009 to 2015

INTRODUCTION

The recommendations about the preferred type of elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) still divides guidelines committees, even nowadays. The aim is to assess outcomes after AAA repair focusing on differences between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR).

METHODS

The observational retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients submitted to elective AAA repair at a tertiary center, 2009-2015. Exclusion criteria were as follows: nonelective cases or complex aortic aneurysms. Primary outcomes were postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, survival, freedom from aortic-related mortality, and vascular reintervention. Time trends were assessed along the period under analysis.

RESULTS

From a total of 211 included patients, those submitted to EVAR were older (74 ± 7 vs. 67 ± 9 years; P < 0.001), presented a higher prevalence of hypertension (83.5% vs. 68.5%, P = 0.004), obesity (28.7% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.029), previous cardiac revascularization (30.5% vs. 14.7%, P = 0.005), heart failure (17.2% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.013), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (32.8% vs. 13.3%, P = 0.002). Patients were followed during a median of 49 months. EVAR resulted in a significantly shorter length of hospital stay (median 4 and interquartile range 3 vs. 8 (9); P < 0.001), lower 30-day complications (10.6% vs. 22.8%, P = 0.017), lower aortic-related mortality, and similar reintervention after adjustment with a propensity score. Along the time under analysis, EVAR became the predominate type of repair (P = 0.024), the proportion of complications decreased (P = 0.014), and the 30-day mortality (P = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

Although EVAR was offered to patients with more comorbidities, better and durable outcomes were achieved after EVAR, favoring its adoption for elective AAA repair.