Thirty-day mortality and late survival with reinterventions and readmissions after open and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in Medicare beneficiaries

Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis of Endovascular Versus Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in the Young

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate which treatment method for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), endovascular or open repair, has better outcomes in young patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify observational studies or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared endovascular and open repair of intact AAA in young patients. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched up to March 2022 using the Ovid interface. The risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS), with a maximum score of 9, or version 2 of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The certainty of evidence was assessed with the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were perioperative, overall, and aneurysm-related mortality. Secondary outcomes were reintervention, hospital length of stay, and perioperative complications. Effect measures in syntheses were the odds ratio (OR), risk difference (RD), mean difference (MD), or hazard ratio (HR) and were calculated with the Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance statistical method and random-effects models.

RESULTS

Fifteen observational studies and 1 RCT were included, reporting a total of 48 976 young patients. Definitions of young ranged from 60 to 70 years. The median score on the NOS was 8 (range: 4-9), and the RCT was judged to be high risk of bias. The perioperative mortality was lower after EVAR (RD: -0.01, 95% CI: -0.02 to -0.00), but the overall and aneurysm-related mortality was not significantly different between EVAR and open repair (HR: 1.38, 95% CI: 0.81 to 2.33; HR: 4.68, 95% CI: 0.71 to 31.04, respectively), as was the hazard of reintervention (HR: 1.50, 95% CI: 0.88 to 2.56). The hospital length of stay was shorter after EVAR (MD: -4.44 days, 95% CI: -4.79 to -4.09), and the odds of cardiac (OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.35), respiratory (OR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.26), and bleeding complications were lower after EVAR (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.64). The level of evidence was low or very low.

CONCLUSION

Patient preferences and perspectives should be considered during shared decision-making process considering the available evidence. EVAR may be considered in young and fit patients with a suitable anatomy.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42022325051Clinical ImpactUncertainty surrounds the optimal treatment strategy for abdominal aortic aneurysm in young patients. Meta-analysis of some 48,976 young patients showed that endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has a lower perioperative mortality and morbidity and a shorter hospital and intensive care unit stay than open surgical repair, but the overall and aneurysm-related mortality in the short to medium term are not significantly different between EVAR and open repair. EVAR can be considered in young patients.

Early and Mid-Term Results of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair with the Cordis Incraft Ultra-Low Profile Endograft: A High-Volume Center Experience

Background/Objectives: In recent years, manufacturers have developed new low-profile stent grafts to allow endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) in patients with small access vessels. We evaluated the early and mid-term outcomes of the Incraft (Cordis Corp, Bridgewater, NJ, USA) ultra-low profile endograft implantation in a high-volume single center. Methods: Between 2014 and 2023, 133 consecutive endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) procedures performed using the Incraft endograft were recorded in a prospective database. Indications included infrarenal aortic aneurysms, common iliac aneurysms, and infrarenal penetrating aortic ulcers. Mid-term results were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: During the study period, 133 patients were treated with the Cordis Incraft endograft, in both elective and urgent settings. The Incraft graft was the first choice for patients with hostile iliac accesses, a feature characterizing at least one side in 90.2% of the patients in the study cohort. The immediate technical success rate was 78.2%. The intraoperative endoleak rate was 51.9% (20.3% type 1 A, 0.8% type 1 B, and 30.8% type 2 endoleak). Within 30 days, technical and clinical success rates were both 99.3%; all type 1A and 1B endoleaks were resolved at the 30-day follow-up CT-angiogram. After a mean follow-up of 35.4 months, the actuarial freedom from the re-intervention rate was 96.0%, 91.1%, and 84.0% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. The iliac leg patency rate was 97.1%, 94.1%, and 93.1% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed between hostile and non-hostile access groups, nor between the groups with grade 1, grade 2, and grade 3 access hostility. Conclusions: The ultra-low profile Cordis Incraft endograft represents a valid option for the endovascular treatment of AAA in patients with hostile iliac accesses. The procedure can be performed with high rates of technical and clinical success at 30 days and the rates of iliac branch occlusion observed during the follow-up period appear acceptable in patients with poor aorto-iliac outflow.

Assessment of fitness for open repair in patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) was originally designed as a treatment modality for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) deemed unfit for open repair. However, the definition of "unfit for open repair" is largely subjective and heterogenous. The purpose of this study was to compare patients deemed unfit for open repair who underwent EVAR to a matched cohort who underwent open repair for infrarenal AAAs.

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative of the Society for Vascular Surgery was queried for patients who underwent EVAR and open infrarenal AAA repair from 2003 to 2022. Patients that underwent EVAR were included if they were deemed unfit for open repair by the operating surgeon. EVAR patients deemed unfit because of a hostile abdomen were excluded. Patients in both the open and EVAR datasets were excluded if their repair was deemed non-elective or if they had prior aortic surgery. EVAR patients were matched to a cohort of open patients. The primary outcome for this study was 1-year mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, major adverse cardiac events, pulmonary complications, non-home discharge, reinterventions, and 5-year survival.

RESULTS

A total of 5310 EVAR patients were identified who were deemed unfit for open repair. Of those, 3028 EVAR patients (57.0%) were able to be matched 1:1 to a cohort of open patients. Open patients had higher rates of major adverse cardiac events (20.2% vs 4.4%; P < .001), pulmonary complications (12.8% vs 1.6%; P < .001), non-home discharges (28.5% vs 7.9%; P < .001), and 30-day mortality (4.5% vs 1.4%; P < .001). There were no differences in early survival, but open repair had better middle and late survival compared with EVAR over the course of 5 years. A total of 74 EVAR patients (2.4%) had reinterventions during the study period. EVAR patients that required interventions had higher 1-year (40.5% vs 7.3%; P < .001) and 5-year mortality (43.2% vs 14.1%; P < .001) compared with those that did not require reinterventions. EVAR patients who had reinterventions had higher 1-year (40.5% vs 6.3%; P < .001) and 5-year (43.2% vs 20.3%; P = .006) mortality compared with their matched open cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing EVAR for AAAs who are deemed unfit for open repair have better perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with open repair. However, patients who had an open repair had better middle and late survival over the course of 5 years. The categorization of unfitness for open surgery may be inaccurate and re-evaluation of this terminology/concept should be undertaken.

Impact of Previous Open Abdominal Surgery on Open Abdominal Aortic Repair: A Study from the NSQIP Database

BACKGROUND

While endovascular aneurysm repair has become a first-line strategy in many centers, open surgical repair (OSR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is still the best option for certain patients. A significant number of patients who are offered OSR for AAA have been previously submitted to other open abdominal surgeries (PAS). It is unclear, however, how this may impact their outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is an association between PAS and outcomes of OSR of AAA.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study based on clinical data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, including all patients undergoing elective OSR for AAA between 2011 and 2017. Excluded were patients with missing data on prior abdominal surgery, supramesenteric clamping, or urgent repairs. Patients with prior abdominal surgery (PAS) and patients without prior abdominal surgeries (nonPAS) were compared. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. Secondary outcomes were operating time, ischemic colitis, postoperative complications, and lengths of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Of the 2034 patients included, 27% had previous open abdominal surgery and 73% did not. Overall, the median age was 71(interquartile range 65-76), 72% of patients were male, 44% were smokers, and the average body mass index was 27 kg/m2. Univariate analysis showed no difference in postoperative 30-day mortality (4.0% PAS vs. 4.1% nonPAS, P = 0.91) or overall postoperative complication rates (33% PAS vs. 29% nonPAS, P = 0.07). Previous open abdominal surgery was significantly associated with longer operating times (P = 0.032) and an almost doubled rate of ischemic colitis (4.7% PAS vs. 2.6% nonPAS, P = 0.02). Postoperative intensive care unit and hospitalization were also significantly longer in patients with prior abdominal surgery (P = 0.005 and P = 0.014, respectively). Finally, there were significantly less patients discharged home, as opposed to institutionalized care (75.7% PAS down from 82.4% nonPAS, P = 0.001). Despite these initial univariate analysis results, on multivariate analysis, PAS actually did not prove to be a statistically significant independent risk factor for 30-day mortality, ischemic colitis, or longer operating times.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that patients who have undergone PAS may have some disadvantages in OSR of AAA. However, these negative trends do not go so far as to statistically significantly identify PAS as an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality, ischemic colitis, or longer operating times. As such, we suggest that a history of previous open abdominal surgery, in and of its own, should not exclude patients from consideration for open aortic abdominal aneurysm repair.

Long-Term Outcomes of Open Versus Endovascular Treatment for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data

BACKGROUND

The advent of endovascular techniques has revolutionized the care of patients with uncomplicated abdominal aortic aneurysms. This analysis compares the overall survival and the freedom from reintervention rate between open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular repair (EVAR) in patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies including patients who underwent either OSR or EVAR for uncomplicated AAA. All randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched cohort studies reporting on the outcomes of interest were considered eligible for inclusion. The systematic search of the literature was performed by 2 independent investigators in accordance with the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. We conducted 1-stage and 2-stage meta-analyses with Kaplan-Meier-derived time-to-event data and meta-analysis with a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met our eligibility criteria, incorporating 13 409 and 13 450 patients in the OSR and EVAR arms, respectively. Patients who underwent open repair had improved overall survival rates compared with those who underwent EVAR (hazard ratio [HR]=0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.88-0.98, p=0.004) during a mean follow-up of 53.8 (SD=29.8) months and this was validated by the 2-stage meta-analysis (HR=0.89, 95% CI=0.8-0.99, p=0.03, I2=62.25%). Splitting timepoint analysis suggested that EVAR offers better survival outcome compared with OSR in the first 11 months following elective intervention (HR=1.37, 95% CI=1.22-1.54, p<0.0001), while OSR offers a significant survival advantage after the 11-month timepoint and up to 180 months (HR=0.84, 95% CI=0.8-0.89, p<0.0001). Similarly, freedom from reintervention was found to be significantly better in EVAR patients (HR=1.28, 95% CI=1.14-1.44, p<0.0001) within the first 30 days. After the first month postrepair, however, OSR demonstrated higher freedom-from-reintervention rates compared with EVAR that remained significant for up to 168 months during follow-up (HR=0.73, 95% CI=0.66-0.79, p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the first-year survival advantage of EVAR in patients undergoing elective AAA repair, OSR was associated with a late survival benefit and decreased risk for reintervention in long-term follow-up.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Open surgical repair for uncomplicated abdominal aortic aneurysm offers better long-term outcomes in terms of survival and freedom from reintervention rate compared to the endovascular approach but in the first year it carries a higher risk of mortality. The novelty of our study lies that instead of comparing study-level effect estimates, we analyzed reconstructed individual patient-level data. This offered us the opportunity to perform our analyses with mathematically robust and flexible survival models, which was proved to be crucial since there was evidence of different hazard over time. Our findings underline the need for additional investigation to clarify the significance of open surgical repair when compared to the latest endovascular devices and techniques within the evolving era of minimally invasive procedures.

Proximal Instructions for Use Violations in Elective Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative: Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is often attempted in patients with marginal anatomy. These patients' midterm outcomes are available in the Vascular Quality Initiative for analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data in the Vascular Quality Initiative from patients who underwent elective infrarenal EVAR between 2011 and 2018. Each EVAR was identified as either on- or off-instructions for use (IFU) based on aortic neck criteria. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess associations between aneurysm sac enlargement, reintervention, and type Ia endoleak with IFU status. Kaplan-Meier time-to-event models estimated reintervention, aneurysm sac enlargement, and overall survival.

RESULTS

We identified 5,488 patients with at least 1 follow-up recorded. Those treated off-IFU included 1,236 patients ([23%] mean follow-up 401 days) compared with 4,252 (77%) treated on-IFU (mean follow-up 406 days). There was no evidence of significant differences in crude 30-day survival (96% vs 97%; p = 0.28) or estimated 2-year survival (97% vs 97%; log-rank p = 0.28). Crude type Ia endoleak frequency was greater in patients treated off IFU (2% vs 1%; p = 0.03). Off-IFU EVAR was associated with type Ia endoleak on multivariable regression model (odds ratio 1.84 [95% CI 1.23 to 2.76]; p = 0.003). Patients treated off IFU vs on IFU experienced had increased risk of reintervention within 2 years (7% vs 5%; log-rank p = 0.02), a finding consistent with results from the Cox modeling (hazard ratio 1.38 [95% CI 1.06 to 1.81]; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated off IFU were at greater risk for type Ia endoleak and reintervention, although they had similar 2-year survival compared with those treated on IFU. Patients with anatomy outside IFU should be considered for open surgery or complex endovascular repair to reduce the probability for revision.

Characterization of Secondary Interventions After Fenestrated-branched Endovascular Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms and Its Effect on Quality of Life and Patient Survival

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of secondary intervention (SI) on health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND

The effect of SI after FB-EVAR on physical and mental HR-QOL has not been described.

METHODS

A cohort of 430 consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized study to evaluate FB-EVAR (2013-2020) was assessed with 1325 short-form 36 HR-QOL questionnaires preoperatively and during follow-up visits. SIs were classified as major or minor procedures. Endpoints included patient survival, freedom from aortic-related mortality (ARM), freedom from SIs, and changes in HR-QOL physical component score (PCS) and mental component score.

RESULTS

There were 302 male with mean age 74±8 years treated by FB-EVAR for 133 complex abdominal aortic aneurysms and 297 thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. After a mean follow up of 26±20 months, 97 patients (23%) required 137 SIs. At 5 years, freedom from any SI was 64%±4%, including freedom from minor SIs of 77%±4% and major SIs of 87%±3%. There was no difference in patient survival and freedom from ARM at same interval. On adjusted analysis, minor SIs correlated with improved survival. SIs had a negative correlation with PCS ( r =-0.8). There were no significant changes in mental component score with SIs. Predictors for SIs were fluoroscopy time, graft design, and aneurysm sac change.

CONCLUSION

SIs were needed in nearly 1 out of 4 patients treated by FB-EVAR with no effect on patient survival or ARM. SI resulted in decline in PCS.

Elective Endovascular vs Open Repair for Elective Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in Patients ≥80 years of Age: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To provide updated, pooled evidence on clinical outcomes among octogenarians (aged ≥80 years) with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) managed by elective endovascular repair, compared to conventional open repair.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were systematically searched. Studies that were either observational or randomized controlled trials were considered for the review. Included studies were conducted in elderly subjects (≥80 years) with AAA, and clinical and mortality outcomes were compared between endovascular and open surgical repair. Those reporting on outcomes of patients with urgent repair were excluded. The primary outcomes of interest were mortality and risk of complications. The pooled effect sizes were reported as odds ratio (OR) for categorical outcomes and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes. STATA software was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 15 studies. Compared to those undergoing open repair, patients receiving endovascular repair had significantly reduced risk of immediate post-operative mortality (OR .23, 95% CI: .20, .27), overall complication (OR .30, 95% CI: .20, .44), cardiac (OR .23, 95% CI: .16, .35), renal (OR .29, 95% CI: .18, .46), pulmonary (OR .14, 95% CI: .09, .21) and bleeding related (OR .59, 95% CI: .42, .83) complications. The risk of mortality at latest follow up (at 36 months and 60 months) was similar in the two groups. The total blood loss (ml) (WMD -1126.47, 95% CI: -1497.81, -755.13), operative time (min) (WMD -29.40, 95% CI: -56.19, -2.62), length of intensive care unit stay (days) (WMD -2.27, 95% CI: -3.43, -2.12) and overall hospital stay (days) (WMD -6.64, 95% CI: -7.60, -5.68) was significantly lower in those undergoing endovascular repair.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular repair appears to be better than open repair of AAA in this high-risk, frail population, with respect to short term outcomes. The benefits of reduced risk of short term mortality, complications, and better peri and post-operative outcomes may be considered when making a choice between these two surgical approaches. Randomized controlled trials are needed to provide reliable evidence on the effect of EVAR on long term survival.

Editor's Choice - Structured Computed Tomography Analysis can Identify the Majority of Patients at Risk of Post-Endovascular Aortic Repair Rupture

OBJECTIVE

The main objective was to report mechanisms and precursors for post-endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) rupture. The second was to apply a structured protocol to explore whether these factors were identifiable on follow up computed tomography (CT) prior to rupture. The third objective was to study the incidence, treatment, and outcome of post-EVAR rupture.

METHODS

This was a multicentre, retrospective study of patients treated with standard EVAR at five Swedish hospitals from 2008 to 2018. Patients were identified from the Swedvasc registry. Medical records were reviewed up to 2020. Index EVAR and follow up data were recorded. The primary endpoint was post-EVAR rupture. CT at follow up and at post-EVAR rupture were studied, using a structured protocol, to determine rupture mechanisms and identifiable precursors.

RESULTS

In 1 805 patients treated by EVAR, 45 post-EVAR ruptures occurred in 43 patients. The cumulative incidence was 2.5% over a mean follow up of 5.2 years. The incidence rate was 4.5/1 000 person years. Median time to post-EVAR rupture was 4.1 years. A further six cases of post-EVAR rupture in five patients found outside the main cohort were included in the analysis of rupture mechanisms only. The rupture mechanism was type IA in 20 of 51 cases (39%), IB in 20 of 51 (39%) and IIIA/B in 11 of 51 (22%). One of these had type IA + IB combined. One patient had an aortoduodenal fistula without another mechanism being identified. Precursors had been noted on CT follow up prior to post-EVAR rupture in 16 of 51 (31%). Retrospectively, using the structured protocol, precursors could be identified in 43 of 51 (84%). In 17 of 27 (63%) cases missed on follow up but retrospectively identifiable, the mechanisms were type IB/III. Overall, the 30 day mortality rate after post-EVAR rupture was 47% (n = 24/51) and the post-operative mortality rate was 21% (n = 7/33).

CONCLUSIONS

Most precursors of post-EVAR rupture are underdiagnosed but identifiable before rupture using a structured follow up CT protocol. Precursors of type IB and III failures caused the majority of post-EVAR ruptures.

Outcomes of EVAR Conversion in Octogenarians Treated at a High-Volume Aorta Center

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair(EVAR) is the dominant treatment strategy for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms(AAA) but is especially preferred among octogenarian(age ≥80-years) patients due to concerns surrounding comorbidity severity and physiological frailty. Correspondingly, EVAR failure resulting in subsequent open conversion(EVAR-c) has been increasingly reported in older patients but there is a paucity of literature focusing on outcomes in this subgroup. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate our experience with EVAR-c in octogenarians(≥80-years) compared to younger patients(age <80-years).

METHODS

A retrospective review of all non-mycotic EVAR-c procedures(2002-2020) at a single high-volume academic hospital with a dedicated aorta center(https://www.uf-health-aortic-disease-center) was performed. Patients(n=162) were categorized into octogenarian(age ≥80; n=43) and non-octogenarian(age<80; n=119) cohorts and subsequently compared. The primary end-point was 30-day mortality. Secondary end-points included complications, 90-day mortality, and overall survival. Cox regression determined effects of selected covariates on mortality risk. Kaplan-Meier methodology estimated survival.

RESULTS

No difference in pre-admission EVAR re-intervention rates was present(octogenerians-42% vs. non-octogenerians-43%;p=1) although time to first re-intervention was greater in octogenarians(41 vs. non-octogenarians, 15-months;p=.01). Concordantly, time to EVAR-c was significantly longer among octogenarian patients(61 vs. non-octogenarians, 39-months;p<.01). No difference in rupture presentation was evident(14% vs. 10%;p=.6); however, elective EVAR-c occurred less frequently(octogenerians-42% vs. non-octogenerians-59%;p=.07). AAA diameter was significantly larger for elective octogenarian EVAR-c(7.8±1.9cm vs. non-octogenarians, 7.0±1.5cm;p=.02) and type 1a endoleak was the most common indication overall(58%;n=91). Among all presentations, a trend in higher 30-day mortality was evident for octogenarian patients(16% vs. non-octogenarians, 7%;p=.06). Similarly 90-day mortality was greater among octogenarians(26% vs. non-octogenarians, 10%;p=.02). However, incidence of any complication(56% vs. 49%;p=.5), readmission(12% vs. 6%;p=.3), unplanned re-operation(10% vs. 5%;p=.5) and LOS(11 vs. 9 days;p=.3) was not significantly different. Age ≥80 was predictive of short-term mortality after non-elective but not elective cases; however, increasing comorbidity number, non-elective admission and renal/mesenteric revascularization had the strongest association with mortality risk. One- and three-year survival was not different between groups when comparing all patients after the first 90-days postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Although higher unadjusted peri-operative mortality occurred among octogenarian patients, risk-adjusted elective outcomes were comparable to younger EVAR-c subjects when treated at a high-volume aortic surgery center. This underscores the importance of appropriate patient selection and modulation of operative complexity when feasible to achieve optimal results. Providers caring for octogenarian patients with EVAR failure should consider timely elective referral to high-volume aorta centers to reduce resource utilization and frequency of non-elective presentations.

Review and current update of robotic-assisted laparoscopic vascular surgery

The field of vascular surgery is constantly evolving and is unsurpassed in its innovation and adoption of new technologies. Endovascular therapy has fundamentally changed the treatment paradigms for aneurysm and occlusive disease. As we continue to make advances in not only endovascular therapy, but also robotic surgery, artificial intelligence, and minimally invasive surgery, it is important that the vascular community stay at the forefront. Topics include the advantages of laparoscopic and robotic surgery over open surgery for aortic procedures, robotic versus laparoscopic aortic surgery, patient candidacy for robotic-assisted aortic surgery, and how to increase training and adoption of robotic-assisted laparoscopic aortic surgery. Future growth includes the development of new platforms and technologies, creation and validation of curriculum and virtual simulators, and conduction of randomized clinical trials to determine the best applications of robotics in vascular surgery.

Racial Disparities Associated With Reinterventions After Elective Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

There are substantial racial and socioeconomic disparities underlying endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in the United States. To date, race-based variations in reinterventions following elective EVAR have not been studied. Here, we aim to examine racial disparities associated with reinterventions following elective EVAR in a real-world cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used the Vascular Quality Initiative EVAR dataset to identify all patients undergoing elective EVAR between January 2009 and December 2018 in the United States. We compared the association of race with reinterventions after EVAR and all-cause mortality using Welch two-sample t-tests, multivariate logistic regression, and Cox proportional hazards analyses adjusting for baseline differences between groups.

RESULTS

At median follow-up of 1.1 ± 1.1 y (1.3 ± 1.4 y Black, 1.1 ± 1.1 y White; P = 0.02), a total of 1,164 of 42,481 patients (2.7%) underwent reintervention after elective EVAR, including 2.7% (n = 1,096) White versus 3.2% (n = 68) Black (P = 0.21). Black patients requiring reintervention were more frequently female, more frequently current or former smokers, and less frequently insured by Medicare/Medicaid (P < 0.05). After adjusting for baseline differences, the risk of reintervention after elective EVAR was significantly lower for Black versus White patients (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55-0.99; P = 0.04). All-cause mortality was comparable between groups (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.33-2.00, P = 0.65).

CONCLUSIONS

There are significant differences between Black and White patients in the risk of reintervention after elective EVAR in the United States. The etiology of this difference deserves investigation.

MIDTERM RESULTS OF ENDOVASCULAR VERSUS OPEN SURGICAL REPAIR FOR INFRARENAL ABDOMINAL AORTIC ANEURYSMS IN LOW SURGICAL RISK PATIENTS

OBJECTIVE

To analyse midterm outcomes of endovascular repair (EVAR) versus open surgery (OR) for treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) in low surgical-risk patients.

METHODS

Elective AAA patients undergoing treatment from 2003 to 2017 in a single, tertiary-care institution were evaluated. All patients with a low preoperative risk of complications and perioperative mortality (Medicare Aneurysm Scoring System <3) were included, and rates of perioperative and long-term mortality, adverse events and reintervention were evaluated for EVAR and OR. A propensity score matched cohort (PMC), levelling age, risk factors, and comorbidities was additionally performed.

RESULTS

A total of 227 patients were included (59.9% EVAR and 40.1% OR), and followed for a mean of 80 ± 48 months. Patients undergoing EVAR were older (66.6 ± 5 vs. 64.1 ± 6 years; p <.001, had a higher body mass index (29.6 ± 4 vs 28.1 ± 3; p = .005), a higher prevalence of COPD (27.3% vs 9.9%; p = .001) and lower prevalence of dyslipidaemia (46.3% vs 65.9%; p= .004). Patients undergoing OR had a higher rate of major adverse events (19.7% vs 2.6%, p = .001) and 30-day reinterventions (8.8% vs. 1.5%, p=.016), with 30-day mortality being 0% in both groups. The propensity-score matched cohort included 76 matched pairs (1:1), with differences in hospital-stay and major complications kept significant, without affecting mortality. At 5-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in the reintervention rate (18.5% EVAR vs 17.6% OAR; p = .67) or survival (85% EVAR vs 91% OR; p = .195).

CONCLUSION

In low surgical risk patients suffering from AAA, EVAR may offer comparable midterm results to open repair, with a lower rate of major adverse events and a shorter in-hospital stay. With the current OR-first paradigm in low-risk patients, several factors should be taken into account for decision making (anatomic suitability, risk of sexual dysfunction, risk of type 2 endoleaks and need of follow-up).

Incidence of secondary rupture after abdominal aortic aneurysms (endovascular vs. open surgical repair)

A best evidence topic has been constructed using a described protocol. The three-part question addressed was: In patients with Infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), Does endovascular abdominal aortic repair (EVAR), AS compared to open surgical repair (OSR), has lower secondary rupture rates? The outcomes assessed were the secondary rupture rate in both techniques. The best evidence showed that The OSR has statistically significant lower secondary rupture rates than the EVAR.

•

Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is inferior to the open surgical repair regarding the secondary rupture rates.

•

Long term outcomes of the open surgical repair are better than the Endovascular repair.

•

Secondary rupture is more common in endovascular repair than the open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Aortic Neck IFU Violations During EVAR for Ruptured Infrarenal Aortic Aneurysms are Associated with Increased In-Hospital Mortality

OBJECTIVE

Vascular surgeons treating patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm must make rapid treatment decisions and sometimes lack immediate access to endovascular devices meeting the anatomic specifications of the patient at hand. We hypothesized that endovascular treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rEVAR) outside manufacturer instructions-for-use (IFU) guidelines would have similar in-hospital mortality compared to patients treated on-IFU or with an infrarenal clamp during open repair (ruptured open aortic aneurysm repair [rOAR]).

METHODS

Vascular Quality Initiative datasets for endovascular and open aortic repair were queried for patients presenting with ruptured infrarenal AAA between 2013-2018. Graft-specific IFU criteria were correlated with case-specific proximal neck dimension data to classify rEVAR cases as on- or off-IFU. Univariate comparisons between the on- and off-IFU groups were performed for demographic, operative and in-hospital outcome variables. To investigate mortality differences between rEVAR and rOAR approaches, coarsened exact matching was used to match patients receiving off-IFU rEVAR with those receiving complex rEVAR (requiring at least one visceral stent or scallop) or rOAR with infrarenal, suprarenal or supraceliac clamps. A multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

621 patients were treated with rEVAR, with 65% classified as on-IFU and 35% off-IFU. The off-IFU group was more frequently female (25% vs. 18%, P = 0.05) and had larger aneurysms (76 vs. 72 mm, P= 0.01) but otherwise was not statistically different from the on-IFU cohort. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in patients treated off-IFU vs. on-IFU (22% vs. 14%, P= 0.02). Off-IFU rEVAR was associated with longer operative times (135 min vs. 120 min, P= 0.004) and increased intraoperative blood product utilization (2 units vs. 1 unit, P= 0.002). When off-IFU patients were matched to complex rEVAR and rOAR patients, no baseline differences were found between the groups. Overall in-hospital complications associated with off-IFU were reduced compared to more complex strategies (43% vs. 60-81%, P< 0.001) and in-hospital mortality was significantly lower for off-IFU rEVAR patients compared to the supraceliac clamp group (18% vs. 38%, P= 0.006). However, there was no significantly increased mortality associated with complex rEVAR, infrarenal rOAR or suprarenal rOAR compared to off-IFU rEVAR (all P> 0.05). This finding persisted in a multivariate logistic regression.

CONCLUSIONS

Off-IFU rEVAR yields inferior in-hospital survival compared to on-IFU rEVAR but remains associated with reduced in-hospital complications when compared with more complex repair strategies. When compared with matched patients undergoing rOAR with an infrarenal or suprarenal clamp, survival was no different from off-IFU rEVAR. Taken together with the growing available evidence suggesting reduced long-term durability of off-IFU EVAR, these data suggest that a patient's comorbidity burden should be key in making the decision to pursue off-IFU rEVAR over a more complex repair when proximal neck violations are anticipated preoperatively.

Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Associated With Adverse Events After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR)

BACKGROUND

The blood neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a surrogate biomarker of systemic inflammation with important prognostic significance in multiple disease processes, including cardiovascular diseases. It is inexpensive, widely available, and may be related to the outcomes of patients after surgery. We aimed to investigate the possible association of NLR with the outcomes of patients following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective study of a prospectively maintained database evaluated 777 patients with a diagnosed abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) who underwent EVAR and were longitudinally followed between 2001 and 2017. NLR was defined as the ratio of absolute neutrophil count to absolute lymphocyte count. The mortality and reinterventions were used to evaluate outcomes using the appropriate univariate models, and the effect of clinical variables on NLR was further investigated using multivariate modelling.

RESULTS

The median NLR for all patients was 3 IQR [2.2 - 4.6]. A cut-off point of 3.6 was uncovered in a training set of 388 patients using the maximally ranked statistic method. Patients with NLR < 3.6 had significantly improved mortality rates (P< 0.0001) in the training set, and results were internally validated in a testing set of 389 patients (P = 0.042). Multivariate analysis revealed that high NLR (HR 1.4 95% CI [1.0 - 2.0]; P< 0.05) remained an independent predictor of mortality in a multivariate analysis controlling for characteristics such as comorbidities, age, and maximal aortic diameter. 5-year mortality and 30-day, 1-year and 5-year reinterventions were all higher in the high NLR group.

CONCLUSION

High NLR was significantly associated with higher rates of death at 5 years as well as higher rates of reinterventions at 30 days, 1 year and 5 years. We also suggest that an internally validated cut-off point of NLR >3.6 may be clinically important to help segregate patients into high and low NLR categories. It remains unclear whether NLR is directly linked to adverse events post-EVAR or whether it is a surrogate for an inflammatory state that predisposes patients to higher risk of death or reinterventions.

A population-based study of post-endovascular aortic repair rupture during 15 years

OBJECTIVE

The devastating event of a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) in patients who have survived a previous AAA repair, either elective or urgent, is a feared and quite uncommon event. It has been suggested to partly explain the loss of the early survival benefit for endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) vs open surgical repair (OSR). The main objective of this study was to report the national incidence rate, risk factors and outcome of post-EVAR ruptures. Secondarily, the national incidence rate of ruptures after OSR (post-OSR ruptures) was investigated.

METHODS

We conducted a nationwide, population-based, retrospective cohort study using the inpatient and outpatient entries for all patients >40 years of age, receiving their first (index) surgical procedure for AAA, from 2001 to 2015. Only patients surviving their index procedure were included. The primary outcome was rAAA, registered after discharge from the index procedure (EVAR or OSR), identified in the Swedish National Patient Registry and the Cause of Death Registry.

RESULTS

In total, 14,859 patients survived their primary (index) AAA procedure. There were 6470 EVAR procedures, 5893 for intact AAA (iAAA) and 577 for rAAA. Of the 6470 EVAR patients, 86 cases of post-EVAR rupture were identified, corresponding with a cumulative incidence of 1.3% over a mean follow-up time of 3.9 years. The incidence rate was 3.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7-4.2)/1000 person-years. The independent risk factors identified for post-EVAR rupture were rAAA at index surgery HR 2.4 (95% CI, 1.4-4.1, p 0.002) and age (hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1; P < .001). Freedom from post-EVAR rupture was 99%, 98%, and 96% at 3, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Total and postoperative mortality after post-EVAR rupture were 42% and 17% (30 days), 45% and 22% (90 days), and 53% and 33% (1 year). The incidence rate of post-OSR rupture was 0.9/1000 person-years (95% CI, 0.7-1.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Post-EVAR rupture is a rare complication that can occur at any time after the index EVAR procedure. This finding may have implications for the discussion of limited follow-up programs and for the choice of procedure in patients with an AAA with a long life expectancy. An rAAA as the indication for the index surgery and age were identified as risk factors for post-EVAR rupture. The mortality associated with post-EVAR rupture is high, but lower than that of primary rAAA. The much lower risk of post-OSR rupture was confirmed, but must not be neglected as a possible late complication.

Epidemiology of abdominal aortic aneurysms

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) disease remains a major source of morbidity in developed countries and can progress to life-threatening rupture if left untreated, with exceedingly high mortality. The goal of AAA management is to identify and electively repair AAAs before rupture. AAA disease burden and outcomes have improved over time with declining tobacco use and advancements in care across patients' disease course. The introduction of endovascular AAA repair, in particular, has allowed for elective AAA repair in patients previously considered too high risk for open surgery and has contributed to lower rates of AAA rupture over time. However, these improved outcomes are not universally experienced, and disparities continue to exist in the detection, treatment, and outcomes of AAA by sex, race, and ethnicity. Mitigating these disparities requires enhanced, focused efforts at preventing disease, promoting health, and delivering appropriate care among an increasingly diverse patient population.

Results of Iliac Branch Devices in Octogenarians Within the pELVIS Registry

Purpose: To evaluate if the elderly could benefit from the implantation of iliac branch devices (IBDs) to preserve the patency of the internal iliac artery (IIA) in aneurysms involving the iliac bifurcation. Materials and Methods: From January 2005 to April 2017, 804 patients enrolled in the pELVIS registry underwent endovascular aneurysm repair with 910 IBDs due to aneurysmal involvement of the iliac bifurcation. Among the 804 patients, 157 (19.5%) were octogenarians (mean age 82.9±2.5 years; 157 men) with 171 target IIAs for preservation. Outcomes at 30 days included technical success, death, conversion to open surgery, and major complications. Outcomes evaluated in follow-up were patency of the IBD and target vessels, type I and type III endoleaks, aneurysm-related reinterventions, aneurysm-related death, and overall patient survival. Kaplan-Meier analyses were employed to evaluate the late outcome measures; the estimates are presented with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Technical success was 99.4% with no intraoperative conversions or deaths (1 bridging stent could not be implanted, and the IIA was sacrificed). Perioperative mortality was 1.9%. The overall perioperative aneurysm-related complication rate was 8.9% (14/157), with an early reintervention rate of 5.1% (8/157). Median postoperative radiological and clinical follow-up were 21.8 months (range 1-127) and 29.3 months (range 1-127), respectively. Estimated rates of freedom from occlusion of the IBD, the IIA, and the external iliac artery at 60 months were 97.7% (95% CI 96.1% to 99.3%), 97.3% (95% CI 95.7% to 98.9%), and 98.6% (95% CI 97% to 99.9%), respectively. Estimated rates of freedom from type I and type III endoleaks and device migration at 60 months were 90.9% (95% CI 87% to 94.3%), 98.7% (95% CI 97.5% to 99.8%), and 98% (95% CI 96.4% to 99.6%), respectively. Freedom from all cause reintervention at 60 months was 87.4% (95% CI 82.6% to 92.2%). The estimated overall survival rate at 60 months was 59% (95% CI 52.4% to 65.6%). Conclusion: IBD implantation in octogenarians provided acceptable perioperative mortality and morbidity rates, with satisfying long-term freedom from IBD-related complications and should be considered a feasible repair option for selected elderly patients affected by aneurysms involving the iliac bifurcation.

Unibody Endograft Using AFX 2 for Less Invasive and Faster Endovascular Aortic Repair: Protocol for a Multicenter Nonrandomized Study

Background

Since the introduction of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) for treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), progressive improvements in results have been achieved. However, conventional bifurcated stent grafts have been proven to have a nonnegligible risk of failure and secondary intervention, principally due to the lack of adequate proximal sealing. The unique AFX 2 Endovascular AAA System (Endologix, Irvine, CA) unibody device, which provides different sealing and fixation features compared with conventional devices, seems to overcome these limitations.

Objective

The aim of this study is to evaluate intraoperative, perioperative, and postoperative results in patients treated with the AFX 2 Endovascular AAA System endografts for elective AAA repair in a large cohort of consecutive patients.

Methods

All eligible EVAR patients will be included in this observational, multicenter, prospective, nonrandomized study. The number of patients to be enrolled is 500.

Results

The primary endpoint of the study is to evaluate the technical and clinical success of EVAR with unibody endografts in short- (90-day), mid- (1-year), and long-term (5-year) follow-up periods. The following secondary endpoints will also be addressed: operative time, intraoperative radiation exposure, contrast medium usage, AAA sac shrinkage at 12-month and 5-year follow-up, and any potential role of patients’ baseline characteristics and device configuration on primary endpoint. The actual start date of the investigation was November 2019. The final patient is expected to be treated by the end of December 2020, and the estimated study completion date is December 2025.

Conclusions

This study will provide verified real-world data on AAAs treated by AFX 2 endografts and followed for a long-term interval.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/16959

Disparities in mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair are linked to insurance status

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine differences in mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair based on insurance type.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, data from all-payer patients in nonpsychiatric hospitals in New York, Maryland, Florida, Kentucky, and California from January 2007 to December 2014 (excluding California, ending December 2011) were extracted from the State Inpatient Databases, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. There were 90,102 patients ≥18 years old with available insurance data who underwent open AAA repair or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes 3844, 3925, and 3971. EVAR patients were identified using the procedure code 3971, and the remainder of cases were categorized as open. Patients were divided into cohorts by insurance type as Medicare, Medicaid, uninsured (self-pay/no charge), other, or private insurance. Patients were further stratified for subgroup analyses by procedure type. Unadjusted rates of in-hospital mortality, the primary outcome, as well as secondary outcomes, such as surgical urgency, 30-day and 90-day readmissions, length of stay, total charges, and postoperative complications, were examined by insurance type. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for in-hospital mortality were calculated using multivariate logistic regression models fitted to the data. The multivariate models included patient-, surgical-, and hospital-specific factors with bivariate baseline testing suggestive of association with insurance status in addition to variables that were selected a priori.

RESULTS

Medicaid and uninsured patients had the highest rates of mortality relative to private insurance beneficiaries in all cohorts. Medicaid patients incurred a 47% increase in the odds of mortality, the highest among the insured, after all AAA repairs (OR, 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-1.76), whereas uninsured patients experienced a 102% increase in the odds of mortality (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.54-2.67). Subgroup analyses for open AAA repair and EVAR corroborated that Medicaid insurance (open repair OR, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.14-1.64]; EVAR OR, 2.06 [95% CI, 1.40-3.04]) and uninsured status (open repair OR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.35-2.54]; EVAR OR, 2.96 [95% CI, 1.82-4.81]) were associated with the highest odds of mortality after both procedures separately.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that Medicaid insurance and uninsured status are associated with higher unadjusted rates and adjusted ORs for in-hospital mortality after AAA repair relative to private insurance status. Primary payer status therefore serves as an independent predictor of the risk of death subsequent to AAA surgical interventions.

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.

Statins Reduce Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Growth, Rupture, and Perioperative Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

There are no recognized pharmacological treatments for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA), although statins are suggested to be beneficial. We sought to summarize the literature regarding the effects of statins on human AAA growth, rupture, and 30‐day mortality.

Methods and Results

We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized and observational studies using the Cochrane CENTRAL database, MEDLINE, and EMBASE up to June 15, 2018. Review, abstraction, and quality assessment were conducted by 2 independent reviewers, and a third author resolved discrepancies. Pooled mean differences and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects models. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I² statistic, and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. Our search yielded 911 articles. One case‐control and 21 cohort studies involving 80 428 patients were included. The risk of bias was low to moderate. Statin use was associated with a mean AAA growth rate reduction of 0.82 mm/y (95% confidence interval 0.33, 1.32, P=0.001, I²=86%). Statins were also associated with a lower rupture risk (odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.51, 0.78, P<0.0001, I²=27%), and preoperative statin use was associated with a lower 30‐day mortality following elective AAA repair (odds ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.36, 0.83, P=0.005, I²=57%).

Conclusions

Statin therapy may be associated with reduction in AAA progression, rupture, and lower rates of perioperative mortality following elective AAA repair. These data argue for widespread statin use in AAA patients.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk. Unique identifier: CRD42017056480.

Retrospective Comparative Study on Differences in Presence of Gas in the Aneurysm Sac after Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Early Postoperative Period between Carbon Dioxide Flushing Technique and Saline Flushing of the Delivery System

BACKGROUND

Presence of gas is a frequent finding on early postoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) with unclear clinical relevance. The aim of this study is to examine and compare the presence of gas within the aneurysm sac following EVAR on early postoperative CTA after the use of carbon dioxide (CO₂) flushing technique with saline flushing alone.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing standard, fenestrated EVAR (fEVAR) or branched EVAR (bEVAR) with flushing of the delivery system with CO₂ between January 2016 and August 2018 was undertaken. Data of a previous report using standard saline flushing were included. Patients were classified into 2 main groups: group 1 with saline flushing and group 2 with CO₂ flushing and 3 subgroups according to the type of endograft. The presence, position, and volume of gas in the postoperative CTA (within 10 days) was examined and analyzed in terms of anatomical and procedural risk factors.

RESULTS

Group 1 included 210 patients (mean age 73 ± 8, 84% males), while group 2 included 300 patients (mean age 70 ± 11, 68% males). Presence of gas was more common in group 1 (83, 39% vs. 64, 21%, P = 0.000). Volume of gas was larger in group 1 [0.41 mL (0.01-2.7) vs. 0.2 mL (0.02-1), P = 0.001). In standard EVAR with saline flushing (subgroup 1a), 59 patients (45%) had presence of gas with CO₂ flushing (subgroup 2a); 35 patients (25%) had presence of gas (P = 0.005). The mean gas volume was larger in subgroup 1a compared to 2a (0.40 ± 0.47 vs. 0.15 ± 0.17 mL, P = 0.000). The location of the gas was more frequent in contact with the anterior wall of the aorta in both groups, standard EVAR subgroups and fEVAR subgroups. The presence of gas in group 2 was associated with larger preoperative size of the aortic diameter (P = 0.03) and larger perfused lumen diameter (P = 0.05). The type of the graft was not associated with the presence of gas in the aneurysm sac on postoperative CTA. However, the presence of gas was more frequent in standard EVAR than fEVAR and bEVAR. Endoleak type II was not associated with the presence of gas.

CONCLUSIONS

CO₂ flushing of stent grafts during standard and complex EVAR prior to deployment reduces the frequency and volume of gas on postoperative CTA. This study indicates that the CO₂ flushing technique may effectively exchange trapped air for a less harmful gas in endografts.

Transabdominal open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is associated with higher rates of late reintervention and readmission compared with the retroperitoneal approach

OBJECTIVE

Limited data exist comparing the transabdominal and retroperitoneal approaches to open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, especially late mortality and laparotomy-related reinterventions and readmissions. Therefore, we compared long-term rates of mortality, reintervention, and readmission after open AAA repair through a transabdominal compared with a retroperitoneal approach.

METHODS

We identified all patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) undergoing open AAA repair from 2003 to 2015. Patients with rupture or supraceliac clamp were excluded. We used the VQI linkage to Medicare to ascertain rates of long-term outcomes, including rates of AAA-related and laparotomy-related (ie, hernia, bowel obstruction) reinterventions and readmissions. We used multivariable Cox regression to account for differences in comorbidities, aneurysm details, and operative characteristics.

RESULTS

We identified 1282 patients in the VQI with linkage to Medicare data, 914 (71%) who underwent a transperitoneal approach and 368 (29%) who underwent a retroperitoneal approach. Patients who underwent a retroperitoneal approach were slightly more likely to have preoperative renal insufficiency but were otherwise similar in terms of demographics and comorbidities. They more often had a clamp above at least one renal artery (61% vs 36%; P < .001) and underwent concomitant renal revascularization (9.5% vs 4.3%; P < .001). Patients who underwent a transabdominal approach more often presented with symptoms (14% vs 9.0%; P < .01) and had a femoral distal anastomosis (15% vs 7.1%; P < .001). There was no difference in 5-year survival (62% vs 61%; log-rank, P = .51). However, patients who underwent a transabdominal approach experienced higher rates of repair-related reinterventions and readmissions (5-year: 42% vs 34%; log-rank, P < .01), even after adjustment for demographic and operative differences (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.9; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

A transabdominal exposure for AAA repair is associated with higher rates of late reintervention and readmission than with the retroperitoneal approach, which should be considered when possible in operative decision-making.

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.

Nationally Representative Readmission Factors Associated with Endovascular versus Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Hospital readmissions are tied to financial penalties and thus significantly influence health-care policy. Many current studies on readmissions lack national representation by not tracking readmissions across hospitals. The recently released Nationwide Readmission Database is one of the most comprehensive national sources of readmission data available, making it an invaluable resource to understand this critically important health policy issue.

METHODS

The Nationwide Readmission Database for 2013 and 2014 was queried for adult patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (441.4) undergoing endovascular (39.71) or open (38.44) repair. Outcomes examined were overall/initial admission mortality and overall/30-day readmissions. Multivariate logistic regression for these outcomes was also performed on multiple readmission factors.

RESULTS

Fifty-three thousand four hundred seventeen patients underwent abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (47,431 endovascular aortic repair [EVAR] versus 5,986 open surgical repair [OSR]). Significant differences were found for EVAR versus OSR on overall readmissions, initial admission cost, readmission costs, length of stay, days to readmission, and overall/initial admission mortality. Multivariate logistic regression analysis found that length of stay > 30, Charlson Comorbidity Index > 1, discharge disposition, and female sex were all significant predictors of 30-day readmission. Repair type was significantly associated with 30-day readmissions; however, it was not a significant factor for overall readmissions.

CONCLUSION

There are significant differences in costs, prognosis, and readmission rates for EVAR versus OSR. Given that these differences are being used to create "acceptable" readmission rates, disbursement quotas among hospitals, and subsequent penalties for providers outside the expected rates, it is only prudent to obtain the most accurate information to guide those policies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Care management/epidemiological, level IV.

Elective Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm and the Risk of Colonic Ischaemia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Colon ischaemia (CI) is a significant complication of open (OR) and endovascular (EVAR) repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). With a rapid increase in EVAR uptake, contemporary data demonstrating the differing rates and outcomes of CI between EVAR and OR, particularly in the elective setting, are lacking. The aim was to characterise the risk and consequences of CI in elective AAA repair comparing EVAR with OR.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was performed using the Cochrane collaboration protocol and reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, MedLine, and EMBASE were searched for studies reporting CI rates after elective AAA repair. Ruptured AAAs were excluded from analysis.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies reporting specific outcomes of CI after elective AAA repair, containing 162,750 evaluable patients (78,151 EVAR and 84,599 OR) were included. All studies found a higher risk of CI with OR than with EVAR. Three studies performed confounder adjustment with CI rates of 0.5-1% versus 2.1-3.6% (EVAR vs. OR) and combined odds ratio of 2.7 (2.0-3.5) for the development of CI with OR versus EVAR. The majority of cases of CI occurred within 30 days and were associated with variable mortality (0-73%) and re-intervention rates (27-54%). GRADE assessment of evidence strength was very low for all outcomes. There was a high degree of heterogeneity between studies both methodologically and in terms of CI rates, re-intervention, mortality, and time to development of CI.

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR is associated with a reduced incidence of CI compared with OR.

Is Age a Determinant Factor in EVAR as a Predictor of Outcomes or in the Selection Procedure? Our Experience

Introduction

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the therapy of choice in high risk patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm. The good results described are leading to the broadening of clinical indications to younger patients. However, reintervention rates seem higher and even with successful treatment sometimes there is growth of the aneurysm sac and rupture, meaning a failure of the therapeutic goal. This study proposes to analyse the impact of age in patients' selection and post-EVAR results.

Methods

The clinical records of consecutive patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair, between 2001 and 2013, were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided according to age groups (<70, 70-80 and >80 years). Gender, body mass index, aneurysm anatomic features, neck characteristics, iliac morphology, surgical indication, endograft type, anesthesic risk classification, length of stay, reinterventions and mortality were analysed and compared.

Results

The study included 171 patients, 161 (94.1%) men, and mean age 74.1±8.9 years. The age group under 70 had 32% of the patients. Only three characteristics were found different among age groups: 1) body mass index was higher in younger patients, with a considerable trend toward significance (P=0.06); 2) surgical indication, in the younger group, surgeon's and the patient's option were more proeminent (P<0.05); 3) erectile dysfunction was higher in elderly group (P<0.05). No other clinical and anatomical characteristics or final outcomes were found statisticaly different among age groups.

Conclusion

The absence of statistically differences in mortality and reinterventions among age groups suggests that age by itself is not a relevant factor in endovascular aneurysm repair. Indeed, the three characteristics different in younger (obesity, sexual function and patient's choice) favor endovascular aneurysm repair.

Indications, risk factors, and outcomes of 30-day readmission after infrarenal abdominal aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Reducing readmissions is an important target for improving patient care and enhancing health care quality and cost-effectiveness. The aim of this study was to assess rates, risk factors, and indications of 30-day readmission after open aortic repair (OAR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the Premier Healthcare Database from 2009 to 2015 was performed. Indications for readmission after the index procedure, risk factors, and outcomes of the index admission and rehospitalization were evaluated. Multivariate logistic models were used to assess the association between 30-day readmission and different patient and hospital factors.

RESULTS

A total of 33,332 AAA repair procedures were identified: 27,483 (82.5%) EVAR and 5849 (17.5%) OAR. The overall rate of 30-day readmission was 8.1%, and it was greater after OAR (12.9% vs 7.1% in EVAR; P < .001). In general, the most common specific readmission diagnoses were infectious complications (16.1%), followed by respiratory and cardiac complications (11.8% and 11.3%, respectively). After multivariate adjustment, OAR was associated with higher 30-day readmission compared with EVAR (adjusted odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.2; P = .04). Other risk factors of 30-day readmission included female gender, emergency and urgent procedures, certain patient comorbidities (dyslipidemia, congestive heart failure, history of transient ischemic attack, previous cardiac surgery, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, chronic kidney disease, peripheral vascular disease, and history of malignant disease), and hemorrhage/shock/bleeding occurring during the index admission as well as nonhome discharge. Readmitted patients had an overall in-hospital mortality of 3.6% and paid a median rehospitalization cost of $7757.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that around 8.1% of patients undergoing infrarenal AAA repair were readmitted within 30 days. Because many readmissions are unrelated to the index procedure or caused by factors that are nonmodifiable or nonidentifiable at discharge, efforts should focus on discharge planning and improving the decision process regarding discharge destination as well as postdischarge coordination of care for high-risk patients.

Early reintervention after open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is associated with high mortality

OBJECTIVE

Although reinterventions are generally considered more common after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) than after open surgical repair (OSR), less is known about reintervention in the early postoperative period. Furthermore, there are few data regarding the impact of early reintervention on 30-day mortality. We sought to evaluate the rates and types of reintervention after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair and the impact of reintervention on postoperative mortality.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) was queried from 2012 to 2014 for all intact, infrarenal AAA repairs. The 30-day reintervention was classified by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Univariate analysis comparing patients with and without reintervention was performed with the Fisher exact test and Mann-Whitney U test. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of reintervention and to assess the association between 30-day reintervention and mortality.

RESULTS

We identified 5877 patients (OSR, 658 [11%]; EVAR, 5219 [89%]), of whom 261 underwent reintervention (OSR, 7.1%; EVAR, 4.1%; P < .01). Patients who underwent reintervention had larger aortic diameter (median, 5.7 cm vs 5.5 cm; P < .01), were more often symptomatic at presentation (16% vs 9.1%; P < .01), and were more likely to have renal insufficiency (7.7% vs 3.6%; P < .01) and history of prior abdominal operations (32% vs 26%; P = .04). Patients who underwent reintervention had higher 30-day mortality (OSR, 28% vs 2.8% [P < .001]; EVAR, 12% vs 1.0% [P < .001]) and major complications. Factors significantly associated with reintervention included open repair, diameter, symptom status, hypertension, and renal insufficiency. After adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and type of repair, reintervention was independently associated with 30-day mortality after EVAR and OSR (odds ratio, 13; 95% confidence interval, 8-22; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with EVAR, patients undergoing open infrarenal AAA repair were significantly more likely to undergo 30-day reintervention, which could be related to higher open anatomic complexity and lower experience of the surgeon with open repair. Reintervention after both EVAR and OSR was associated with a >10-fold increase in postoperative mortality, emphasizing the need to minimize the complications associated with reintervention.

Unplanned return to operating room after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR) is associated with increased risk of hospital readmission

Objectives Hospital readmissions after surgical operations are considered serious events. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) consider surgical readmissions as preventable and hold hospitals responsible for them. Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR) has become the first line modality of treatment for suitable patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). The purpose of this study is to retrospectively review the factors associated with hospital readmission after EVAR. Methods The 2013 EVAR targeted American College of Surgeons (ACS-NSQIP) database and generalized 2013 general and vascular surgery ACS-NSQIP participant use files were used for this study. Patient, diagnosis, and procedure characteristics of patients undergoing EVAR surgery were assessed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine independent risk factors for hospital readmission within 30 days after surgery. Results A total of 2277 patients (81% males, 19% females) underwent EVAR operations in the year 2013. Indications for operations included: asymptomatic large diameter (79%), symptomatic (5.7%), rupture without hypotension (4.3%), and rupture with hypotension (2.8%). Among these patients, 178 (7.8%) were readmitted to the hospital within 30 days after surgery. About 53% of all readmissions were within two weeks after the discharge. Risk factors, associated with readmission included: body mass index (per 5-units, OR 1.23, CI 1.06-1.42, p < 0.05), days from admission to operation (per 1 day, OR 1.26, CI 1.12-1.41, p < 0.05), prior abdominal aortic surgery (OR 1.60, CI 1.10-2.31, p < 0.05), urinary tract infection (OR 5.93, CI 2.09-16.88, p < 0.05), superficial surgical site infection (OR 6.57, CI 2.53-17.09, p < 0.05), unplanned return to the operating room (OR 11.29, CI 6.29-20.28, p < 0.05), myocardial infarction (OR 11.30, CI 4.42-28.89, p < 0.05), deep venous thrombosis (OR 11.52, CI 2.89-45.86, p < 0.05 and deep incisional surgical site infection (OR 38.0, CI 2.87-373.56, p < 0.05). Risk of readmission for patients with presence of all these seven factors was 99.9%. Conclusions Readmission after EVAR is a serious occurrence. Various factors predispose a patient at a high risk for readmission. Unplanned return to operating room after EVAR is associated with a 11-fold increase in hospital readmission.

Open and endovascular aneurysm repair in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative

The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative is a patient safety organization and a collection of procedure-based registries that can be utilized for quality improvement initiatives and clinical outcomes research. The Vascular Quality Initiative consists of voluntary participation by centers to collect data prospectively on all consecutive cases within specific registries which physicians and centers elect to participate. The data capture extends from preoperative demographics and risk factors (including indications for operation), through the perioperative period, to outcomes data at up to 1-year of follow-up. Additionally, longer-term follow-up can be achieved by matching with Medicare claims data, providing long-term longitudinal follow-up for a majority of patients within the Vascular Quality Initiative registries. We present the unique characteristics of the Vascular Quality Initiative registries and highlight important insights gained specific to open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

Editor's Choice - Trend-break in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair With Decreasing Surgical Workload

BACKGROUND

The epidemiology and management of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) has changed drastically in the past decades, with implementation of nationwide screening programs, introduction of endovascular repair (EVAR), and reduced prevalence of the disease. This report aims to assess recent trends in AAA repair epidemiology in Sweden in this context.

METHODS

Primary AAA repairs registered in the nationwide Swedish Vascular Registry (Swedvasc) 1994-2014 were analyzed regarding patient characteristics, repair incidence, technique, and outcome. Four time periods were compared: 1994-1999, 2000-2004, 2005-2009, and 2010-2014.

RESULT

The incidence of intact AAA repair increased (18.4/100,000 1994-1999, 27.3/100,000 2010-2014, p < .001) predominantly among octogenarians (12.7/100,000 1994-1999, 36.0/100,000 2010-2014, p < .001). The utilization of EVAR increased (58% of all intact AAA repairs 2010-2014), especially among octogenarians (80% 2010-2014). During the last time period, however, the incidence of intact AAA repair stabilized, despite an increasing number of screening-detected AAAs operated on (19% in 2010-2014). Short- and long-term outcome after intact AAA repair continued to improve, most pronounced among octogenarians (30-day mortality 9% 1994-1999, 2% 2010-2014, p < .001). The incidence of ruptured AAA repair steadily decreased (9.2/100,000 1994-1999, 6.9/100,000 2010-2014, p < .001) and the use of EVAR for ruptures increased (30% in 2010-2014). The previously observed improvement of short- and long-term outcome after ruptured AAA repair (30-day mortality 38% 1994-1999, 28% 2010-2014, p < .001) stalled during the last time period. The overall 30-day mortality after ruptured AAA repair was 22% after EVAR versus 31% after open repair in 2010-2014. The corresponding mortality for octogenarians was 28% versus 42%.

CONCLUSIONS

For the first time, a halt in intact AAA repair workload could be identified. This trend-break occurred despite continued increase in treatment of octogenarians and screening-detected aneurysms. Additionally, the ruptured AAA repair incidence continued to decrease. These findings, together with the sustained improvement in survival after AAA repair, may have important impact on planning of vascular surgical services.

A clinical and ethical review on late results and benefits after EVAR

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this review is to assess if late mortality after endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is a real problem, and whether it could be an issue in the case of medical litigation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A review of all English language literature was performed on PubMed web-site, looking for all papers reporting EVAR long-term mortality rate. EVAR performances were reviewed also from an ethical and medico-legal point of view, based on current Italian laws.

RESULTS

Mono-centric studies, and international registers suggest that today EVAR offers similar (if not better) results than open repair (OR) in the treatment of AAAs with standard and complex anatomies, even if performed outside the devices-specific instructions for use. In contrast, large randomized trials, and consequently current guidelines, suggest that EVAR still has an ancillary role compared to OR, only to be used for highly selected patients. Recently, specific litigation cases on surgical options related to the treatment of aortic aneurysms has developed. The informed consent process needs to include not only mortality and major complications related to the procedure but also the chance of patients' outcomes. For those reasons, the generic nature of informed consent has been criticized.

CONCLUSIONS

No conclusive data is currently available to assess the initial question of late mortality after EVAR but results are still improving. In the meantime, widespread use of EVAR as first choice for treating AAA may only be acceptable in high-volume centres validating their results by a strict follow up protocol.

Open versus endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in Medicare beneficiaries

Abdominal aortic aneurysms are relatively common and often life-threatening, with especially high mortality after aneurysm rupture. The introduction of endovascular aneurysm repair, a minimally invasive alternative to traditional open repair, led to decreased mortality and morbidity in randomized controlled trials, but these trials were conducted in highly selected patients and providers and were underpowered to detect differences in rare adverse events throughout follow-up. With observational studies of Medicare beneficiaries, we demonstrate that the randomized trial results are generalizable to the majority of patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the United States. Additionally, with a larger cohort, comparative analyses evaluating rare, previously unstudied late outcomes such as laparotomy-related complications, late reinterventions, mortality with reinterventions, and late rupture could be conducted. Furthermore, trends in management over time and relationships between surgeon and hospital volume and outcomes can be studied. The goal of this review was to summarize the existing literature regarding abdominal aortic aneurysms among Medicare beneficiaries and to evaluate the benefits and limitations of administrative claims data in comparative effectiveness research.

Worse late-phase survival after elective endovascular than open surgical repair for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether follow-up survival is better after elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) than open surgical repair (OSR) for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), we combined 5-year survival curves themselves of EVAR and OSR in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies.

METHODS

Eligible studies were RCTs or PSM studies of elective EVAR versus OSR enrolling patients with intact AAA and reporting 5-year (at least) survival curves. Data regarding detailed inclusion criteria, duration of follow-up, and survival curves were abstracted from each individual study. In case of crossing of the combined survival curves, a pooled late-phase (between the crossing time and 5years) hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality was calculated.

RESULTS

Our search identified 7 eligible studies (including 2 RCTs and 5 PSM studies) enrolling a total of 92,333 patients with AAA assigned to EVAR or OSR. Pooled survival rates after EVAR and OSR were 98.1% and 96.1 at 1month, 94.2% and 93.1% at 1year, 85.1% and 86.8% at 3years, and 75.8% and 78.8% at 5years, respectively. The survival curves crossed at 1.8years with the survival rate of 90.5%. A pooled late-phase (between 1.8years and 5years) HR for calculated from data of the combined survival curves significantly favored OSR (1.29, 95% confidence interval, 1.24 to 1.35; p<0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

For intact AAA, although survival was better immediately after elective EVAR than OSR, the survival curves crossed at 1.8years. Thereafter until 5years, survival was worse after EVAR than OSR.

Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms is an important technique in the vascular surgeon's armamentarium, which has created a seismic shift in the management of aortic pathology over the past two decades. In comparison to traditional open repair, the endovascular approach is associated with significantly improved perioperative morbidity and mortality. The early survival benefit of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is sustained up to 3 years postoperatively, but longer-term life expectancy remains poor regardless of operative modality. Nonetheless, most abdominal aortic aneurysms are now repaired using endovascular stent grafts. The technology is not perfect as several postoperative complications, namely endoleak, stent-graft migration, and graft limb thrombosis, can develop and therefore lifelong imaging surveillance is required. In addition, a postoperative inflammatory response has been documented after endovascular repair of aortic aneurysms; the clinical significance of this finding has yet to be determined. Subsequently, the safety and applicability of endovascular stent grafts are likely to improve and expand with the introduction of newer-generation devices and with the simplification of fenestrated systems.

Re-interventions after endovascular aortic repair for infrarenal abdominal aneurysms: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Early morbidity and mortality are generally lower after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), than after open repair but re-interventions and late complications are more common. The aim of the present study was to make a detailed description of re-interventions after EVAR-including incidence, indications, procedures, and outcome-with special reference to non-access-related re-interventions.

Methods

This is a retrospective single-center cohort study of re-interventions after standard EVAR with special reference to non-access-related re-interventions. Consecutive patients (n = 405) treated with standard EVAR for non-ruptured (n = 337) or ruptured (n = 68) infrarenal aneurysms between 2005 and 2013 were analysed. Median follow-up was 29 months (range 0–108).

Results

Eighty-nine patients (22 %) underwent 113 re-interventions during follow-up. Twenty-seven patients (7 %) had 28 access related re-intervention, 65 patients (16 %) had 85 non-access related reinterventions. Non-access related re-interventions were more common in ruptured aneurysms than in unruptured aneurysms (22 vs. 15 %, p = 0.002). The most frequent indications were endoleak type I (n = 19), type II (n = 21), or type III (n = 5); stent graft migration (n = 9); and thrombosis (n = 14). The most frequent procedures were embolization of endoleak type II (n = 21), additional iliac stent graft (n = 19), proximal extension (n = 12), thrombolysis (n = 8), iliac limb bare-metal stenting (n = 6), and stent graft relining (n = 7). Endovascular technique was used in 83 % of re-interventions.

Thirty-day mortality after non-access-related re-interventions was 15 % when initiated from symptoms (rupture or infection) and 0 % when initiated from follow-up findings (p = 0.014). Cumulative survival five years after EVAR was 72 % in patients with a re-intervention and 59 % in patients without (p = 0.21).

Conclusions

Non-access-related re-intervention rates are still considerable after EVAR and more frequent after ruptured aneurysms. Endoleak embolization is the most frequent procedure, followed by additional iliac stent grafts. Outcomes after re-interventions are generally good, except when initiated by rupture or infection.

Comparison of outcomes after endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in low-risk patients

Background

In randomized trials endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been shown to have superior perioperative outcomes compared with open aneurysm repair (OAR). However, outcomes in patients at low risk of complications are unclear and many surgeons still prefer OAR in this cohort. The objective was to analyse perioperative and longer-term outcomes of OAR and EVAR in this low-risk group of patients.

Methods

All elective infrarenal EVARs and OARs in the Vascular Study Group of New England database were reviewed from 2003 to 2014. The Medicare scoring system was used to identity patients at low risk of perioperative complications and death. Perioperative and longer-term outcomes were analysed in this cohort. A Kaplan–Meier plot was constructed for evaluation of longer-term survival. Further propensity matching and multivariable analysis were performed to analyse additional differences between the two groups.

Results

Some 1070 patients who underwent EVAR and 476 who had OAR were identified. Mean(s.d.) age was 67·3(5·7) and 65·1(6·3) years respectively (P &lt; 0·001). EVAR was associated with a lower overall perioperative complication rate (4·2 versus 26·5 per cent; P &lt; 0·001). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (0·4 versus 0·6 per cent; P = 0·446). Overall survival at 3 years was similar after EVAR and OAR (92·5 versus 92·1 per cent respectively; P = 0·592). In multivariable analyses there was no difference in freedom from reintervention (odds ratio 1·69, 95 per cent c.i. 0·73 to 3·90; P = 0·220) or survival (hazard ratio 0·85, 0·61 to 1·20; P = 0·353).

Conclusion

In patients predicted to be at low risk of perioperative death following aneurysm repair, EVAR resulted in fewer perioperative complications than OAR. However, perioperative mortality, reinterventions and survival rates in the longer term appeared similar between endovascular and open repair.