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

Outcomes and Economic Impact of Hypogastric Artery Management During Elective Endovascular Aortic Repair for Aorto-Iliac Aneurysms

BACKGROUND

To analyze clinical outcomes and perform a macro-costing evaluation of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) for aorto-iliac aneurysms.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, financially unsupported, physician-initiated observational cohort study. Patients with iliac artery involvement treated with EVAR between January 1st, 2014 and December 31st, 2021 were identified. Inclusion criteria were intact aneurysm, elective EVAR with at least 1 hypogastric artery (HA) treatment, use of bifurcated endograft (EG), and at least 6 months of follow-up. Primary outcomes of interest were overall survival, freedom from aneurysm-related mortality (ARM), freedom from EVAR-related reintervention, and overall EVAR(procedure)-related costs.

RESULTS

We studied 122 (9.1%) patients: 119 (97.5%) were male and 3 (2.5%) females. Median age of patients was 76 years (range, 68.75-81). Overall, 107 (87.7%) patients had both HAs preserved according to following strategy: 45 (36.9%) with flared limbs, 13 (10.6%) with bilateral branched device, and 49 (40.2%) with a combination of flared limb on 1 side and branched device on the contralateral side. Bilateral overstenting was performed in 15 (12.3%) patients. Estimated overall survival was not different between groups of EVAR (Log-rank, P = 0.561). There was only 1 (0.8%) ARM ascertained during the follow-up. Estimated freedom from EVAR-related reintervention was not different among groups (Log-rank, P = 0.464). During the follow-up, 9 (7.4%) patients developed buttock claudication (Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) grade 1, n = 4, SVS grade 2, n = 5), more frequently in HA overstenting (hazard ratio (HR): 3.6; 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 0.96-13.5, P = 0.058). When all cots were included, branched EVAR still carried the highest burden (P = 0.001) in comparison with the mixed subgroup, the overstenting subgroup, and the flared limbs subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Early mortality and pelvic ischemic syndromes rate were acceptably low in all techniques. Hypogastric artery preservation showed lower complication rate in comparison with HA overstenting which, however, appears to be safe an effective for option with similar overall costs for patients who are not candidates for HA preservation based on aortic anatomy.

Pre-operative Aortic Anatomic Features as Predictors of Clinical Outcomes Following Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Retrospective Cohort Study

ARTICLE REMOVED.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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