Short- and long-term survival after open versus endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm-Polish population analysis

Assessment of the dynamics of inpatient health care delivery in Poland before and throughout the COVID-19 pandemic

A situation of emergency involving the whole population introduces changes in the dynamics of the health services that are provided. The magnitude of these shifts should be also linked to the medical speciality within which the health benefits are delivered. The aim of the paper was to identify changes in tendencies in inpatient medical service delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic by medical specialties. On the basis of a database extracted for in-patient treatment received from the public payer, a retrospective analysis was carried out. Comparing the values of the dynamics of the services provided in each medical speciality, the period before the COVID-19 pandemic was collated to the years of the pandemic (2020-2021). In the period before COVID-19, positive patient dynamics were observed in more than half of the specialities. Between 2020 and 2021, virtually all specialties reversed the trend and negative dynamics were recorded. The dynamics in 2021 indicate a process of return to the values from 2015 to 2019. Emergency situation has affected the dynamics of healthcare provision in different specialities to various extent. The most resistant to the negative impulses of the state of emergency were the areas that are strictly organisationally and financially defined (e.g. the group of "therapeutic and drug programmes").

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.

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.

Systematic Review on the Mid-Term Outcomes of Elective Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing in Comparison to Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

INTRODUCTION

The Nellix endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) system has been a topic of discussion. Early results were promising but did not deliver on the long-term and the device has been recalled from the market. This study compares literature for EVAS and conventional endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

A systematic review and analysis was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched and identified the eligible studies. Proportion rates for the outcomes of interest were extracted. Subgroup analyses were performed for EVAS and EVAR.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were included (EVAS n = 4, EVAR n = 8) including 10,255 patients (EVAS n = 784, EVAR n = 9441). The longest duration of follow-up was 3.4 years for EVAS and 5.0 years for EVAR studies. Throughout follow-up the overall all-cause mortality rates were 6% for EVAS and 13% for EVAR, and endoleak of any type was described in 10% of EVAS and 17% of EVAR patients. The migration rate >10 mm was 8% for EVAS and 0% for EVAR and aneurysm growth >5 mm was found in 11% of EVAS and 3% of EVAR cases. Total reintervention rate was 13% for EVAS and 7% for EVAR patients. For all analyzed outcome parameters heterogeneity was >50%.

CONCLUSION

There is a tendency toward lower mortality and overall endoleak rates for EVAS compared to EVAR but with a higher rate of migration, aneurysm growth, and reintervention. Despite lower overall endoleak rates there was a tendency toward less type II and more type I endoleaks after EVAS compared to EVAR. Substantial heterogeneity however limits robust statistical analyses, and is probably caused by significant instructions for use breach in EVAS-treated patients. We call for more high-quality and long-term follow-up studies on both EVAS and EVAR in order to confirm the trends found in this study.

Readmission and Utilization After Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in the United States

OBJECTIVES

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has emerged as a less invasive alternative to open repair for ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms (rAAA), but comparisons to traditional open rAAA repair and late complications leading to readmission are limited.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Hospitalizations for patients undergoing repair for rAAA were selected from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD). In-hospital mortality, complications, 30-day readmission, readmission diagnoses, and charges were evaluated. Design-adjusted chi-square, Wilcoxon test, and logistic regression were used for analysis.

RESULTS

During 2014-2016, 3,629 open rAAA and 5,037 EVAR were identified. The index mortality rate was 21.4% for EVAR vs. 33.5% for open (p < .0001). Median index length of stay (LOS) was 4.9 days for EVAR vs. 8.6 days for open repair (p < 0.001). All-cause 30-day readmission after rAAA was higher following EVAR (18.9%) than open (14.3%, p = .007). Time to readmission and charges for readmission stays did not differ between procedure groups. Respiratory complications were more common following open repair than EVAR (20.4% vs 11.4%, respectively; p = .008). Patients who underwent open repair suffered more infectious complications than patients treated with EVAR during readmission (49.2% vs 39.8%, respectively; p = 0.054). In multivariable analysis, factors associated with readmission included having EVAR during the index stay (Odds ratio [OR] = 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.88; p = .003), increased length of index stay (OR = 1.01; 95% CI 1.01-1.02; p = 0.002), chronic kidney disease (OR = 1.51; 95% CI 1.18-1.94; p = .001), and coronary artery disease (OR = 1.32; 95% CI 1.02-1.71; p = .034). Aggregate readmission charges totaled $79 million. Readmissions were most often infectious complications for both repair types.

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR was used more often than open repair for rAAA. In-hospital mortality and length of the index stay were significantly lower following EVAR. After multivariable adjustment, the odds of readmission were 1.5 times higher after EVAR, costing the health system more over time when prevalence and readmission are considered. Coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, and index length of stay were also associated with 30-day readmission. Further investigation into reasons why a less invasive procedure, EVAR, has a higher readmission rate and understanding post-discharge infectious complications may help lower overall health care utilization after rAAA.

Analysis of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for Small Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in Males

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) when ≥5.5 cm. This study sought to evaluate the incidence of male patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for AAAs of various diameters (small <4 cm; intermediate 4-5.4 cm; standard ≥5.5 cm). We analyzed predictors of mortality, hypothesizing that smaller AAAs (<5.5 cm) have no differences in associated risk of mortality compared to standard AAAs (≥5.5 cm).

METHODS

The 2011-2017 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Procedure-Targeted Vascular database was queried for male patients undergoing elective EVAR. Patients were stratified by aneurysm diameter. A multivariable logistic regression analysis for clinical outcomes, adjusting for age, clinical characteristics, and comorbidities, was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 8037 male patients underwent EVAR with 3926 (48.9%) performed for AAAs <5.5 cm. There was no difference in mortality, readmission, major complications, myocardial infarction, stroke, or ischemic complications among the 3 groups (P > 0.05). In AAAs <5.5 cm, predictors of mortality included prior abdominal surgery (odds ratio [OR], 5.77; confidence interval [CI], 1.38-24.13; P = 0.016), weight loss (OR, 43.4; CI, 3.78-498.7; P = 0.002), disseminated cancer (OR, 17.9; CI, 1.30-245.97; P = 0.031), and diabetes (OR, 6.09; CI, 1.52-24.36; P = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 50% of male patients undergoing elective EVAR were treated for AAAs <5.5 cm. There was no difference in associated risk of mortality for smaller AAAs compared to standard AAAs. The strongest predictors of mortality for patients with smaller AAAs were prior abdominal surgery, weight loss, disseminated cancer, and diabetes.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Meta-analysis of phase-specific survival after elective endovascular versus surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm from randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies

OBJECTIVE

Although endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) significantly decreases perioperative mortality compared with open surgical repair (OSR), we have not concluded superiority between EVAR and OSR beyond the perioperative period. The aim of this study was to compare phase-specific survival after EVAR vs OSR.

METHODS

The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Embase and MEDLINE were searched up to November 2019 to identify randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies that investigated ≥2-year all-cause mortality (primary outcome) after EVAR vs OSR for intact infrarenal AAA. For each study, the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) of mortality for EVAR vs OSR was calculated using survival curves for the following specific phases: early term (0-2 years after repair), midterm (2-6 years after repair), long term (6-10 years after repair), and very long term (≥10 years after repair). The risk ratio (RR) in the perioperative (in-hospital or 30-day) period was also extracted. Phase-specific HRs or RRs were separately pooled using the random effects model. Sensitivity analyses were performed by removing one study at a time to confirm that our findings were not derived from any single study. Funnel plot asymmetry was also examined using the linear regression test.

RESULTS

Our search identified four randomized controlled trials and seven propensity score-matched studies enrolling a total of 106,243 AAA patients assigned to EVAR (n = 53,123) or OSR (n = 53,120). The mortality after EVAR compared with OSR was significantly lower in the perioperative period (RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.29-0.51; P < .00001) and similar in the early-term period (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.84-1.03; P = .16). Notably, significantly higher mortality was observed in the EVAR group compared with the OSR group in the midterm period (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.29; P = .01). However, similar mortality was observed between the EVAR group and the OSR group in the long-term (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.96-1.17; P = .27) and very-long-term (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.93-1.47; P = .19) periods. In sensitivity analyses, the significant benefit of EVAR in the perioperative period and that of OSR in the midterm period were not changed. No funnel plot asymmetry was identified in all analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with OSR, EVAR was associated with lower perioperative mortality and higher mortality in the midterm period for intact infrarenal AAA. The superiority of EVAR was absent in the early-term period, and the inferiority of EVAR in the midterm period disappeared in the long-term and very-long-term periods.

Geographic disparities in the application of endovascular repair of unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm - Polish population analysis

PURPOSE

Differences between the regions of the same country regarding the management of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) have rarely been published. The aim of the study was to analyze the absolute and relative number of unruptured AAA repairs, utilizing endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) vs. open aneurysm repairs (OAR) and compare the AAA patients population from all 16 administrative districts in Poland.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We used the Polish National Health Fund data of all patients who underwent elective treatment of AAA between 1^st January 2011 and 22^nd March 2016 and analyzed the absolute/relative number of all AAA repairs, OAR, EVAR and incidence of concomitant diseases in distinctive regions. Relationships between the utilization of EVAR and the number of procedures, age, gender and concomitant diseases were studied.

RESULTS

A total of 7805 patients (mean age 70.9 ± 8.1 yrs) underwent OAR (n = 2336) or EVAR (n = 5469). The age and the incidence of concomitant diseases differed significantly between districts. The highest absolute number of all repairs was performed in the Masovian district (n = 1442), while the highest relative number of all repairs in the Lublin district (36.3/100,000 65+/year). The utilization of EVAR ranged from 34.5% to 93.9% and correlated positively with the number of EVAR, age and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease occurrence and negatively with OAR number.

CONCLUSIONS

Striking differences in the relative numbers of unruptured AAA repairs and in the population characteristics in various districts of the country point to the possibility of different health needs in the regions and variations in standards of care.