C García-Madrid1, M Josa, V Riambau, C-A Mestres, J Muntaña, J Mulet. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Institut of Cardiovascular Diseases, Hospital Clínic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. cgarciam@clinic.ub.es
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess early and intermediate results of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR), and to compare them with open surgery (OS) in concurrent patients suitable for both types of treatment. METHODS: During 3 years, 180 patients with AAA underwent repair. We excluded patients with ruptured aneurysms (33), juxtarenal aneurysms (11), iliac aneurysms (8), with peripheral embolization (2) and those treated with a cryopreserved homograft (2). From the remaining patients (n=124), we selected those suitable for both techniques (n=83), of which 53 were treated by EVAR and 30 by OS. Analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Log Rank tests. RESULTS: Hospital mortality was not significantly higher in the OS group (6.6% OS vs. 3.7% EVAR), p=0.55. The EVAR group had significantly shorter operative time, length of hospital stay and less blood loss. The median follow up time was 2.18 years for OR and 1.58 years for EVAR. There were no conversions from EVAR to OS and no differences in late survival (p=0.255, Cox regression analysis) with a cumulative survival rate at 3 years of 89% for EVAR and 73% for OS. By 3 years 24% (95% CI, 11-47%) of EVAR patients had presented endoleaks with an endovascular re-intervention rate of 27% (95% CI, 13-50%). One patient in the OS group needed a late open intervention. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR compares favourably with OS in terms of reduction of operative time, hospital length of stay and blood loss. This study did not show a difference in early or late mortality. EVAR durability remains the most critical issue to be addressed.
PURPOSE: To assess early and intermediate results of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR), and to compare them with open surgery (OS) in concurrent patients suitable for both types of treatment. METHODS: During 3 years, 180 patients with AAA underwent repair. We excluded patients with ruptured aneurysms (33), juxtarenal aneurysms (11), iliac aneurysms (8), with peripheral embolization (2) and those treated with a cryopreserved homograft (2). From the remaining patients (n=124), we selected those suitable for both techniques (n=83), of which 53 were treated by EVAR and 30 by OS. Analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Log Rank tests. RESULTS: Hospital mortality was not significantly higher in the OS group (6.6% OS vs. 3.7% EVAR), p=0.55. The EVAR group had significantly shorter operative time, length of hospital stay and less blood loss. The median follow up time was 2.18 years for OR and 1.58 years for EVAR. There were no conversions from EVAR to OS and no differences in late survival (p=0.255, Cox regression analysis) with a cumulative survival rate at 3 years of 89% for EVAR and 73% for OS. By 3 years 24% (95% CI, 11-47%) of EVAR patients had presented endoleaks with an endovascular re-intervention rate of 27% (95% CI, 13-50%). One patient in the OS group needed a late open intervention. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR compares favourably with OS in terms of reduction of operative time, hospital length of stay and blood loss. This study did not show a difference in early or late mortality. EVAR durability remains the most critical issue to be addressed.
Authors: Robert Hopkins; James Bowen; Kaitryn Campbell; Gord Blackhouse; Guy De Rose; Teresa Novick; Daria O'Reilly; Ron Goeree; Jean-Eric Tarride Journal: Vasc Health Risk Manag Date: 2008
Authors: Dustin M Thomas; Edward A Hulten; Shane T Ellis; David M F Anderson; Nathan Anderson; Fiora McRae; Jamil A Malik; Todd C Villines; Ahmad M Slim Journal: ISRN Cardiol Date: 2014-04-02