BACKGROUND: There remains no consensus on the appropriate application of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Information from administrative databases, industry-sponsored trials, and single institutions has inherent deficiencies. This study was designed to compare early outcomes of open (OPEN) versus EVAR in a contemporary (2000 to 2003) large, multicenter prospective cohort. METHODS: Fourteen academic medical centers contributed data to the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-Private Sector (NSQIP-PS), which ensures uniform, comprehensive, prospective, and previously validated data entry by trained, independent nurse reviewers. A battery of clinical and demographic features was assessed with multivariate analysis for association with the principal study end points of 30-day operative mortality and morbidity. RESULTS: One thousand forty-two patients underwent elective infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repairs: 460 EVAR and 582 OPEN. EVAR patients were older (74 vs 71 years, P < .0001), included more men (84.6% vs 79.6%, P < .05), and had a higher incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (25.4% vs 17.9%, P < .01). EVAR resulted in significantly reduced overall morbidity (24% vs 35%, P < .0001) and hospital stay (4 vs 9 days, P < .0001). Cardiopulmonary and renal function-related comorbidities had the expected significant impact on mortality for both procedures at univariate analysis ( P < .05). While crude mortality rates between EVAR and OPEN did not differ significantly (2.8% vs 4.0%) ( P = 0.32). After multivariate analysis, correlates of operative mortality included OPEN (odds ratio [OR], 2.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 5.78; P < .05), advanced age (OR, 1.11; P < .001), history of angina (OR, 5.54; P < .01), poor functional status (OR, 5.78; P < .001), history of weight loss (OR, 7.42; P < .01), and preoperative dialysis (OR, 51.4; P < .0001). EVAR also compared favorably to OPEN (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.58 to 2.89; P < .0001) for overall morbidity. CONCLUSION: Significant morbidity accompanies AAA repair, even at major academic medical centers. These data strongly endorse EVAR as the preferred approach in the presence of significant cardiopulmonary or renal comorbidities, or poor preoperative functional status.
BACKGROUND: There remains no consensus on the appropriate application of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Information from administrative databases, industry-sponsored trials, and single institutions has inherent deficiencies. This study was designed to compare early outcomes of open (OPEN) versus EVAR in a contemporary (2000 to 2003) large, multicenter prospective cohort. METHODS: Fourteen academic medical centers contributed data to the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-Private Sector (NSQIP-PS), which ensures uniform, comprehensive, prospective, and previously validated data entry by trained, independent nurse reviewers. A battery of clinical and demographic features was assessed with multivariate analysis for association with the principal study end points of 30-day operative mortality and morbidity. RESULTS: One thousand forty-two patients underwent elective infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repairs: 460 EVAR and 582 OPEN. EVAR patients were older (74 vs 71 years, P < .0001), included more men (84.6% vs 79.6%, P < .05), and had a higher incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (25.4% vs 17.9%, P < .01). EVAR resulted in significantly reduced overall morbidity (24% vs 35%, P < .0001) and hospital stay (4 vs 9 days, P < .0001). Cardiopulmonary and renal function-related comorbidities had the expected significant impact on mortality for both procedures at univariate analysis ( P < .05). While crude mortality rates between EVAR and OPEN did not differ significantly (2.8% vs 4.0%) ( P = 0.32). After multivariate analysis, correlates of operative mortality included OPEN (odds ratio [OR], 2.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 5.78; P < .05), advanced age (OR, 1.11; P < .001), history of angina (OR, 5.54; P < .01), poor functional status (OR, 5.78; P < .001), history of weight loss (OR, 7.42; P < .01), and preoperative dialysis (OR, 51.4; P < .0001). EVAR also compared favorably to OPEN (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.58 to 2.89; P < .0001) for overall morbidity. CONCLUSION: Significant morbidity accompanies AAA repair, even at major academic medical centers. These data strongly endorse EVAR as the preferred approach in the presence of significant cardiopulmonary or renal comorbidities, or poor preoperative functional status.
Authors: Matthew S Edwards; Jeanette S Andrews; Angela F Edwards; Racheed J Ghanami; Matthew A Corriere; Philip P Goodney; Christopher J Godshall; Kimberley J Hansen Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: William B Newton; Matthew J Sagransky; Jeanette S Andrews; Kimberly J Hansen; Matthew A Corriere; Philip P Goodney; Matthew S Edwards Journal: Am Surg Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Devin S Zarkowsky; Caitlin W Hicks; Ian C Bostock; David H Stone; Mohammad Eslami; Philip P Goodney Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2016-07-29 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Michael J Englesbe; Shawn J Pelletier; John C Magee; Paul Gauger; Tracy Schifftner; William G Henderson; Shukri F Khuri; Darrell A Campbell Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Evelyne A van Dam; Susanne D Dams; Gerrit W M Peters; Marcel C M Rutten; Geert Willem H Schurink; Jaap Buth; Frans N van de Vosse Journal: Biomech Model Mechanobiol Date: 2007-05-10