OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) decreases 30-day mortality for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (r-AAAs) compared with open surgical repair (OSR). However, which patients benefit or whether there is any long-term survival advantage is uncertain. METHODS: From 2002 to 2011, 283 patients with r-AAA underwent EVAR (n = 120 [42.4%]) or OSR (n = 163 [57.6%]) at Albany Medical Center. All data were collected prospectively. Patients were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis, and outcomes were evaluated by a logistic regression multivariable model. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare long-term survival. RESULTS: The EVAR patients had a significantly lower 30-day mortality than did the OSR patients (29/120 [24.2%] vs 72/163 [44.2%]; P < .005) and better cumulative 5-year survival (37% vs 26%; P < .005). Men benefited more from EVAR (mortality: 20.9% for EVAR vs 44.3% for OSR; P < .001) than did women (mortality: 32.4% vs 43.9%; P = .39). Age ≥80 years was a significant predictor of death for EVAR (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; P = .003) but not for OSR (OR, 1.04; P = .056). Preexisting hypertension was a significant predictor of survival for both EVAR (OR, 0.17; P < .001) and OSR (OR, 0.48; P = .021). Almost one fourth of EVAR patients (21/91 [23.1%]) required secondary interventions. Survival advantage was maintained for EVAR patients to 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: For r-AAA, EVAR reduces the 30-day mortality and improves long-term survival up to 5 years. However, whereas open survivors require few graft-related interventions, up to 23% of EVAR patients will require reintervention for endoleaks or graft migration. Close follow-up of all EVAR survivors is mandatory.
OBJECTIVE:Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) decreases 30-day mortality for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (r-AAAs) compared with open surgical repair (OSR). However, which patients benefit or whether there is any long-term survival advantage is uncertain. METHODS: From 2002 to 2011, 283 patients with r-AAA underwent EVAR (n = 120 [42.4%]) or OSR (n = 163 [57.6%]) at Albany Medical Center. All data were collected prospectively. Patients were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis, and outcomes were evaluated by a logistic regression multivariable model. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare long-term survival. RESULTS: The EVAR patients had a significantly lower 30-day mortality than did the OSR patients (29/120 [24.2%] vs 72/163 [44.2%]; P < .005) and better cumulative 5-year survival (37% vs 26%; P < .005). Men benefited more from EVAR (mortality: 20.9% for EVAR vs 44.3% for OSR; P < .001) than did women (mortality: 32.4% vs 43.9%; P = .39). Age ≥80 years was a significant predictor of death for EVAR (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; P = .003) but not for OSR (OR, 1.04; P = .056). Preexisting hypertension was a significant predictor of survival for both EVAR (OR, 0.17; P < .001) and OSR (OR, 0.48; P = .021). Almost one fourth of EVAR patients (21/91 [23.1%]) required secondary interventions. Survival advantage was maintained for EVAR patients to 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: For r-AAA, EVAR reduces the 30-day mortality and improves long-term survival up to 5 years. However, whereas open survivors require few graft-related interventions, up to 23% of EVAR patients will require reintervention for endoleaks or graft migration. Close follow-up of all EVAR survivors is mandatory.
Authors: Sara L Zettervall; Peter A Soden; Dominique B Buck; Jack L Cronenwett; Phillip P Goodney; Mohammad H Eslami; Jason T Lee; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2016-11-23 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Sara L Zettervall; Dominique B Buck; Peter A Soden; Jack L Cronenwett; Phillip P Goodney; Mohammad H Eslami; Jason T Lee; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Sara L Zettervall; Klaas H J Ultee; Peter A Soden; Sarah E Deery; Katie E Shean; Alexander B Pothof; Mark Wyers; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2016-09-26 Impact factor: 4.268