Rumbidzayi Nzara1, Denis Rybin1, Gheorghe Doros1, Sebastian Didato1, Alik Farber1, Mohammad H Eslami1, Jeffrey A Kalish1, Jeffrey J Siracuse2. 1. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Biostatistics, Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA. 2. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Biostatistics, Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA. Electronic address: jeffrey.siracuse@bmc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Iliac conduit or direct iliac access (ICDA) can be used when anatomy is unfavorable for femoral access during abdominal endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). The impact of this approach has not been adequately addressed. The objective of this study was to analyze perioperative outcomes of patients requiring use of ICDAs for EVAR. METHODS: Patients undergoing EVAR with and without ICDA were identified in the 2005-2012 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data sets. Perioperative morbidity and mortality were assessed by crude comparison of matched groups and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Of 15,082 patients undergoing infrarenal EVAR 147 (1%) required ICDA. The ICDA group had a higher proportion of females (25.9% vs. 17.8%, P = 0.017), peripheral vascular disease (12.9% vs. 5.5%, P = 0.001), and patients with a history of dyspnea (31.3% vs. 23.1%, P = 0.024). There was no difference in age (74.5 ± 8.4 conduit vs. 73.5 ± 8.5). On multivariate analysis, the ICDA cohort had a higher rate of mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-5.4; P = 0.004) and an increase in other major complications including cardiac arrest and/or myocardial infarction (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.3-6.3; P = 0.007), pulmonary complications (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.2-3.9; P = 0.013), and postoperative length of stay (means ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4; P = 0.001). There was a trend toward increased bleeding complications with ICDA. Matched analyses of comorbidities revealed that patients requiring ICDA had higher perioperative mortality (6.8% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.008), cardiac (4.8% vs. 1%, P = 0.004), pulmonary (8.8% vs. 3.4%, P = 0.006), and bleeding complications (10.2% vs. 4.6%, P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that the use of ICDA during EVAR is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In situations where anatomy mandates the use of iliac conduits or access for EVAR, surgeons should consider this increased risk. Open repair or the use of lower profile devices, if possible, should be considered as options for these patients.
BACKGROUND: Iliac conduit or direct iliac access (ICDA) can be used when anatomy is unfavorable for femoral access during abdominal endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). The impact of this approach has not been adequately addressed. The objective of this study was to analyze perioperative outcomes of patients requiring use of ICDAs for EVAR. METHODS:Patients undergoing EVAR with and without ICDA were identified in the 2005-2012 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data sets. Perioperative morbidity and mortality were assessed by crude comparison of matched groups and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Of 15,082 patients undergoing infrarenal EVAR 147 (1%) required ICDA. The ICDA group had a higher proportion of females (25.9% vs. 17.8%, P = 0.017), peripheral vascular disease (12.9% vs. 5.5%, P = 0.001), and patients with a history of dyspnea (31.3% vs. 23.1%, P = 0.024). There was no difference in age (74.5 ± 8.4 conduit vs. 73.5 ± 8.5). On multivariate analysis, the ICDA cohort had a higher rate of mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-5.4; P = 0.004) and an increase in other major complications including cardiac arrest and/or myocardial infarction (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.3-6.3; P = 0.007), pulmonary complications (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.2-3.9; P = 0.013), and postoperative length of stay (means ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4; P = 0.001). There was a trend toward increased bleeding complications with ICDA. Matched analyses of comorbidities revealed that patients requiring ICDA had higher perioperative mortality (6.8% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.008), cardiac (4.8% vs. 1%, P = 0.004), pulmonary (8.8% vs. 3.4%, P = 0.006), and bleeding complications (10.2% vs. 4.6%, P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that the use of ICDA during EVAR is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In situations where anatomy mandates the use of iliac conduits or access for EVAR, surgeons should consider this increased risk. Open repair or the use of lower profile devices, if possible, should be considered as options for these patients.
Authors: Björn Redfors; Brendan M Watson; Thomas McAndrew; Emilie Palisaitis; Dominic P Francese; Mehdi Razavi; Jordan Safirstein; Roxana Mehran; Ajay J Kirtane; Philippe Généreux Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Sarah E Deery; Katie E Shean; Grace J Wang; James H Black; Gilbert R Upchurch; Kristina A Giles; Virendra I Patel; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 4.268