Tze-Woei Tan1, Mohammad Eslami2, Denis Rybin3, Gheorghe Doros3, Wayne W Zhang4, Alik Farber5. 1. Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz. Electronic address: ttan@surgery.arizona.edu. 2. Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Mass. 4. Division of Vascular Surgery, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, La. 5. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is becoming the preferred treatment modality for patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA). Although the survival advantage of EVAR over open aortic repair (OAR) has been shown in some studies, it is unclear whether this benefit extends to elderly patients. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of rAAA repair in octogenarians. METHODS: We reviewed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) data set (2005-2014) to identify patients older than 80 years who were treated with EVAR and OAR for rAAA. Procedural trends were evaluated during the course of the study period. Perioperative outcomes including mortality, morbidity, and hospital length of stay (LOS) were compared. Multivariable regression models were used to identify predictors of perioperative mortality and morbidity. RESULTS: Among 1048 elderly patients who underwent rAAA repair, 450 (43%) and 598 (57%) were treated with EVAR and OAR, respectively. The use of EVAR to treat rAAA had increased significantly in this population of patients (0% in 2005 vs 56% in 2014; P < .001). The overall 30-day mortality rate among octogenarians was 41%. The mortality rate was significantly higher among those treated with OAR compared with EVAR (47% vs 33%; P < .001). Pneumonia (21% vs 10%; P < .001), reintubation (14% vs 9%; P < .001), and >48-hour ventilator dependence (43% vs 21%; P < .001) were significantly higher in patients undergoing OAR. Hospital LOS (13 vs 10 days; P < .001) was also longer in the OAR cohort. Compared with EVAR, OAR was independently predictive of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-2.2; P < .001), pneumonia (AOR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7-3.6; P < .001), >48-hour ventilator dependence (AOR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.8-3.3; P < .001), and longer LOS (adjusted mean ratio, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.6; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients have significant but acceptable perioperative mortality and morbidity after rAAA repair. Use of endovascular repair in the elderly population has increased and is associated with better perioperative survival and 30-day outcomes compared with traditional open repair in this study.
BACKGROUND:Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is becoming the preferred treatment modality for patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA). Although the survival advantage of EVAR over open aortic repair (OAR) has been shown in some studies, it is unclear whether this benefit extends to elderly patients. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of rAAA repair in octogenarians. METHODS: We reviewed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) data set (2005-2014) to identify patients older than 80 years who were treated with EVAR and OAR for rAAA. Procedural trends were evaluated during the course of the study period. Perioperative outcomes including mortality, morbidity, and hospital length of stay (LOS) were compared. Multivariable regression models were used to identify predictors of perioperative mortality and morbidity. RESULTS: Among 1048 elderly patients who underwent rAAA repair, 450 (43%) and 598 (57%) were treated with EVAR and OAR, respectively. The use of EVAR to treat rAAA had increased significantly in this population of patients (0% in 2005 vs 56% in 2014; P < .001). The overall 30-day mortality rate among octogenarians was 41%. The mortality rate was significantly higher among those treated with OAR compared with EVAR (47% vs 33%; P < .001). Pneumonia (21% vs 10%; P < .001), reintubation (14% vs 9%; P < .001), and >48-hour ventilator dependence (43% vs 21%; P < .001) were significantly higher in patients undergoing OAR. Hospital LOS (13 vs 10 days; P < .001) was also longer in the OAR cohort. Compared with EVAR, OAR was independently predictive of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-2.2; P < .001), pneumonia (AOR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7-3.6; P < .001), >48-hour ventilator dependence (AOR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.8-3.3; P < .001), and longer LOS (adjusted mean ratio, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.6; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients have significant but acceptable perioperative mortality and morbidity after rAAA repair. Use of endovascular repair in the elderly population has increased and is associated with better perioperative survival and 30-day outcomes compared with traditional open repair in this study.
Authors: Piotr Kulig; Krzysztof Lewandowski; Bartłomiej Banaś; Piotr Piekorz; Andrzej Kostka; Maciej Zaniewski Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2018-02-07 Impact factor: 1.195