Christopher R Williams1, Benjamin S Brooke2. 1. Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT. 2. Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT. Electronic address: Benjamin.Brooke@hsc.utah.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient outcomes after open abdominal aortic aneurysm and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair have been widely reported from several large, randomized, controlled trials. It is not clear whether these trial outcomes are representative of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair procedures performed in real-world hospital settings across the United States. This study was designed to evaluate population-based outcomes after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair versus open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using statewide inpatient databases and examine how they have helped improve our understanding of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases was performed to identify articles comparing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using data from statewide inpatient databases. This search was limited to studies published in the English language after 1990, and abstracts were screened and abstracted by 2 authors. RESULTS: Our search yielded 17 studies published between 2004 and 2016 that used data from 29 different statewide inpatient databases to compare endovascular aortic aneurysm repair versus open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. These studies support the randomized, controlled trial results, including a lower mortality associated with endovascular aortic aneurysm repair extended from the perioperative period up to 3 years after operation, as well as a higher complication rate after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. The evidence from statewide inpatient database analyses has also elucidated trends in procedure volume, patient case mix, volume-outcome relationships, and health care disparities associated with endovascular aortic aneurysm repair versus open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. CONCLUSION: Population analyses of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using statewide inpatient databases have confirmed short- and long-term mortality outcomes obtained from large, randomized, controlled trials. Moreover, these analyses have allowed us to assess the effect of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair adoption on population outcomes and patient case mix over time. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND:Patient outcomes after open abdominal aortic aneurysm and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair have been widely reported from several large, randomized, controlled trials. It is not clear whether these trial outcomes are representative of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair procedures performed in real-world hospital settings across the United States. This study was designed to evaluate population-based outcomes after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair versus open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using statewide inpatient databases and examine how they have helped improve our understanding of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases was performed to identify articles comparing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using data from statewide inpatient databases. This search was limited to studies published in the English language after 1990, and abstracts were screened and abstracted by 2 authors. RESULTS: Our search yielded 17 studies published between 2004 and 2016 that used data from 29 different statewide inpatient databases to compare endovascular aortic aneurysm repair versus open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. These studies support the randomized, controlled trial results, including a lower mortality associated with endovascular aortic aneurysm repair extended from the perioperative period up to 3 years after operation, as well as a higher complication rate after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. The evidence from statewide inpatient database analyses has also elucidated trends in procedure volume, patient case mix, volume-outcome relationships, and health care disparities associated with endovascular aortic aneurysm repair versus open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. CONCLUSION: Population analyses of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using statewide inpatient databases have confirmed short- and long-term mortality outcomes obtained from large, randomized, controlled trials. Moreover, these analyses have allowed us to assess the effect of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair adoption on population outcomes and patient case mix over time. Published by Elsevier Inc.