Background: Although endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm has been found to be beneficial in very elderly patients, some patients have contraindications to this procedure. For nonagenarians, the results of open repair remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of open vs. endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm in nonagenarian patients. Methods and Results: Fourteen patients undergoing open surgical repair and 24 undergoing endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm were evaluated. There was no significant difference in early mortality between the open and endovascular groups (0% vs. 4.1%, p=0.16). The open repair group required much longer hospital stays (26.4 vs. 10.6 days, respectively, p=0.003). Finally, 12 patients (86%) undergoing open repair vs. 21 (88%) undergoing endovascular repair returned home (p=0.49). During a mean follow-up period of 23.4±23.5 months, cumulative estimated 1- and 3-year survival rates were 90.0% and 48.0%, respectively in the open repair group and 90.6% and 54.9%, respectively in the endovascular repair group (p=0.51). Conclusion: Although endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm was superior in terms of recovery, the results of conventional open repair were acceptable even in nonagenarian patients. Open repair remains an alternative for patients with contraindications to endovascular repair.
Background: Although endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm has been found to be beneficial in very elderly patients, some patients have contraindications to this procedure. For nonagenarians, the results of open repair remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of open vs. endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm in nonagenarian patients. Methods and Results: Fourteen patients undergoing open surgical repair and 24 undergoing endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm were evaluated. There was no significant difference in early mortality between the open and endovascular groups (0% vs. 4.1%, p=0.16). The open repair group required much longer hospital stays (26.4 vs. 10.6 days, respectively, p=0.003). Finally, 12 patients (86%) undergoing open repair vs. 21 (88%) undergoing endovascular repair returned home (p=0.49). During a mean follow-up period of 23.4±23.5 months, cumulative estimated 1- and 3-year survival rates were 90.0% and 48.0%, respectively in the open repair group and 90.6% and 54.9%, respectively in the endovascular repair group (p=0.51). Conclusion: Although endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm was superior in terms of recovery, the results of conventional open repair were acceptable even in nonagenarian patients. Open repair remains an alternative for patients with contraindications to endovascular repair.
Entities:
Keywords:
abdominal aortic aneurysm; endovascular repair; nonagenarians; open repair; surgery
Authors: Lee J Goldstein; Joshua A Halpern; Combiz Rezayat; Katherine A Gallagher; Elliot B Sambol; Harry L Bush; John K Karwowski Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Kakra Hughes; Hamdi Abdulrahman; Tahira Prendergast; David A Rose; Sharon Ongu'ti; Daniel Tran; Edward E Cornwell; Thomas Obisesan; Kwame S Amankwah Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 1.466