Ming-Yuan Liu1, Yang Jiao1, Yang Yang1, Qingle Li1, Xuemin Zhang1, Wei Li2, Xiaoming Zhang3. 1. Department of Vascular Surgery, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China. 2. Department of Vascular Surgery, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China. Electronic address: mailtowei@qq.com. 3. Department of Vascular Surgery, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China. Electronic address: rmyyxgwk@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Endovascular techniques have been increasingly used to treat mycotic aortic aneurysms. However, apart from survival, the potential benefits of open surgery and endovascular repair for mycotic aortic aneurysms are poorly understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short- and mid-term outcomes after open surgery versus endovascular repair for mycotic aortic aneurysms. METHODS: All patients treated for mycotic aortic aneurysms at Peking University People's Hospital between 2001 and 2017 were identified. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank tests. The reoperation rate was analyzed using a competing-risk analysis. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were identified. The mean follow-up time was 41 months (median, 29; range, 1-135 months). The 30-day mortality in the open surgery group was 8.7% (2/23) versus 5% (1/20) in the endovascular repair group (P = .999). The overall survival for open surgery and endovascular repair was 78% versus 75%, respectively, at 1 year, and 69% versus 41% (P = .210), respectively, at 5 years. But during the follow-up, the open surgery group demonstrated multiple benefits, including a shorter length of hospital stay (26.80 ± 14.1 days vs 42.73 ± 21.22 days, P = .026), fewer readmissions (mean 0.61 vs 1.30, P = .037), and lower infection-related reoperations (P = .018) than endovascular repair at 3 years. Subgroup analysis revealed better survival for open surgery in patients with a periaortic mass less than 20 mm (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences between endovascular repair and open surgery in survival. However, in the mid-term, the potential benefits of open surgery are favorable compared with endovascular repair, including lower infection-related reoperation rates and reduced medical burden.
OBJECTIVE: Endovascular techniques have been increasingly used to treat mycotic aortic aneurysms. However, apart from survival, the potential benefits of open surgery and endovascular repair for mycotic aortic aneurysms are poorly understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short- and mid-term outcomes after open surgery versus endovascular repair for mycotic aortic aneurysms. METHODS: All patients treated for mycotic aortic aneurysms at Peking University People's Hospital between 2001 and 2017 were identified. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank tests. The reoperation rate was analyzed using a competing-risk analysis. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were identified. The mean follow-up time was 41 months (median, 29; range, 1-135 months). The 30-day mortality in the open surgery group was 8.7% (2/23) versus 5% (1/20) in the endovascular repair group (P = .999). The overall survival for open surgery and endovascular repair was 78% versus 75%, respectively, at 1 year, and 69% versus 41% (P = .210), respectively, at 5 years. But during the follow-up, the open surgery group demonstrated multiple benefits, including a shorter length of hospital stay (26.80 ± 14.1 days vs 42.73 ± 21.22 days, P = .026), fewer readmissions (mean 0.61 vs 1.30, P = .037), and lower infection-related reoperations (P = .018) than endovascular repair at 3 years. Subgroup analysis revealed better survival for open surgery in patients with a periaortic mass less than 20 mm (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences between endovascular repair and open surgery in survival. However, in the mid-term, the potential benefits of open surgery are favorable compared with endovascular repair, including lower infection-related reoperation rates and reduced medical burden.