Katherine M Reitz1, Nathan L Liang2, Bowen Xie3, Michel Makaroun3, Edith Tzeng4. 1. Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, UPMC Presbyterian Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA; Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, UPMC Presbyterian Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA. 2. Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, UPMC Presbyterian Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA. Electronic address: Liangnl@upmc.edu. 3. Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, UPMC Presbyterian Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA. 4. Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, UPMC Presbyterian Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA; Vascular Surgery, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Health System, Pittsburgh, PA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The durability of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) when compared to open surgical repair (OSR) in younger patients for elective, infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) remains unclear due to limited follow-up. METHODS: We identified all patients <70 years of age who underwent elective, de novo EVAR or OSR for infrarenal AAA from 2003 to 2013 in a multihospital, single institution. Baseline patient clinical and aneurysmal characteristics were adjusted for using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and negative binomial regression. RESULTS: We identified 253 patients: 204 underwent EVAR (80.6%) and 49 OSR (19.4%). Baseline demographics and comorbidities were similar across groups. There were no deaths in the immediate perioperative period. The rate of new arrhythmia (EVAR: 1.0%, OSR: 10.2%; P = 0.004), median hospital length of stay (EVAR: 1 day, OSR: 5 days; P < 0.001), and discharge to a facility (EVAR: 2.9%, OSR: 12.2%; P = 0.016) were significantly increased for OSR. In both groups, median follow-up time was 4.5 years, in which survival did not differ between groups. The hazard of composite of freedom from death and any reinterventions (hazard ratio [HR] 4.3, P = 0.009), freedom from any reintervention (relative risk [RR] 4.08, P = 0.030), and freedom from any endovascular reintervention (RR 4.83, P = 0.038) were each higher for OSR when compared to EVAR. EVAR of the standard instruction for use (IFU) for neck length was more likely to die or undergo a reintervention (HR 4.90, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective review of younger patients undergoing elective AAA repair demonstrated no significant differences in perioperative mortality or survival over time between EVAR and OSR. EVAR required more total reinterventions and endovascular reintervention when compared to OSR.
BACKGROUND: The durability of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) when compared to open surgical repair (OSR) in younger patients for elective, infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) remains unclear due to limited follow-up. METHODS: We identified all patients <70 years of age who underwent elective, de novo EVAR or OSR for infrarenal AAA from 2003 to 2013 in a multihospital, single institution. Baseline patient clinical and aneurysmal characteristics were adjusted for using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and negative binomial regression. RESULTS: We identified 253 patients: 204 underwent EVAR (80.6%) and 49 OSR (19.4%). Baseline demographics and comorbidities were similar across groups. There were no deaths in the immediate perioperative period. The rate of new arrhythmia (EVAR: 1.0%, OSR: 10.2%; P = 0.004), median hospital length of stay (EVAR: 1 day, OSR: 5 days; P < 0.001), and discharge to a facility (EVAR: 2.9%, OSR: 12.2%; P = 0.016) were significantly increased for OSR. In both groups, median follow-up time was 4.5 years, in which survival did not differ between groups. The hazard of composite of freedom from death and any reinterventions (hazard ratio [HR] 4.3, P = 0.009), freedom from any reintervention (relative risk [RR] 4.08, P = 0.030), and freedom from any endovascular reintervention (RR 4.83, P = 0.038) were each higher for OSR when compared to EVAR. EVAR of the standard instruction for use (IFU) for neck length was more likely to die or undergo a reintervention (HR 4.90, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective review of younger patients undergoing elective AAA repair demonstrated no significant differences in perioperative mortality or survival over time between EVAR and OSR. EVAR required more total reinterventions and endovascular reintervention when compared to OSR.
Authors: Elliot L Chaikof; Ronald L Dalman; Mark K Eskandari; Benjamin M Jackson; W Anthony Lee; M Ashraf Mansour; Tara M Mastracci; Matthew Mell; M Hassan Murad; Louis L Nguyen; Gustavo S Oderich; Madhukar S Patel; Marc L Schermerhorn; Benjamin W Starnes Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Marc L Schermerhorn; A James O'Malley; Ami Jhaveri; Philip Cotterill; Frank Pomposelli; Bruce E Landon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-01-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rajesh Patel; Janet T Powell; Michael J Sweeting; David M Epstein; Jessica K Barrett; Roger M Greenhalgh Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: J T Powell; M J Sweeting; P Ulug; J D Blankensteijn; F A Lederle; J-P Becquemin; R M Greenhalgh Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Nathan L Liang; Natalie D Sridharan; Katherine M Reitz; Mohammad H Eslami; Rabih A Chaer; Edith Tzeng; Michel S Makaroun Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2021-06 Impact factor: 4.860