Assessment of failure to rescue after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure-targeted data set

Abstract

ObjectiveOpen aortic repair (OAR) is associated with higher risk of mortality compared with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The aim of this study was to compare failure to rescue (FTR) after major predischarge complications in patients undergoing OAR and EVAR. MethodsPatients who underwent OAR or EVAR in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program between 2011 and 2015 were selected. Patients with ruptured aneurysm and those with type IV thoracoabdominal aneurysms were excluded. The primary outcome was FTR, defined as 30-day mortality in patients who developed at least one complication during their hospital stay. Univariable and multivariable statistics were used. ResultsA total of 9097 patients underwent abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Of those, 3291 (36.2%) had at least one major predischarge complication, 82.5% after OAR (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.9%-84.1%) vs 21.3% after EVAR (95% CI, 20.4%-22.3%; P < .001). Increased FTR was seen after aneurysm rupture, cardiac arrest, septic shock, and acute kidney injury. On multivariable analysis, FTR was not significantly different between OAR and EVAR (adjusted odds ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.61-1.24; P = .44). Propensity score matching and coarsened exact matching showed similar results. ConclusionsAlthough EVAR has fewer complications and lower in-hospital mortality than OAR, FTR after major predischarge complications does not depend on the type of surgical approach. When an in-hospital major complication occurs after EVAR, surgeons should be alert that FTR risk resulting in mortality is similar to that of OAR. Therefore, there is no safety net with EVAR.