Midterm results of endovascular versus open surgical repair for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms in low surgical risk patients

Abstract

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to analyze midterm outcomes of endovascular repair (EVAR) versus open repair (OR) for treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in low surgical risk patients. MethodsElective patients with AAAs undergoing treatment from 2003 to 2017 in a single, tertiary-care institution were evaluated. All patients with a low preoperative risk of complications and perioperative mortality (Medicare Aneurysm Scoring System <3) were included, and rates of perioperative and long-term mortality, adverse events, and reintervention were evaluated for EVAR and OR. A propensity score-matched cohort, leveling age, risk factors, and comorbidities was additionally performed. ResultsA total of 227 patients were included (EVAR 59.9% and OR 40.1%) and followed for a mean of 80 ± 48 months. Patients undergoing EVAR were older (66.6 ± 5 vs. 64.1 ± 6 years; P <.001), had a higher body mass index (29.6 ± 4 vs 28.1 ± 3 kg/m2; P = .005), a higher prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (27.3% vs 9.9%; P = .001), and lower prevalence of dyslipidaemia (46.3% vs 65.9%; P = .004). Patients undergoing OR had a higher rate of major adverse events (19.7% vs 2.6%; P = .001) and 30-day reinterventions (8.8% vs. 1.5%; P = .016), with 30-day mortality being 0% in both groups. The propensity-score matched cohort included 76 matched pairs (1:1), with differences in hospital stay and major complications remaining significant, without affecting mortality. At 5-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in the reintervention rate (EVAR 18.5% vs OR 17.6%; P = .67) or survival (EVAR 85% vs OR 91%; P = .195). ConclusionsIn low surgical risk patients with AAAs, EVAR may offer comparable midterm results to OR, with a lower rate of major adverse events and a shorter in-hospital stay. With the current OR-first paradigm in low-risk patients, several factors should be taken into account for decision-making (anatomic suitability, risk of sexual dysfunction, risk of type 2 endoleaks, and need for follow-up).