Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Group Research Articles

The outcomes and cost analysis of open repair and endovascular aneurysm repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms: a single-center experience in Japan.

Japan has adopted its own reimbursement system, which differs from other countries in terms of its diagnostic procedure combination (DPC) methods. However, there are few reports on the cost analysis of open repair and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms in Japan. We aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness of these two procedures. This study included patients who underwent open repair (n = 224) and EVAR (n = 87) between January 2012 and December 2022. After propensity score matching, we compared the two groups. The drug and blood products, procedures, and DPC costs were significantly higher in the open repair group (p < 0.001) than in the EVAR group. The surgical equipment and total costs were significantly higher in the EVAR group than in the open repair group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the 5-year survival rate (88.5% in the open repair group vs. 72.0% in the EVAR group; p = 0.33) and freedom from re-intervention rate at 5years (93.1% in the open repair group vs. 89.9% in the EVAR group; p = 0.15) between the two groups. Open repair is more cost-effective than EVAR. The cost-effectiveness of EVAR may therefore depend on the cost of the endograft.

The effect of the ratio of aneurysm sac diameter to patient age on the long-term efficacy of different surgical methods for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm

Objective: To investigate the effect of the ratio of the maximum diameter of aneurysm sac to age (R) on the long-term efficacy of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) in patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (IAAA). Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study.The clinical data of 317 patients with IAAA who underwent surgical repair in the Department of Vascular Surgery,the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University from January 2016 to October 2022 were retrospectively collected.There were 266 males and 51 females,aged (69.7±8.3) years (range:37 to 87 years).The R value of the patient was calculated and the receiver operating characteristic(ROC) curve was used to establish a model to calculate the optimal cut-off value.The propensity score matching method was used to match the baseline data of patients in the EVAR and OSR group by 3∶1 (the caliper value was 0.05),and the patients were stratified according to the cutoff value of R,and the postoperative efficacy and survival of the patients were analyzed.The primary endpoint was the total mortality rate,and the secondary endpoints included the occurrence of postoperative complications and reintervention.Pearson χ2 or Fisher 's exact test was used for categorical variables,and t test was used for continuous variables to compare differences between groups.The survival curves of the two groups were described by Kaplan-Meier method. Results: After propensity score matching,198 cases were in the EVAR group and 66 cases were in the OSR group.The ROC model showed that the best cut-off value of R value was 0.90,and the two groups were divided into two layers:R<0.90 and R≥0.90.Among them,112 patients with R<0.90 (84 cases of EVAR,28 cases of OSR);there were 152 patients with R≥0.90 (114 cases of EVAR and 38 cases of OSR).The follow-up time was (23.6±1.6) months (range:1 to 70 months).In the R≥0.90 stratification,the total mortality (26.3% vs.5.3%,P<0.05),complication rate (44.7% vs.26.3%,P<0.05), and secondary intervention rate (31.6% vs.13.2%,P<0.05) in the EVAR group were higher than those in the OSR group.In the R<0.90 stratification,there was no significant difference in the total mortality rate (13.1% vs.10.7%,P<0.05),complication rate (28.6% vs.35.7%,P>0.05) and secondary intervention rate (14.3% vs.21.4%, P>0.05) between the two groups. Conclusions: When R≥0.90 in IAAA patients,OSR maybe more beneficial to patients in terms of survival rate,postoperative complication rate and secondary intervention rate than EVAR.When R<0.90,there are no significant differences in survival rate,complication rate and secondary intervention rate between the two surgical methods.

Long-Term Outcomes of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in Patients Aged ≤70 Years.

Objectives: The efficacy of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) against abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in younger patients remains unknown. Hence, the current study aimed to investigate whether the aneurysm-related mortality rate of EVAR is acceptable among patients aged ≤70 years. Methods: Among 644 patients, 148 underwent EVAR (EVAR group), and 496 received open surgical repair (OSR group). The cumulative incidence rates of aneurysm-related death, any intervention, and serious aneurysm-related events after AAA repair were evaluated using the cumulative incidence function in the presence of competing risks. Results: The EVAR group had higher prevalences of several comorbidities, and overall survival for the EVAR group was significantly inferior to that of the OSR group. The cumulative incidence rates of aneurysm-related death, any intervention, and serious aneurysm-related events at 5 years were 1.5%, 11.7%, and 6.4% in the EVAR group and 1.3%, 5.3%, and 5.9% in the OSR group, respectively. EVAR was not a significant prognostic factor of aneurysm-related mortality and serious aneurysm-related events. However, it was an independent poor prognostic factor of any intervention. Conclusion: EVAR was not a significant prognostic factor of aneurysm-related mortality and serious aneurysm-related events. Therefore, it demonstrated acceptable procedure-related long-term outcomes, at least in high-risk young patients.

Comparative outcomes of physician-modified fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in the setting of prior failed endovascular aneurysm repair

ObjectiveEndovascular treatment of aortic aneurysms involving renal-mesenteric arteries, especially in the setting of prior failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) typically requires fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) with a custom-made device (CMD). CMDs are limited to select centers, and physician-modified endografts are an alternative treatment platform. Currently, there is no data on the outcomes of physician-modified F/BEVAR (PM-F/BEVAR) in the setting of failed prior EVAR. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of PM-F/BEVAR in patients with prior failed EVAR. MethodsA prospective database of consecutive patients treated at a single center with PM-F/BEVAR between March 2021 and November 2022 was retrospectively reviewed. The cohort was stratified by presence of a failed EVAR (type Ia endoleak or aneurysm development proximal to a prior EVAR) prior to PM-F/BEVAR. Demographics, operative details, and postoperative complications were compared between the groups using univariate analysis. One-year survival and freedom from reintervention were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. ResultsA total of 103 patients underwent PM-F/BEVAR during the study period; 27 (26%) were in the setting of prior EVAR. Patients with prior failed EVAR had similar age (75.2 ± 7.7 vs 71.5 ± 8.8 years; P = .058), male gender (n = 24 ; 89% vs n = 57 ; 75%; P = .130), and comorbid conditions except higher incidence of moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 7 ; 26% vs n = 7 ; 9%; P = .047). Overall, aneurysm diameter was 65.5 ± 13.9 mm with aneurysms categorized as juxta-/pararenal in 43% and thoracoabdominal in 57%, with no differences between the groups. Twelve patients (14%) presented with symptomatic/ruptured aneurysms. The average number of target arteries incorporated per patient was 3.8. Four different aortic devices were modified with a greater proportion of Terumo TREO devices used in the failed EVAR group (P = .03). There was no difference in procedure time, radiation dose, or iodinated contrast use between groups. Overall technical success was 99%. Rates of 30-day mortality (n = 0 ; 0% vs n = 3 ; 4%; P = .565) and major adverse events (n = 6 ; 22% vs n = 16 ; 21%; P = 1.0) were similar between groups. For the overall cohort, rates of type 1 or 3 endoleak, branch vessel stenosis/occlusion, and reintervention were 2%, 1%, and 8%, respectively, with no difference between groups. One-year survival (failed EVAR 94% vs no EVAR 82%; P = .756) was similar between groups. ConclusionsPM-F/BEVAR is a safe and effective treatment for patients with aneurysms involving the renal-mesenteric arteries in the setting of prior failed EVAR where additional technical challenges may be present. Additional follow-up is warranted to demonstrate long-term efficacy, but early results are encouraging and similar to those using CMDs.

Carbon Dioxide Guided Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Impaired Renal Function: Propensity Score Matched Study

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the preferred contrast agent in patients with impaired renal function and or contrast allergy and, particularly, in patients who require large volumes of contrast for complex endovascular procedures. In this study, the aim was to clarify the possible protective effects of CO2 guided endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for patients with impaired renal function by propensity score matching. A retrospective analysis of the database was performed for 324 patients having EVAR between January 2019 and January 2022. A total of 34 patients treated with CO2 guided EVAR were evaluated. This cohort was matched for age, sex, pre-operative serum creatinine levels and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) levels and specific comorbidities to obtain homogeneous groups that included only patients with impaired renal function (eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73m2). The primary endpoint was to compare the decrease in eGFR from baseline and development of contrast induced nephropathy (CIN) using propensity score matching. Secondary endpoints were the need for renal replacement therapy, other peri-procedural morbidity and mortality. Thirty-one patients (9.6%) of the total population developed CIN. There was no difference in the rate of CIN development between the standard EVAR group and the CO2 guided EVAR group in the unmatched population (10% vs. 3%, p= .15). After matching, the decrease in eGFR values after the procedure was more pronounced for the standard EVAR group (from 44 to 40 mL/min/1.73m2, interaction p= .034). Meanwhile, CIN development was more frequent for the standard EVAR group (24% vs. 3%, p= .027). In matched patients, early death did not differ between the groups (5.9% vs. 0, p= .15) CONCLUSION: Patients with impaired renal function are at higher risk of CIN after an endovascular procedure. CO2 guided EVAR is a safe, effective, and feasible treatment option, especially for patients with impaired renal function. CO2 guided EVAR may be a protective measure for contrast induced nephropathy.

Prophylactic Perigraft Arterial Sac Embolization During EVAR: Minimizing Type II Endoleaks and Improving Sac Regression

Type II endoleaks (ELII) are the most common complication following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Persistent type II endoleaks require continual surveillance and have been shown to increase the risk of Type I and III endoleaks, sac growth, need for intervention, conversion to open or even rupture directly or indirectly. These are often difficult to treat following EVAR and there are limited data regarding the effectiveness of prophylactic treatment of ELII. The aim of this study is to report midterm outcomes of prophylactic perigraft arterial sac embolization (pPASE) performed in patients undergoing EVAR. This is a comparison of two elective cohorts of those undergoing EVAR using the Ovation stent graft with and without prophylactic branch vessel and sac embolization. Patients who underwent pPASE at our institution had data collected in a prospective, IRB approved database. These were compared against the core lab adjudicated data from the Ovation IDE trial. Prophylactic PASE was performed at the time of EVAR with thrombin, contrast and gelfoam if lumbar or mesenteric arteries were patent. Endpoints included freedom from ELII, reintervention, sac growth, all-cause mortality (ACM) and aneurysm-related mortality (ARM). Thirty-six patients (13.1%) underwent pPASE, while 238 patients (86.9%) had standard EVAR. Median follow-up was 56 months (IQR 33-60). The 4-year freedom from ELII estimates were 84% for the pPASE vs 50.7% for the standard EVAR group (P=0.0002). All aneurysms in the pPASE group remained stable in size or demonstrated regression, whereas aneurysm sac expansion was seen in 10.9% of the standard EVAR group, P=0.03. At 4 years, mean AAA diameter decreased by 11mm (95% CI 8-15) in the pPASE group vs 5mm (95%CI 4-6) for the standard EVAR group, P=0.0005. There were no differences in the 4-year freedom from ACM and ARM. However, the difference in reintervention for ELII trended toward significance (0.0% vs 10.7%, P=0.1). On multivariable analysis, pPASE was associated with a 76% reduction in ELII [aHR(95%CI): 0.24 (0.08-0.65), P=0.005]. These results suggest that pPASE in those undergoing EVAR is safe and effective in the prevention of EII and significantly improves sac regression over standard EVAR while minimizing the need for reintervention.

Sex difference in early mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveAlthough female patients have a lower prevalence of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), they seem to have a worse treatment outcome compared with male patients. Both maximum aneurysm diameter and aortic size index (ASI) are important indicators of the risk of AAA rupture, among which ASI has been shown capable of equalizing sex-related anatomical differences. Our study aimed to investigate whether sex is an independent risk factor for early postoperative mortality and how the diameter or ASI affects the association between sex and mortality. MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of patients who enrolled in the AAA registry of the German Society of Vascular Surgery from 2013 to 2019. The patients were treated by either open surgical repair (OSR) or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The association between sex and 30-day mortality was investigated using logistic regression analysis. The interaction and mediating effects of maximum aneurysm diameter and ASI were investigated to verify their roles in the effect of sex on mortality. The relationships between the diameter (or ASI) and the risk of 30-day mortality in different sexes were demonstrated by the restricted cubic spline. ResultsOverall, 23,275 cases were included in our analysis, with 20,130 male (86.5%) and 3139 female (13.5%) patients. Female patients had a smaller maximum aneurysm diameter (OSR, 55.23 ± 10.29 mm vs 58.05 ± 11.28 mm [P < .001]; EVAR, 54.06 ± 9.08 mm vs 56.11 ± 9.38 mm [P < .001]), but a higher ASI (OSR, 3.16 ± 0.71 vs 2.92 ± 0.69 [P < .001]; EVAR, 3.05 ± 0.66 vs 2.80 ± 0.59 [P < .001]) compared with male patients. The 30-day mortality rate was higher for female patients in both OSR (6.6% vs 4.2%; P = .002) and EVAR groups (1.8% vs 0.8%; P < .001). Logistic regression confirmed a significantly higher risk of 30-day mortality for female patients compared with male patients (odds ratio, 1.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.99; P = .001). No interaction was found between sex and diameter or ASI, but there were mediating effects for diameter and ASI in the effect of sex on 30-day mortality. For female patients, the risk of 30-day mortality linearly increased with the increase of diameter (PNonlinear = .089) or ASI (PNonlinear = .888), whereas the risk for male patients was U-shaped (for diameter, PNonlinear < .001; for ASI, PNonlinear = .020). ConclusionsSex is an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality after AAA repair. Both diameter and ASI are mediating factors for the effect of sex on 30-day mortality. The relationship between diameter or ASI and the risk of 30-day mortality is different for male and female patients.

Treatment Outcomes of Patients With Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) is a serious complication of abdominal aortic aneurysm associated with high operative mortality and morbidity rates. The present study evaluated the perioperative and long-term outcomes of Korean patients with rAAA based on national health insurance claims data. The National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database was searched retrospectively to identify patients with rAAA who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) from 2009 to 2018. Perioperative (≤ 30 days), early postoperative (≤ 3 month), and long-term (> 3 month) survival, reinterventions, and complications were assessed. The search identified 1,034 patients with rAAA, including 594 who underwent EVAR and 440 who underwent OSR. When the study period was divided into two, the total numbers of patients with rAAA, patients who underwent EVAR, and octogenarians were higher during the second half. The perioperative mortality rate was 29.8% in the EVAR and 35.0% in the OSR group (P = 0.028). Hartmann's procedure for bowel infarction was performed more frequently in the OSR than in the EVAR group (adjusted odds ratio, 6.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.33-21.84; P = 0.001), but other complication rates did not differ significantly. All-cause mortality during the entire observation period did not differ significantly in the EVAR and OSR groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.98-1.41; P = 0.087). Abdominal aortic aneurysm-related reintervention rate was significantly lower in the OSR group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.14-0.70; P = 0.005). Although EVAR showed somewhat superior perioperative outcomes for rAAA, the long-term outcomes of EVAR after excluding initial 3 months were significantly worse than OSR. When anatomically feasible for both treatments, the perioperative mortality risk and reasonable prospects of long-term survival should be considered in rAAA.

Treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms in Korea: a nationwide study.

Although endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been shown to be superior to open surgical repair (OSR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) treatment, no large-scale studies in the Korean population have compared outcomes and costs. The National Health Insurance Service database in Korea was screened to identify AAA patients treated with EVAR or OSR from 2008 to 2019. Perioperative, early postoperative, and long-term survival were compared, as were reinterventions and complications. Patients were followed-up through 2020. Of the 13,631 patients identified, 2,935 underwent OSR and 10,696 underwent EVAR. Perioperative mortality rate was lower in the EVAR group (4.2% vs. 8.0%, P < 0.001) even after excluding patients with ruptured AAA (2.7% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.003). However, long-term mortality rate per 100 person-years was significantly higher in the EVAR than in the OSR group (9.0 vs. 6.4, P < 0.001), and all-cause mortality was lower in the OSR group (hazard ratio, 0.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.97, P = 0.008). EVAR had a higher AAA-related reintervention rate per 100 person-years (1.75 vs. 0.52), and AAA-related reintervention costs were almost 10-fold higher with EVAR (US dollar [USD] 6,153,463) than with OSR (USD 624,216). While EVAR may have short-term advantages, OSR may provide better long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness for AAA treatment in the Korean population, under the medical expense system in Korea.

Quality of Life for Patients Receiving Elective Interventions for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

Objectives: Information on the quality of life of patients operated on for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is scarce. The objective of this study was to analyse these patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Materials and Methods: This was a cross-sectional observational study. Patients undergoing elective AAA surgery from January 2013 to December 2020 were included. The Spanish version of the SF-36 questionnaire was administered to participants one to sixty months after surgery. Results: During the study period, 178 patients underwent surgery for AAA, 109 (61.23%) had open abdominal aortic repair (AAR) and 69 (38.54%) had endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Mortality before the month of surgery was higher among those treated by AAR than EVAR (2.7% and 1.45%, respectively), while late mortality was higher in the EVAR group than in the AAR group (11.5% and 2.7%, respectively). In the late postoperative period, 12.5% of patients who underwent AAR presented complications compared to 25% of those treated with EVAR. The questionnaire was administered to 151 patients (91 AAR and 60 EVAR patients). The AAR patients compared to the EVAR patients had significantly higher mean scores on the health scales of the SF-36 questionnaire in Physical Function (p = 0.001), Vitality (p = 0.003), General Health (p = 0.37), Social Function (p = 0.023) and Mental Health (p = 0.006). Scores on the Mental Summary Component were significantly higher in the AAR group (p = 0.026). Conclusions: The group of patients treated with AAR showed the highest average scores on the scales of the SF-36 questionnaire in Physical Function, Vitality, General Health and Mental Health. The worst result was found in the Social Function scale for EVAR patients and was related to a higher rate of late complications.

Similar long-term outcomes between endovascular aneurysm repair and open surgical repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms in octogenarian patients: a single-center study.

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has lower perioperative mortality and morbidity rates and shorter hospital stays when compared to open surgical repair (OSR) in octogenarian patients. However, its long-term results remain unclear. Hence, we aimed to analyze and compare the long-term outcomes of OSR and EVAR in this aging population. This single-center, retrospective, observational study analyzed the data of patients older than 80 years who underwent primary repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) between 2011 and 2016 in our hospital. The primary outcomes were in-hospital complications and 30-day mortality, while the secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and reintervention rate. Among the 48 patients with elective AAA repair, 13 underwent OSR and 35 underwent EVAR. In-hospital complications occurred in 10 patients (20.8%), 5 for OSR (38.5%) and 5 for EVAR (14.3%) with no significant difference between the groups (P = 0.067). In the OSR group, pulmonary complications were the most common events; in the EVAR group, 2 patients had ischemic colitis diagnosed with sigmoidoscopy and recovered by conservative treatment. The 1- and 5-year survival rates were 77.8% and 55.6% in the OSR group, and 66.0% and 54.9% in the EVAR group, respectively. The reintervention rate was 8.6% for the EVAR group; none of the OSR group were readmitted. The difference in procedures did not affect patient survival. Therefore, OSR does not necessarily have a worse prognosis than EVAR. Individual risk stratification must be preceded before the selection of an appropriate treatment method.

Meta-analysis finds recurrent infection is more common after endovascular than after open repair of infected abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Controversy has continued regarding the use of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) vs open aneurysm repair (OAR) for infected abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). In the present study, we investigated the comparative outcomes of EVAR and OAR for the treatment of infected AAAs. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through May 2021. We included studies that had described both EVAR and OAR for the treatment of infected AAAs. The primary endpoints were the rates of recurrent infection and related rupture and/or death. Perioperative and 1-year mortality and readmissions and reinterventions were also analyzed. Fourteen observational studies describing a total of 1203 patients (EVAR, 359 [29.8%]; OAR, 844 [70.2%]) were eligible for qualitative analysis. The baseline characteristics included diabetes mellitus (33.2%), fever at presentation (71.6%), rupture at diagnosis (26.1%), and positive blood cultures (52.5%). The mean follow-up period ranged from 12 to 40months. The use of EVAR became more prevalent in recent years (2016-2020, 32.4%) compared with the former period (2010-2015, 13.8%; P< .0001). Fenestrated, branched, or concomitant visceral debranching EVAR was performed in 6.1% of cases. In OAR, surgical debridement was consistently performed, and in situ reconstruction was applied in 82.2% and an omental flap in 51.5%. In nine studies considered for quantitative analysis, the patients' background (EVAR, n= 264; OAR, n= 274) were statistically balanced. The crude rates of recurrent infection and related rupture or death were 13.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.8%-18.5%) and 4.9% (95% CI 1.8%-8.0%), respectively. The pooled analyses depicted significantly higher rates of recurrent infection after EVAR than after OAR (relative risk [RR], 2.42; 95% CI, 1.80-3.27; P< .0001; I2= 0%). Recurrent infection-related rupture or death (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.70-3.23; P= .29; I2= 0%), perioperative death (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.39-1.65; P= .55; I2= 35%), 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.97-1.28; P=.13; I2= 0%), and readmission or reintervention (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.74-1.82; P=.52; I2= 0%) were not significantly different statistically between the two groups. Funnel plots showed no evidence of publication bias. Sensitivity analyses of leave-one-out meta-analysis confirmed higher rates of recurrent infection after EVAR. EVAR has become more prevalent as the initial treatment of infected AAAs. Although operative and 1-year survival were similar between OAR and EVAR groups, recurrent infection was more frequent after EVAR. This limitation should be weighed in selecting patients for EVAR in infected AAAs. Postoperative graft and infection surveillance are critical, especially after EVAR.

Era of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair is linked to preoperative anatomic severity and perioperative patient outcomes

Varying opinions on optimal elective and emergent surgical management of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms are expressed by the most recent Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS), European Society for Vascular Surgery, vs UK National Institutes for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. The UK National Institutes for Health and Care Excellence guidelines propose that open surgical repair serve as the default treatment for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. The rationale for this approach relied on data from the early era of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and are in contrast to the more balanced approaches of the SVS and European Society for Vascular Surgery. We hypothesize that significant differences in patient selection, management, and postoperative outcome are related to the era in which treatment was undertaken, contextualizing the outcomes reported in early-era EVAR randomized controlled trials. Retrospectively, two cohorts representing all EVAR patients from "early" (n= 167; 2008-2010) and "late" (n= 129; 2015-2017) periods at a single treating institution were assembled. Primary outcomes of era-related changes in preoperative demographics, anatomy, and intraoperative events were assessed; anatomy was compared using the SVS anatomic severity grading system. These era-related differences were then placed in the context of early perioperative outcomes and at follow-up to 1year. Choice of surgical strategy differed by era, despite the same patient preoperative comorbidities between EVAR groups. Preoperative anatomic severity was significantly worse in the early cohort (P< .001), with adverse proximal and distal seal zone features (P< .001). Technical success was 16.2% higher in the late cohort, with significantly fewer type 1A/B endoleaks perioperatively (P< .001). In-hospital complications, driven by higher acute kidney injury and surgical site complications in the early cohort, resulted in a 16.5% difference between cohorts (P< .05). At 1year of follow-up, outcome differences persisted; late-era patients had fewer 1A endoleaks, fewer graft complications, and better reintervention-free survival. From a granular dataset of EVAR patients, we found an impact of EVAR repair era on early clinical outcomes; late cohort infrarenal EVAR patients had less severe preoperative anatomy and improved perioperative and follow-up outcomes to 1year, suggesting that the results of early EVAR randomized controlled trials may no longer be generalizable to modern practice.

Quality-adjusted life year comparison at medium term follow-up of endovascular versus open surgical repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm in young patients.

This study aimed to compare the quality of life and cost effectiveness between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) in young patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). This was a single-center, observational, and retrospective study. A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients with AAA, who were <70 years old and underwent EVAR or OSR between January 2012 and October 2016. Only patients with aortic morphology that was suitable for EVAR were enrolled. Data on the complication rates, medical expenses, and expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were collected, and the cost per QALY at three years was compared. Among 90 patients with aortic morphology who were eligible for EVAR, 37 and 53 patients underwent EVAR and OSR, respectively. No significant differences were observed in perioperative cardiovascular events and death between the two groups. However, during the follow-up period, patients undergoing OSR showed a significantly lower complication rate (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.11; P = .021). From the three-year cost-effectiveness analysis, the total sum of costs was significantly lower in the OSR group (P < .001) than that in the EVAR group, and the number of QALYs was superior in the OSR group (P = .013). The cost per QALY at three years was significantly lower in the OSR group than that in the EVAR group (mean: $4038 vs. $10 137; respectively; P < .001). OSR had lower complication rates and better cost-effectiveness than EVAR Among young patients with feasible aortic anatomy.

Five-year survival after elective open and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

Current evidence suggests short-term survival benefit from endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) in elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) procedures, but this benefit is lost during long-term follow-up. The aim of this study was to compare short- and mid-term all-cause mortality in patients with non-ruptured aneurysm treated by OSR and EVAR; and to assess the rate of complications and reinterventions, as well as to evaluate their impact on survival. The medical records of the non-ruptured AAA patients undergoing OSR or EVAR between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2019 at Tartu University Hospital, Estonia, were retrospectively reviewed. We gathered survival data from the national registry (mean follow-up period was 3.7 ± 2.3 years). A total of 225 non-ruptured AAA patients were treated operatively out of whom 95 (42.2%) were EVAR and 130 (57.8%) were OSR procedures. The difference in estimated all-cause mortality between the OSR and EVAR groups at day 30 was statistically irrelevant (2.3% vs 0%; p = 0.140), but OSR patients showed statistically significantly higher 5 year survival compared with EVAR patients (75.3% vs 50.0%, p = 0.002). Complication and reintervention rates for the EVAR and OSR groups did not differ statistically (26.3% vs 16.9%, p = 0.122; 10.5% vs 11.5%, p = 0.981, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that greater aneurysm diameter (p = 0.012), EVAR procedure (p = 0.016), male gender (p = 0.023), and cerebrovascular diseases (p = 0.028) were independently positively associated with 5-year mortality. Thirty-day mortality, and complication and reintervention rates for EVAR and OSR after elective AAA repair were similar. Although the EVAR procedure is an independent risk factor for 5-year mortality, higher age and greater proportion of comorbidities among EVAR patients may influence not only the choice of treatment modality, but also prognosis.

1133 Long Term Survival After Standard EVAR: Have We Started to Treat The EVAR-2 Patient?

Abstract Aim Abdominal aortic aneurysm repair was traditionally preformed with open surgical repair (OSR). Recently endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has increased in popularity due to its less invasive nature particularly in those deemed unfit for OSR. The EVAR-2 trial found no significant difference between BMT and EVAR in the 30 days all-cause mortality. This questioned whether EVAR was the best option in those medically unfit for OSR. Method Elective EVAR procedures from the 1st April 2012 to 1st September 2017 were analysed with Kaplan-Meier graphs. The patient data was stratified by year, age group and EVAR risk scoring. Results The all-cause mortality at 30 days was 1.8%, at 6 months it was 7%, and at 4 years it was 19.8%. There was no significant difference with log rank analysis of the year of EVAR operation and consultant (P &amp;gt; 0.05). The log rank analysis found a significant difference between the stratified age groups (P &amp;lt; 0.001) and the EVAR scoring (P = 0.032). At all time-points the RLUH EVAR patients had a lower all-cause mortality compared to the EVAR-2. At the 4-year time point, the RLUH EVAR group had lower all- cause mortality than both EVAR-1 and EVAR-2 trials. Conclusions The retrospective audit data from 2012-2017, suggest the RLUH EVAR treatment practice is not falling into the EVAR-2 trial findings. At all time-points the RLUH EVAR patients had a lower all-cause mortality compared to the EVAR-2. Therefore, it can be concluded the RLUH is not treating EVAR-2 patients.

Analysis of prognostic factors for postoperative complications and reinterventions after open surgical repair and endovascular aneurysm repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm

A definitive treatment for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm considering age and comorbidities has not been identified. In the present study, we retrospectively validated treatment outcomes in Japanese patients and proposed the treatment strategy of open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). We retrospectively analyzed data for patients undergoing EVAR or OSR between 2006 and 2017. Patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm were excluded. We examined post-operative complications, operative mortality, re-intervention and prognosis. Throughout the study period, 405 patients underwent EVAR and 176 patients underwent OSR. The percentage of patients with post-operative complications was 35.8% in the OSR group, compared with 13.1% in the EVAR group (P < 0.01). The operative mortality rate was 0.49% in the EVAR group and 0.57% in the OSR group (P=1.00). With a multivariate analysis, age, hemodialysis, modified Frailty Index (mFI), and OSR were risk factors for post-operative complications. The 5-year re-intervention free survival rate was 63.0 % with hostile neck EVAR compared with 83.1 % with favorable neck EVAR and 86.1 % with OSR group (P < 0.01). With a multivariate analysis, hemodialysis, mFI, and hostile neck EVAR were risk factors for re-intervention. The 5-year overall survival rate was 51.9 % with hostile neck EVAR compared with 73.2 % with favorable neck EVAR and 79.0 % with OSR group (P < 0.01). With a multivariate analysis, age, mFI, and hostile neck EVAR were poor prognostic factors. Age, mFI, hemodialysis and hostile neck anatomy are useful predictors of post-operative complications, re-intervention and overall survival, and could be useful for informing treatment selection between OSR and EVAR.

Outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs: Endovascular vs open surgical repairs

BackgroundOperative mortality after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been reported as lower than open surgical repair (OSR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in randomized controlled trials. However, many cohort studies have demonstrated similar mortality rates for both procedures. We compared operative mortality between EVAR and OSR, at our institution. MethodsAll AAA operations from 2012 to 2017 were reviewed, and baseline characteristics were collected. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, operative data, complications, length of hospital stay (LOS), costs, re-intervention, and survival rates were compared. A multivariable analysis with unbalanced characteristics was performed. ResultsWe had a total of 162 patients, 100 having OSR and 62 for EVAR. The EVAR group was older, with higher ASA classification. Thirty-day mortality rate did not significantly differ (0/100 for OSR and 2/62 (3%) for EVAR; p = 0.145), while the EVAR group had less blood loss, shorter operative times, and LOS, but higher re-intervention rates (adjusted hazard ratio 6.4 (95%CI: 1.4, 26.8)). Survival rates did not significantly differ between the groups. EVAR cost approximately 1-million yen more. ConclusionsOSR had low 30-day mortality rate in selected low-risk patients whereas EVAR had less blood loss, shorter operative times, LOS and could be done in high-risk patients with low 30-day mortality but with higher re-intervention rate.

Outcomes in Octogenarians and the Effect of Comorbidities After Intact Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in the Netherlands: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Age is an independent risk factor for mortality after both elective open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). As a result of an ageing population, and the less invasive nature of EVAR, the number of patients over 80 years (octogenarians) being treated is increasing. The mortality and morbidity following aneurysm surgery are increased for octogenarians. However, the mortality for octogenarians who have either low or high peri-operative risks remains unclear. The aim of this study was to provide peri-operative outcomes of octogenarians vs. non-octogenarians after OSR and EVAR for intact aneurysms, including separate subanalyses for elective and urgent intact repair, based on a nationwide cohort. Furthermore, the influence of comorbidities on peri-operative mortality was examined. All patients registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA) undergoing intact AAA repair between 2013 and 2018, were included. Patient characteristics and peri-operative outcomes (peri-operative mortality, and major complications) of octogenarians vs. non-octogenarians for both OSR and EVAR were compared using descriptive statistics. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to examine whether age and the presence of cardiac, pulmonary, or renal comorbidities were associated with mortality. This study included 12 054 EVAR patients (3 015 octogenarians), and 3 815 OSR patients (425 octogenarians). Octogenarians in both the EVAR and OSR treatment groups were more often female and had more comorbidities. In both treatment groups, octogenarians had significantly higher mortality rates following intact repair as well as higher major complication rates. Mortality rates of octogenarians were 1.9% after EVAR and 11.8% after OSR. Age ≥ 80 and presence of cardiac, pulmonary, and renal comorbidities were associated with mortality after EVAR and OSR. Because of the high peri-operative mortality rates of octogenarians, awareness of the presence of comorbidities is essential in the decision making process before offering aneurysm repair to this cohort, especially when OSR is considered.

Survival After Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing Compared With Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Introduction Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) is a sac-filling device with a blunted systemic inflammatory response compared to conventional endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), with a suggested impact on all-cause mortality. This study compares mortality after both EVAS and EVAR. Materials and Methods This is a retrospective observational study including data from 2 centres, with ethical approval. Elective procedures on asymptomatic infrarenal aneurysms performed between January 2011 until April 2018 were enrolled. Laboratory values (serum creatinine, haemoglobin, white blood cell count, platelet count) were measured pre- and postoperatively and at 1 and 2 years, respectively. Mortality and cause of death were recorded during follow-up. Results A total of 564 patients were included (225 EVAS, 369 EVAR), after propensity score matching there were 207 patients in both groups. Baseline characteristics were similar, except for larger neck angulation and more pulmonary disease in the EVAR group. The median follow-up time was 49 (EVAS) and 44 (EVAR) months. No significant differences regarding creatinine and haemoglobin were observed. Preoperative white blood cell count was higher in the EVAR group (p=0.011), without significant differences during follow-up. Median platelet count was lower in the EVAR group preoperatively (p=0.001), but was significantly higher at 1 year follow-up (p=0.003). There were 43 deaths within the EVAS group (20.8%) and 52 within the EVAR group (25.1%) (p=0.293). Of these, 4 were aneurysm related (EVAS n=3, EVAR n=1; p=0.222) and 14 cardiovascular (EVAS n=6, EVAR n=8, p=0.845). For the EVAS cohort, survival was 95.5% at 1 year and 74.9% at 5 years. For the EVAR cohort, this was 93.3% at 1 year and 75.5% at 5 years. No significant differences were observed in causes of death. Conclusion This study showed comparable survival rates through 5 years between EVAS and EVAR with a tendency toward higher inflammatory response in the EVAR patients through the first 2 years.