[Inpatient rehabilitation for patients 65 years and older with abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: Indications and long-term outcome]. / Stationäre Frührehabilitation nach endovaskulärer und offener Versorgung eines Bauchaortenaneurysmas bei über 65-Jährigen: Indikation und langfristiges Outcome.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, there is no data available on the frequency of inpatient rehabilitation (IR) after elective endovascular (EVAR) and open (OAR) abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. OBJECTIVE: To report for the first time on the outcome of patients 65 years and older and thus of retirement age with and without IR after AAA repair in a retrospective analysis of routine data from all eleven regional companies of the AOK health insurance fund (AOK-Gesundheit). METHODS: Anonymized data of 16,358 patients 65 years and older with intact abdominal aortic aneurysm treated with EVAR (n = 12,960) or OAR (n = 3,398) between 01/01/2010 and 12/31/2016 were analyzed. Patients with postoperative IR (n = 1,531) were compared to those without postoperative IR (n = 14,827) with respect to general patient characteristics, comorbidities, perioperative and postoperative outcomes, and survival. The average follow-up of patients with postoperative and without postoperative IR was 49.9 months and 51.8 months, respectively. RESULTS: 5.4% of EVAR patients, but 24.6% of OAR patients were referred to IR (p < 0.001). Patients with IR were sicker than those without IR. Parameters significantly influencing the use of IR included OAR vs EVAR (Odds Ratio [OR] 6.03), condition after cerebral infarction (OR 1.53), and women vs men (OR 1.49). Perioperative influencing parameters were cerebral infarction (OR 2.40), blood transfusions (OR 2.21) and complex critical care (OR 2.15). After nine years, the Kaplan-Meier estimated survival was 41.9% for patients with vs 43.4% for those without IR in the EVAR group (p = 0.178). For OAR, it was 50.2% for patients with IR vs 49.8% for patients without IR (p = 0.006). In multivariate regression analysis, postoperative IR had a significant effect on long-term survival in OAR but not in EVAR patients. CONCLUSION: There are no generally binding guidelines for the indication of IR after AAA repair. It should therefore be a requirement for the future that the fitness of each patient with elective AAA repair be determined with a score before and after the procedure in order to make indications for AHB more comparable. The score should be documented in the hospital discharge letter.

Long-term outcome and cancer incidence after lower extremity bypass surgery in patients with critical limb threatening ischemia.

PURPOSE: The influence of cancer development on long-term outcome after lower extremity bypass surgery in patients with critical limb threatening ischemia was investigated. METHODS: Patient survival and cancer incidence were recorded for 21,082 patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) stage III (n = 5631; 26.7%) and stage IV (n = 15,451; 73.3%) registered with the AOK health insurance company in Germany who underwent infrainguinal bypass surgery. All patients were preoperative and in their history cancer-free. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 44 months, 25.6% of all patients developed cancer (Kaplan-Meier estimated), with no significant differences between patients with PAD stage III and IV (cancer incidence stage III 25.7%, stage IV 25.5%; p = 0.421). In the Cox regression analysis, male gender (HR 1.885; 95% CI 1.714-2.073, p < 0.001) and age over 70 years (HR 1.399; 95% CI 1.285-1.522, p < 0.001) were significant risk factors for the development of cancer. Survival was significantly lower in stage IV (23.4%) compared to stage III (44.5%) (HR 1.720; 95% CI 1.645-1.799, p < 0.001). Cancer was a significant risk factor for overall survival in PAD stage III patients (HR: 1.326; 95% CI 1.195-1.471, p < 0.001) but not in PAD stage IV (HR 0.976; 95% CI 0.919-1.037, p = 0.434). CONCLUSION: Patients with PAD stage III have significantly better survival after infrainguinal bypass surgery compared to patients with stage IV. While cancer incidence was essential for survival in stage III, it was of no importance in stage IV.

The Treatment of Patients With an Unruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm and a Concomitant Malignancy.

BACKGROUND: Having cancer adversely effects the outcome of treatment for an unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). METHODS: A retrospective secondary analysis was performed on the basis of anonymized data from AOK, a German nationwide statutory healthinsurance carrier. Data were evaluated from all of the 20 683 patients who underwent either endovascular (EVAR, 15 792) or open surgical (OAR, 4891) treatment for an unruptured AAA in the years 2010-2016. It was determined in each case whether the patient had a known cancer at the time of the procedure to treat AAA. The analysis concerned patient characteristics, periprocedural complications, and survival after the procedure up to 31 December 2018. RESULTS: 18 222 patients were free of cancer. In accordance with the known 6:1 sex ratio of AAA, 85.3% of the cancer-free patients and 92.8% of those with cancer were men. At the time of their AAA procedure, 1398 had cancer of the intestine (n = 318), lung (n = 301), prostate (n = 380), or bladder or ureter (n = 399). One-year survival after the AAA procedure was 91.5% in cancer-free patients and 84%, 74.4%, 85.8%, and 85.5% in the patients with the respective types of cancer just mentioned. Having cancer was a significant risk factor for periprocedural mortality (OR 1.326, p = 0.041) and for long-term survival (HR 1.515; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Having cancer is a risk factor for periprocedural mortality and long-term survival in patients undergoing treatment for an unruptured AAA. This implies that the indications for surgery should be considered with care, particularly in patients with lung cancer, whose 5-year survival rate is only 37.2%.

Long-Term Outcome of Intact Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm After Endovascular or Open Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been established as a standard treatment option for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm (iAAA) and gained importance due to a lower perioperative mortality than open repair (OAR). However, whether this survival advantage can be maintained or if OAR is beneficial in terms of long-term complications and reinterventions remains questionable. DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study data from patients undergoing elective EVAR or OAR for iAAAs in the years 2010-2016 was analyzed. The patients were followed through 2018. METHODS: In the propensity score matched cohorts the perioperative and long-term outcomes of the patients were assessed. We identified 20 683 patients undergoing elective iAAA repair (76.4% EVAR). The propensity matched cohorts included 4886 pairs of patients. RESULTS: The perioperative mortality was 1.9% for EVAR and 5.9% for OAR (P = <.001). The perioperative mortality was mainly influenced by patients age (Odds-Ratio (OR):1.073, confidence interval (CI):1.058-1.088, P ≤ .001) and OAR (OR:3.242, CI:2.552-4.119, P ≤ .001). The early survival benefit after endovascular repair persisted for approximately 3 years (estimated survival EVAR 82.3%, OAR 80.9%, P = .021). After that time the estimated survival curves were similar. After 9 years the estimated survival was 51.2% after EVAR as compared to 52.8% after OAR (P = .102). The operation method didn't influence long-term survival significantly (Hazard-Ratio (HR): 1.046, CI: .975-1.122, P = .211). The vascular reintervention rate was 17.4% in the EVAR cohort and 7.1% in the OAR cohort (P ≤ .001). CONCLUSION: EVAR has a significantly lower perioperative mortality than OAR, a survival benefit that lasts up to 3 years after intervention. Thereafter, no significant difference in survival was observed between EVAR and OAR. The decision between EVAR or OAR may depend on patient preference, surgeons' experience, and the institutions' ability to handle complications.

[Long-term Results after Endovascular and Open Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm - a Propensity Score Matched Analysis]. / Langzeitergebnisse nach endovaskulärer und offener Versorgung des rupturierten Bauchaortenaneurysmas ­ eine Propensity-Score-Analyse.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective propensity score matched study presents the perioperative mortality and long-term survival up to 9 years after endovascular (EVAR) and open (OAR) repair of patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) in Germany using health insurance data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 2170 patients treated between January 1st, 2010 and December 31st, 2016, for rAAA within 24 hours of hospital admission and receiving blood transfusions were enrolled in the study and tracked until December 31st, 2018. For better comparability of EVAR and OAR, a 1:1 propensity score matching with 624 pairs according to patient age, sex and comorbidities was carried out using the R program (Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). RESULTS: In the unadjusted groups, 29.1% (631/2170) of the patients were treated with EVAR and 70.9% (1539/2170) with OAR. EVAR patients had a significantly higher overall rate of comorbidities. After adjustment, EVAR patients showed significantly better perioperative survival (EVAR 35.7%, OAR 51.0%, p = 0.000). Perioperative complications occurred in 80.4% of EVAR patients and 80.3% of OAR patients (p = 1.000). At the end of follow-up, Kaplan-Meier estimated that 15.2% of patients survived after EVAR vs. 19.5% after OAR (p = 0.027). In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, OAR, age ≥ 80 years, diabetes mellitus type 2 and renal failure stages 3 to 5 had a negative impact on overall survival. Patients treated on weekdays had a significantly lower perioperative mortality than patients treated during the weekend (perioperative mortality on weekdays 40.6% vs. 53.4% during the weekend; p = 0.000) and a better overall survival as estimated by Kaplan-Meier. CONCLUSION: Significantly better perioperative and overall survival was observed with EVAR than with OAR in patients with rAAA. The perioperative survival benefit of EVAR was also found in patients older than 80 years. Female gender had no significant influence on perioperative mortality and overall survival. Patients treated on weekends had a significantly poorer perioperative survival than patients treated on weekdays, and this lasted through the end of follow-up. The extent to which this was dependent on hospital structure was unclear.

Long-Term Outcome of Lower Extremity Bypass Surgery in Diabetic and Non-Diabetic Patients with Critical Limb-Threatening Ischaemia in Germany.

AIM: To present the short- and long-term outcomes of lower extremity bypass (LEB) surgery in patients with critical limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI), comparing diabetic (DM) and non-diabetic (non-DM) patients. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of anonymised data from a nationwide health insurance company (AOK). Data from 22,633 patients (DM: n = 7266; non-DM: n = 15,367; men: n = 14,523; women: n = 8110; mean patient age: 72.5 years), who underwent LEB from 2010 to 2015, were analysed. The cut-off date for follow-up was December 31, 2018 (mean follow-up period: 55 months). RESULTS: Perioperative mortality was 10.0% for DM and 8.2% for non-DM (p < 0.001). Patients with crural/pedal bypasses (n = 8558) had a significantly higher perioperative mortality (10.3%) than those with above-the-knee (n = 7246; 5.8%; p < 0.001) and below-the-knee bypasses (n = 6829; 8.9%; p = 0.003). The 9-year survival rates in DM patients were significantly worse, at 21.5%, compared to non-DM, at 31.1% (p < 0.001). This applied to both PAD stage III (DM: 34.4%; non-DM: 45.7%; p < 0.001) and PAD stage IV (DM: 18.5%; non-DM: 25.0%; p < 0.001). Patients with crural/pedal bypasses had a significantly inferior survival rate (25.5%) compared to those with below-the-knee (27.7%; p < 0.001) and above-the-knee bypasses (31.7%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Perioperative and long-term outcomes regarding survival and major amputation rate for CLTI patients undergoing LEB are consistently worse for DM patients compared to non-DM patients.

[Perioperative lethality after endovascular and open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: An analysis of administrative data of the AOK health insurance fund]. / Zur perioperativen Letalität des rupturierten Bauchaortenaneurysmas nach endovaskulärer und offener Versorgung: eine Analyse von Routinedaten der AOK Gesundheit.

OBJECTIVE: In this paper we will report the perioperative outcome after endovascular (EVAR) and open (OAR) repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA) in Germany based on data of the AOK health insurance fund. METHODS: Anonymised data of all patients with rAAA (n = 3,227) who were treated from 01/01/2010 to 12/31/2016 were analysed, using SPSS 27 (IBM Deutschland GmbH, Ehningen, Germany). RESULTS: 41.9% (1,353/3,227) of the patients were treated with EVAR and 58.1% (1,874/3,227) with OAR. Patients ≥80 years made up 38.4% for EVAR and 32.9% for OAR (p = 0.002). The proportion of patients undergoing surgery within 24 hours after admission was significantly higher for OAR (87.8%) than for EVAR (73.0%) (p = 0.000). The perioperative lethality rate for OAR was 42.4%, and thus almost twice as high as for EVAR with 21.3% (p = 0.000). Women had higher perioperative lethality rates for both EVAR (perioperative lethality 24.6%) and OAR (perioperative lethality 51.7%) compared to men with 20.6% (EVAR) and 40.2% (OAR), respectively. With EVAR, 35.8% of the patients showed a complication-free postoperative course, with OAR it was 17.7% (p = 0.000). Blood transfusions (whole blood, red cell concentrates, and autotransfusions) were administered in 57.6% of the patients with EVAR, but in 92.3% with OAR (p = 0.000). The highest perioperative lethality was found in EVAR and OAR patients who received both surgery within 24 hours after admission and blood transfusions (perioperative lethality EVAR 36.0%, OAR 46.0%; p = 0.000). In contrast, patients who did not require blood transfusions and were treated later than 24 hours after admission had the lowest perioperative lethality with 3.2% for EVAR vs. 5.4% for OAR (p = 0.623). CONCLUSION: The data confirm the observation that the perioperative mortality of rAAA patients is lower with EVAR than with OAR. However, strict attention must be paid to the time of the intervention. The low perioperative lethality of patients who were treated later than 24 hours after hospital admission and who did not require blood transfusions indicates that cases of symptomatic AAA without rupture have also been recorded in this administrative database under the diagnosis rAAA. One point of criticism is that the decision not to adjust for the patient groups with EVAR and with OAR in order to be able to better analyse the properties of routine data includes a considerable risk of bias in the statements of this work due to confounding variables.