[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.