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.

[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.