Outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs: Endovascular vs open surgical repairs.
Abdominal aortic aneurysm
Endovascular aneurysm repair
Mortality
Re-intervention
Journal
Asian journal of surgery
ISSN: 0219-3108
Titre abrégé: Asian J Surg
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8900600
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
07
05
2021
revised:
29
05
2021
accepted:
08
06
2021
pubmed:
2
7
2021
medline:
6
1
2022
entrez:
1
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Operative 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. All 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. We 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. OSR 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Operative 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.
METHODS
METHODS
All 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.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We 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.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
OSR 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34193387
pii: S1015-9584(21)00355-9
doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2021.06.015
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
346-352Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of competing interest All authors disclosed no conflict of interests.