Search

Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify significant predictors of long-term mortality after elective endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Methods: We included all cases with elective EVAR based on a national data set from the Society for Vascular Surgery Patient Safety Organization. Clinical and anatomic variables were analyzed with a Kaplan-Meier and Cox-regression model to determine predictors of mortality and develop a score equation to categorize patients into low, medium, and high long-term mortality risk. Results: A total of 5678 patients with EVAR were included with an average age of 73.6 ± 8.2 years. The majority were male (81.6%) with a history of smoking (86.1%). There were 3 deaths within 30 days (0.1%). Several factors were associated with poor survival: unstable angina (hazard ratio [HR], 2.8; P = .008), dialysis (HR, 3.7; P < .001), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 (HR, 1.7; P = .044), eGFR 30 to 59 (HR, 1.4; P = .002), age >80 (HR, 3.2; P < .001), age 75 to 79 (HR, 2.2; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on oxygen (HR, 3.3; P < .001), aortic diameter >5.8 cm (HR, 1.2; P = .043), and high risk for surgery (HR, 1.4; P = .043). Preoperative aspirin use and body mass index 25 to 35 were both found to be protective (HR, 0.78; P = .017 and HR, 0.8; P = .024, respectively). With our scoring model, 5- and 10-year survival rates for patients with low, medium, and high risk were 89.2%, 80.7%, and 64.1% and 77.2%, 60.1%, and 40.1%, respectively (P < .001). Conclusion: Ten-year survival following EVAR in patients with a high-risk score utilizing the model provided was 40.1%. Patients with multiple comorbidities at risk for decreased long-term survival can be identified with our model, which is more applicable for high-volume contemporary institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A significant number of patients undergo endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR) outside the instructions for use (IFU). This study will examine various aortic neck features and their predictors of clinical outcomes.Study Design: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on EVAR patients. Neck features outside IFU were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate analyses were used to predict their effect as single features, or in combination, on outcomes.Results: Fifty-two percent of 526 patients had 1 or more features outside the IFU. The overall technical success rate was 99%, and perioperative complication rates were 7% and 12% for IFU vs outside IFU use, respectively (p = 0.04). Type I early endoleak and early intervention rates were 7% and 10% for IFU vs 18% and 24% for outside IFU (p = 0.0002 and p < 0.0001). At a mean follow-up of 30 months, freedom from late type I endoleak and late reintervention at 1, 2, and 3 years for IFU were 99.5%, 99.5%, and 98.4%, and 99.4%, 98%, and 96.8%; vs 98.9%, 98.1%, and 98.1%, and 97.5%, 96.2%, and 95.2% for outside IFU (p = 0.049 and 0.799), respectively. Survival rates at 1, 2, and 3 years for IFU were 97%, 93.5%, and 89.8%; vs 93.7%, 88.8%, and 86.3% for outside IFU (p = 0.035). Multivariate analysis showed that a neck angle > 60 degrees had odds ratios for death, sac expansion, and early intervention of 6, 2.6, and 3.3, respectively; neck length < 10 mm had odds ratios of 2.8 for deaths, 3.4 for early intervention, 4.6 for late reintervention, and 4.3 for late type I endoleak.Conclusions: Patients with neck features outside IFU can be treated with EVAR; however, they have higher rates of early and late type I endoleak, early intervention, and late death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background This study compares short-term (30 days) and intermediate term (3 years) clinical outcomes in patients with large (≥31 mm) versus small aortic neck diameters (≤28 and ≤31 mm). Methods Prospectively collected data from 741 patients who underwent endovascular aortic aneurysm repair were analyzed. Some surgeons have reported the threshold for a large aortic neck for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair to be 28 mm, whereas for others it is 31 mm. Therefore, we classified aortic neck diameter into less than or equal to 28 versus greater than 28 mm; and less than or equal to 31 versus greater than 31 mm. Logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to compare outcomes. Results There were 688 patients who had a defined aortic neck diameter: 592 with less than or equal to 28 mm, 96 with greater than 28 mm, 655 with less than or equal to 31 mm, and 33 with greater than 31 mm. The mean follow-up was 25.2 months for less than or equal to 31 mm versus 31.8 months for greater than 31 mm. Clinical characteristics were similar in all groups, except that there were more patients outside the instructions for use in the greater than 31 mm versus less than or equal to 31 mm group (94% vs 44%; P <.0001). There was a significant increase in early type I endoleak for patients with an aortic neck diameter of greater than 31 versus less than or equal to 31 mm (9 [27%] vs 74 [11%]; P =.01); late type I endoleaks (4 [14%] vs 18 [3%]; P =.01); sac expansion (5 [17%] vs 28 [5%]; P =.01); late intervention (5 [17%] vs 23 [4%]; P =.01); and death (9 [31%] vs 48 [8%]; P <.0001). There were no differences in outcomes between the patients with greater than 28 mm aortic neck diameters and the less than or equal to 28 mm diameters. Freedom from late type I endoleak at 1, 2, and 3 years were 96%, 88%, and 88% for patients with a neck diameter of greater than 31 mm versus 97%, 97%, and 97% for a diameter less than or equal to 31 mm (P =.19). The rate of freedom from sac expansion for patients with a diameter greater than 31 mm was 88%, 81%, and 81% at 1, 2, and 3 years versus 99%, 97%, and 92% for a diameter less than or equal to 31 mm (P =.02). Freedom from late intervention for 1, 2, and 3 years for patients with a diameter greater than 31 mm were 91%, 91%, and 91% versus 99%, 97%, and 96% for those with a diameter less than or equal to 31 mm. Survival rates at 1, 2, and 3 years for a diameter greater than 31 mm were 83%, 74%, and 68% versus 96%, 92%, and 90% for a diameter less than or equal to 31 mm (P <.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that patients with a diameter greater than 31 mm had an odds ratio of 6.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2-16.8) for mortality, 4.7 (95% CI, 1.4-15.5) for sac expansion, and 4.9 (95% CI, 1.4-17.4) for late type I endoleak. Conclusions Patients with large aortic neck diameters (>31 mm) had higher rates of early and late type I endoleak, sac expansion, late intervention, and mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Post-endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) endoleaks and the need for reintervention are challenging. Additional endovascular treatment is advised for type Ia endoleaks detected on post-EVAR completion angiogram. This study analyzed management and late outcomes of these endoleaks.Study Design: This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from EVAR patients during a 10-year period. All post-EVAR type Ia endoleaks on completion angiogram were identified (group A) and their early (30-day) and late outcomes were compared with outcomes of patients without endoleaks (group B). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used for survival analysis, sac expansion, late type Ia endoleak, and reintervention.Results: Seventy-one of 565 (12.6%) patients had immediate post-EVAR type Ia endoleak. Early intervention (proximal aortic cuffs and/or stenting) was used in 56 of 71 (79%) in group A vs 31 of 494 (6%) in group B (p < 0.0001). Late type Ia endoleak was noted in 9 patients (13%) in group A at a mean follow-up of 28 months vs 10 patients (2%) in group B at a mean follow-up of 32 months (p < 0.0001). Late sac expansion and reintervention rates were 9% and 10% for group A vs 5% and 3% for group B (p = 0.2698 and p = 0.0198), respectively. Freedom rates from late type Ia endoleaks at 1, 3, and 5 years for group A were 88%, 85%, and 80% vs 98%, 98%, and 96% for group B (p < 0.001); and for late intervention, were 94%, 92%, and 77% for group A, and 99%, 97%, and 95% for group B (p = 0.007), respectively. Survival rates were similar.Conclusions: Immediate post-EVAR type Ia endoleaks are associated with higher rates of early interventions, late endoleaks and reintervention, which will necessitate strict post-EVAR surveillance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]