These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Long-term single institution comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair and open aortic aneurysm repair.
    Author: Quinney BE, Parmar GM, Nagre SB, Patterson M, Passman MA, Taylor S, Chambers J, Jordan WD.
    Journal: J Vasc Surg; 2011 Dec; 54(6):1592-7; discussion 1597-8. PubMed ID: 22137301.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: Since the development of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), there remains concerns regarding its durability, need for secondary procedures, and associated long-term morbidity. We compared these two approaches to evaluate secondary interventions and their respective long-term durability. METHODS: All patients who had undergone endovascular and open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair were identified from a prospectively maintained registry. Health system charts, medical communication, and national death indexes were reviewed. Secondary interventions were classified as vascular (aortic graft or remote) and nonvascular (incisional or gastrointestinal). RESULTS: Between July 1985 and September 2009, 1908 patients underwent 1986 AAA repair procedures (EVAR = 1066; open = 920). Patients were followed up to 290 months (mean 27.6 ± 35.9) and identified with 427 surgical encounters (EVAR 233% to 21.9%; open 194% to 21.1%). Most encounters (338% to 74.6%) were related to vascular disease: 178 (EVAR = 131; open = 47) related to the aortic graft; 160 (EVAR = 93; open = 67) were related to nonaortic vascular disease. The remaining 89 surgical encounters included incisional hernias, small bowel obstruction, intra-abdominal abscesses, and wound dehiscence requiring operation. Of these 89 encounters (EVAR = 9; open = 80), 44 patients required surgical intervention and 36 required hospitalization without surgical procedure. Over the period of 100 months, the all-cause mortality rate was 25.2% after EVAR and 39.1% after open repair. One-year survival was 88.0% (SE 0.01) and 85.0% (SE 0.01), while 5-year survival was 58.0% (SE 0.02) and 53.0% (SE 0.02) for EVAR and open repair, respectively (log-rank P value < .0164). Seven-year survival was 46% (SE 0.03) for EVAR and 36% (SE 0.03) for open AAA repair. CONCLUSION: EVAR requires more late secondary vascular interventions than open AAA repair, but patients who undergo open repair have more nonvascular long-term morbidity. Long-term survival is better after EVAR compared to open repair in this selected patient group.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]