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: Comparison of midterm results of endovascular aneurysm repair for ruptured and elective abdominal aortic aneurysms.
    Author: Oliveira-Pinto J, Soares-Ferreira R, Oliveira NFG, Bastos Gonçalves FM, Hoeks S, Van Rijn MJ, Raa ST, Mansilha A, Verhagen HJM.
    Journal: J Vasc Surg; 2020 May; 71(5):1554-1563.e1. PubMed ID: 31677942.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) became an increasingly preferred modality for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair both in elective AAA repair (el-EVAR) and EVAR of a ruptured AAA (r-EVAR) setting. Ruptured AAAs usually have more hostile anatomies and less time for planning. Consequently, more complications may arise after r-EVAR. The purpose of this study was to compare mi-term outcomes between r-EVAR and el-EVAR. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing EVAR from 2000 to 2015 at a tertiary institution was performed. Patients with previous aortic surgery, nonatherosclerotic AAA and isolated iliac aneurysms were excluded. In-hospital casualties or patients who were intraoperatively converted to open repair were also excluded. For the midterm outcome analysis, only patients with at least two postoperative examinations (a 30-day computed tomography scan and a second postoperative examination performed 6 months or later) were considered. The primary end point was freedom from aneurysm-related complications (a composite of type I or III endoleak, aneurysm sac growth, migration of more than 5 mm, device integrity failure, AAA-related death, late postimplant rupture, or AAA-related secondary intervention). Freedom from secondary interventions, neck-related events (defined as a composite of type IA endoleak, migration of more than 5 mm, or preemptive neck-related secondary intervention) and late survival were secondary end points. The impact of device instructions for use (IFU) compliance on neck events was also assessed. RESULTS: The study included 565 patients (65 r-EVAR and 500 el-EVAR). Eighty-two patients were treated outside proximal neck IFU, 13 in the r-EVAR group (21.3%) and 69 (14.5%) in the el-EVAR (P = .16). During the index hospitalization, there were more complications (12.3% vs 3.2%; P = .001) and reinterventions (12.3% vs 2.8%; P < .001) in the r-EVAR group. After discharge, median clinical follow-up time was 4.3 years (interquartile range, 2.1-7.0 years) without differences between both groups. Five-year freedom from AAA-related complications was 53.9% in the r-EVAR group and 65.4% in the el-EVAR (P = .21). In multivariable analysis the r-EVAR group was not at increased risk for late complications (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-1.61; P = .81). Five-year freedom from neck-related events was 74% in r-EVAR and 82% in the el-EVAR group (P = .345). Patients treated outside neck IFU were at greater risk for neck-related events both in r-EVAR (HR, 6.5; 95% CI, 1.8-22.9; P = .004) and el-EVAR group (HR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5; P < .001). Freedom from secondary interventions at 5 years was 63.0% for r-EVAR and 76.9% for el-EVAR (P = .16). Survival at 5 years was 68.8% in the r-EVAR group and 73.3% in the el-EVAR group (P = .30). CONCLUSIONS: Durable and sustainable midterm outcomes were found for both r-EVAR and el-EVAR patients who survived the postoperative period. Patients treated outside the IFU are at greater risk for late complications. Surveillance protocols may be tailored according to individual anatomy and IFU compliance rather than timing of repair.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]