Dataset Information

Long term outcomes in men screened for abdominal aortic aneurysm: prospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine whether there is a relation between aortic diameter and morbidity and mortality in men screened for abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Design

Prospective cohort study.

Setting

Highland and Western Isles (a large, sparsely populated area of Scotland).

Participants

8146 men aged 65-74.

Main outcome measures

Morbidity and mortality in relation to presence of abdominal aortic aneurysm and three categories of aortic diameter (≤ 24 mm, 25-29 mm, and ≥ 30 mm).

Results

When screened, 414 men (5.1%) had an aneurysm (diameter ≥ 30 mm), 669 (8.2%) an aortic diameter of 25-29 mm, and 7063 (86.7%) an aortic diameter of ≤ 24 mm. The cohort was followed up for a median of 7.4 (interquartile range 6.9-8.2) years. Mortality was significantly associated with aortic diameter: 512 (7.2%) men in the ≤ 24 mm group died compared with 69 (10.3%) in the 25-29 mm group and 73 (17.6%) in the ≥ 30 mm group. The mortality risk in men with an aneurysm or with an aorta measuring 25-29 mm was significantly higher than in men with an aorta of ≤ 24 mm. The increased mortality risk in the 25-29 mm group was reduced when taking confounders such as smoking and known heart disease into account. After adjustment, compared with men with an aortic diameter of ≤ 24 mm, the risk of hospital admission for cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was significantly higher in men with aneurysm and those with aortas measuring 25-29 mm. Men with an aneurysm also had an increased risk of hospital admission for cerebrovascular disease, atherosclerosis, peripheral arterial disease, and respiratory disease. In men with aortas measuring 25-29 mm, the risk of hospital admission with abdominal aortic aneurysm was significantly higher than in men with an aorta of ≤ 24 mm (adjusted hazard ratio 6.7, 99% confidence interval 3.4 to 13.2) and this increased risk became apparent two years after screening.

Conclusions

Men with abdominal aortic aneurysm and those with aortic diameters measuring 25-29 mm have an increased risk of mortality and subsequent hospital admissions compared with men with an aorta diameter of ≤ 24 mm. Consideration should be given to control of risk factors and to rescreening men with aortas measuring 25-29 mm at index scanning.

SUBMITTER: Duncan JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3344734 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRandomized trials and observational studies have shown that perioperative morbidity and mortality are lower with endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm than with open repair, but the survival benefit is not sustained. In addition, concerns have been raised about the long-term risk of aneurysm rupture or the need for reintervention after endovascular repair.MethodsWe assessed perioperative and long-term survival, reinterventions, and complications after endovascular repair as compared with open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in propensity-score-matched cohorts of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent repair during the period from 2001 through 2008 and were followed through 2009.ResultsWe identified 39,966 matched pairs of patients who had undergone either open repair or endovascular repair. The overall perioperative mortality was 1.6% with endovascular repair versus 5.2% with open repair (P<0.001). From 2001 through 2008, perioperative mortality decreased by 0.8 percentage points among patients who underwent endovascular repair (P=0.001) and by 0.6 percentage points among patients who underwent open repair (P=0.01). The rate of conversion from endovascular to open repair decreased from 2.2% in 2001 to 0.3% in 2008 (P<0.001). The rate of survival was significantly higher after endovascular repair than after open repair through the first 3 years of follow-up, after which time the rates of survival were similar. Through 8 years of follow-up, interventions related to the management of the aneurysm or its complications were more common after endovascular repair, whereas interventions for complications related to laparotomy were more common after open repair. Aneurysm rupture occurred in 5.4% of patients after endovascular repair versus 1.4% of patients after open repair through 8 years of follow-up (P<0.001). The rate of total reinterventions at 2 years after endovascular repair decreased over time (from 10.4% among patients who underwent procedures in 2001 to 9.1% among patients who underwent procedures in 2007).ConclusionsEndovascular repair, as compared with open repair, of abdominal aortic aneurysm was associated with a substantial early survival advantage that gradually decreased over time. The rate of late rupture was significantly higher after endovascular repair than after open repair. The outcomes of endovascular repair have been improving over time. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health.).

Project description:ImportanceEndovascular aneurysm repair is associated with a significant reduction in perioperative mortality and morbidity compared with open aneurysm repair in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm. However, this benefit decreases over time owing to increased reinterventions and late aneurysm rupture after endovascular repair.ObjectiveTo compare long-term outcomes of endovascular vs open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter retrospective cohort study used deidentified data with 6-year follow-up from the Medicare-matched Vascular Quality Initiative Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network database. Patients undergoing first-time elective endovascular or open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from 2003 to 2018 were propensity score matched. Patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, concomitant procedures, or prior history of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, were excluded. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2018.ExposuresFirst-time elective endovascular or open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary long-term outcome of interest was 6-year all-cause mortality, rupture, and reintervention. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and perioperative complications.ResultsAmong a total of 32 760 patients (median [IQR] age, 75 [70-80] years; 25 706 [78.5%] men) who underwent surgical abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, 28 281 patients underwent endovascular repair and 4479 patients underwent open repair. After propensity score matching, there were 2852 patients in each group. Open repair was associated with significantly lower 6-year mortality compared with endovascular repair (548 deaths [35.6%] vs 608 deaths [41.2%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.94; P = .002), with increases in mortality starting from 1 to 2 years (84 deaths [4.3%] vs 126 deaths [6.7%]; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83; P = .001) and 2 to 6 years (211 deaths [25.8%] vs 241 deaths [30.6%]; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.88; P = .001). Open repair, compared with endovascular repair, also was associated with significantly lower rates of 6-year rupture (117 participants [5.8%] vs 149 participants [8.3%]; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.97; P < .001) and reintervention (190 participants [11.6%] vs 267 participants [16.0%]; HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80; P < .001). Open repair was associated with significantly higher odds of 30-day mortality (OR, 3.56; 95% CI, 2.41-5.26; P < .001) and complications.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that overall mortality after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair was higher with endovascular repair than open repair despite reduced 30-day mortality and perioperative morbidity after endovascular repair. Endovascular repair additionally was associated with significantly higher rates of long-term rupture and reintervention. These findings emphasize the importance of careful patient selection and long-term follow-up surveillance for patients who undergo endovascular repair.

Project description:Despite advances in operative repair, ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) remains associated with high mortality and morbidity rates, especially in elderly patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR), conventional open repair (OPEN), and conservative treatment in elderly patients with rAAA.We conducted a retrospective study of all rAAA patients treated with OPEN or eEVAR between January 2005 and December 2011 in the vascular surgery department at Amphia Hospital, the Netherlands. The outcome in patients treated for rAAA by eEVAR or OPEN repair was investigated. Special attention was paid to patients who were admitted and did not receive operative intervention due to serious comorbidity, extremely advanced age, or poor physical condition. We calculated the 30-day rAAA-related mortality for all rAAA patients admitted to our hospital.Twelve patients did not receive operative emergency repair due to extreme fragility (mean age 87 years, median time to mortality 27 hours). Twenty-three patients had eEVAR and 82 had OPEN surgery. The 30-day mortality rate in operated patients was 30% (7/23) in the eEVAR group versus 26% (21/82) in the OPEN group (P=0.64). No difference in mortality was noted between eEVAR and OPEN over 5 years of follow-up. There were more cardiac adverse events in the OPEN group (n=25, 31%) than in the eEVAR group (n=2, 9%; P=0.035). Reintervention after discharge was more frequent in patients who received eEVAR (35%) than in patients who had OPEN (6%, P<0.001). Advancing age was associated with increasing mortality (hazard ratio 1.05 [95% confidence interval 1.01-1.09]) per year for patients who received operative repair, with a 67%, 76%, and 100% 5-year mortality rate in the 34 patients aged <70 years, 59 patients aged 70-79 years, and 12 octogenarians, respectively; 30-day rAAA-related mortality was also associated with increasing age (21%, 30%, and 61%, respectively; P=0.008).The 30-day and 5-year mortality in patients who survived rAAA was equal between the treatment options of eEVAR and OPEN. Particularly fragile and very elderly patients did not receive operative repair. The decision to intervene in rAAA should not be made on the basis of patient age alone, but also in relation to comorbidity and patient preference.

Project description:ImportancePreclinical studies suggest a potential role for aspirin in slowing abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) progression and preventing rupture. Evidence on the clinical benefit of aspirin in AAA from human studies is lacking.ObjectiveTo investigate the association of aspirin use with aneurysm progression and long-term clinical outcomes in patients with AAA.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a retrospective, single-center cohort study. Adult patients with at least 2 available vascular ultrasounds at the Cleveland Clinic were included, and patients with history of aneurysm repair, dissection, or rupture were excluded. All patients were followed up for 10 years. Data were analyzed from May 2022 to July 2023.Main outcomes and measuresClinical outcomes were time-to-first occurrence of all-cause mortality, major bleeding, or composite of dissection, rupture, and repair. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional-hazard regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) for all-cause mortality, and subhazard ratios competing-risk regression using Fine and Gray proportional subhazards regression was used for major bleeding and composite outcome. Aneurysm progression was assessed by comparing the mean annualized change of aneurysm diameter using multivariable-adjusted linear regression and comparing the odds of having rapid progression (annual diameter change >0.5 cm per year) using logistic regression.ResultsA total of 3435 patients (mean [SD] age 73.7 [9.0] years; 2672 male patients [77.5%]; 120 Asian, Hispanic, American Indian, or Pacific Islander patients [3.4%]; 255 Black patients [7.4%]; 3060 White patients [89.0%]; and median [IQR] follow-up, 4.9 [2.5-7.5] years) were included in the final analyses, of which 2150 (63%) were verified to be taking aspirin by prescription. Patients taking aspirin had a slower mean (SD) annualized change in aneurysm diameter (2.8 [3.0] vs 3.8 [4.2] mm per year; P = .001) and lower odds of having rapid aneurysm progression compared with patients not taking aspirin (adjusted odds ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.89; P = .002). Aspirin use was not associated with risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR [aHR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79-1.07; P = .32), nor was aspirin use associated with major bleeding (aHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.76-1.03; P = .12), or composite outcome (aHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.93-1.45; P = .09) at 10 years.ConclusionsIn this retrospective study of a clinical cohort of 3435 patients with objectively measured changes in aortic aneurysm growth, aspirin use was significantly associated with slower progression of AAA with a favorable safety profile.

Project description:Background Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) are far more common in male than female gender, although they appear to have a more aggressive pathophysiology in females. Given the lower incidence of AAA in females, it has been difficult to assess the impact of graft selection for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in this cohort. Purpose To identify whether graft selection influences outcomes following AAA endoluminal repair in female patients. Methodology A retrospective analysis of published data for 711 female patients was conducted, collating data from three cohorts - Endurant Stent Graft Natural Selection Global post-market registry (ENGAGE), Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT) and U.S. Zenith multicenter trial in combination with the Zenith female registry. Patients were recruited into the ENGAGE registry between 2009 and 2011, the GREAT registry between August 2010 and October 2016, and into the Zenith registry between 2000 and 2003. Patients from ENGAGE received the Medtronic Endurant stent graft for infrarenal AAA repair, patients analysed in GREAT received the Gore Excluder stent graft and the Zenith group received the Cook Zenith stent graft. Analyses were performed to evaluate all-cause mortality, aorta-related mortality, endoleak occurrence and surgical reintervention rates between the three cohorts. Results Of the 711 females, 133 were from ENGAGE (mean age 76 years), 538 were from GREAT (mean age 75 years) and 40 were from Zenith (mean age 74 years). The rates of co-morbidities between the three groups were broadly similar except for atherosclerotic disease which was more commonly observed in those treated with the GORE Excluder. The rate of endoleaks was lower when the Excluder stent was utilised as compared to the other two stents (Excluder 6.7% vs. Zenith 12.5% vs. Endurant 35.3%) even considering the limited follow-up of the Zenith group to two years as compared to five years for both ENGAGE and GREAT. All-cause mortality was similar in all three groups across the period examined while aorta-related mortality was uncommon. Reintervention rate was 15% at two years following the utilisation of the Zenith aortic graft while the rate of intervention at five years was broadly similar between ENGAGE and GREAT. Conclusion The newer generation, lower profile aortic endografts appear to have provided a safe and successful tool in the management of AAA in female patients, despite more complex aortic anatomy with shorter infrarenal neck length and larger aortic neck angulation.