Dataset Information

Defining risk and identifying predictors of mortality for open conversion after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

ABSTRACT: Risk of open conversion after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR-c) is poorly defined. The purpose of this analysis was to determine outcomes of elective EVAR-c compared with elective primary open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (PAR) in the Vascular Quality Initiative.Vascular Quality Initiative patients who underwent elective EVAR-c and PAR (2002-2014) were reviewed. Candidate predictors of major adverse cardiac event (MACE) and/or 30-day mortality were entered into a multivariable model, and stepwise elimination was used to reduce the number of covariates to a best subset of predictors. To estimate the additive risk of EVAR-c for MACE or 30-day mortality over PAR, this variable was added along with the best subset of predictors into generalized estimating equations logistic regression models.We identified 159 EVAR-c and 3741 PAR patients. EVAR-c patients were older (73.5 ± 8.1 vs 69.5 ± 8.4 years; P < .0001), more likely to have diabetes (21% vs 15%; P = .03), and history of lower extremity bypass (9% vs 4%; P = .0006). EVAR-c was associated with a higher incidence of retroperitoneal aortic exposure (41%; n = 64 vs PAR, 26%, n = 976; P < .0001), use of a bifurcated graft (65%; n = 101 vs PAR, 52%; n = 1923; P = .001), greater blood loss (median [interquartile range], 2000 mL [1010-3500] vs PAR, 1200 mL [750-2000]; P < .0001) and longer procedure times (EVAR-c, 275 ± 122 minutes vs PAR, 232 ± 9 minutes; P < .0001). However, PAR more frequently was completed with a suprarenal and/or mesenteric cross-clamp (74%, n = 2749 vs EVAR-c, 53%, n = 83; P < .0001) and had a higher incidence of concomitant procedures (26%; n = 972 vs EVAR-c, 18%; n = 28; P = .03). Nonadjusted 30-day mortality was greater after EVAR-c: EVAR-c, 8% (n = 10) vs PAR, 3% (n = 105); P = .009. There was no difference in complication rates: EVAR-c, 33% (n = 52) vs PAR, 28% (n = 1056); P =.3. Preoperative 30-day mortality predictors included age (odds ratio [OR], 1.06/y, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.1; P < .0001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.6-3.5; P < .0001), history of leg bypass (OR, 2.3, 1.2-4.4;P =.01), suprarenal cross-clamp (OR 2.2, 1.2-4.1;P =.01), prior carotid revascularization (OR 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.8; P = .0004), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.9-3.5; P = .08), and female sex (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.3; P = .02; area under the curve, 0.75). When controlling for covariates, EVAR-c was not significantly associated with MACE (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.7-2.0; P = .4) or 30-day mortality (OR, 2.0; 0.9-4.2; P = .08).EVAR-c patients are typically older, have more comorbidities, and experience greater blood loss and longer procedure times compared with PAR patients. However, postoperative morbidity and mortality are primarily driven by patient covariates and intraoperative factors, rather than the need for endograft explantation. Several preoperative variables were identified as predictors of 30-day mortality after elective EVAR-c and should be considered during the decision-making process for remedial treatment of failed endovascular PAR.

SUBMITTER: Scali ST

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4808623 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Defining risk and identifying predictors of mortality for open conversion after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

Scali Salvatore T ST Beck Adam W AW Chang Catherine K CK Neal Dan D Feezor Robert J RJ Stone David H DH Berceli Scott A SA Huber Thomas S TS

Journal of vascular surgery 20151121 4

<h4>Objective</h4>Risk of open conversion after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR-c) is poorly defined. The purpose of this analysis was to determine outcomes of elective EVAR-c compared with elective primary open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (PAR) in the Vascular Quality Initiative.<h4>Methods</h4>Vascular Quality Initiative patients who underwent elective EVAR-c and PAR (2002-2014) were reviewed. Candidate predictors of major adverse cardiac event (MACE) and/or 30-day mortality wer ...[more]

PMID: 26613868

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence for benefit of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) over open surgical repair for de novo infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in younger patients remains conflicting because of heterogeneous study populations and small sample sizes. The objective of this study was to compare perioperative and short-term outcomes for EVAR and open surgery in younger patients using a large national disease and procedure-specific data set. METHODS:We identified patients 65 years of age or younger undergoing first-time elective EVAR or open AAA repair from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2003-2014). We excluded patients with pararenal or thoracoabdominal aneurysms, those medically unfit for open repair, and those undergoing EVAR for isolated iliac aneurysms. Clinical and procedural characteristics were balanced using inverse propensity of treatment weighting. A supplemental analysis extended the study to those younger than 70 years. RESULTS:We identified 2641 patients, 73% (n = 1928) EVAR and 27% (n = 713) open repair. The median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 59-64 years), and 13% were female. The median follow-up time was 401 days (interquartile range, 357-459 days). Unadjusted perioperative survival was 99.6% overall (open repair, 99.1%; EVAR, 99.8%; P < .001), with 97.4% 1-year survival overall (open repair, 97.3%; EVAR, 97.4%; P = .9). Unadjusted reintervention rates were five (open repair) and seven (EVAR) reinterventions per 100 person-years (P = .8). After propensity weighting, the absolute incidence of perioperative mortality was <1% in both groups (open repair, 0.9%, EVAR, 0.2%; P < .001), and complication rates were low. Propensity-weighted survival (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.38; P = .6) and reintervention rates (open repair, 6; EVAR, 8; reinterventions per 100 person-years; P = .8) did not differ between the two interventions. The analysis of those younger than 70 years showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS:In this study of younger patients undergoing repair of infrarenal AAA, 30-day morbidity and mortality for both open surgery and EVAR are low, and the absolute mortality difference is small. The prior published perioperative mortality and 1-year survival benefit of EVAR over open AAA repair is not observed in younger patients. Further studies of long-term durability are needed to guide decision-making for open repair vs EVAR in this population.

Project description:Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is commonly used as a minimally invasive technique for repairing infrarenal aortic aneurysms. There have been recent concerns that a subset of high-risk patients experience unfavorable outcomes with this intervention. To determine whether such a high-risk cohort exists and to identify the characteristics of these patients, we analyzed the outcomes of Medicare patients treated with EVAR from 2000-2006.We identified 66,943 patients who underwent EVAR from Inpatient Medicare database. The overall 30-day mortality was 1.6%. A risk model for perioperative mortality was developed by randomly selecting 44,630 patients; the other one third of the dataset was used to validate the model. The model was deemed reliable (Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics were P = .25 for the development, P = .24 for the validation model) and accurate (c = 0.735 and c = 0.731 for the development and the validation model, respectively).In our scoring system, where scores ranged between 1 and 7, the following were identified as significant baseline factors that predict mortality: renal failure with dialysis (score = 7); renal failure without dialysis (score = 3); clinically significant lower extremity ischemia (score = 5); patient age >or=85 years (score = 3), 75-84 years (score = 2), 70-74 years (score = 1); heart failure (score = 3); chronic liver disease (score = 3); female gender (score = 2); neurological disorders (score = 2); chronic pulmonary disease (score = 2); surgeon experience in EVAR <3 procedures (score = 1); and hospital annual volume in EVAR <7 procedures (score = 1). The majority of Medicare patients who were treated (96.6%, n = 64,651) had a score of 9 or less, which correlated with a mortality <5%. Only 3.4% of patients had a mortality >or=5% and 0.8% of patients (n = 509) had a score of 13 or higher, which correlated with a mortality >10%.We conclude that there is a high-risk cohort of patients that should not be treated with EVAR because of prohibitively high mortality; however, this cohort is small. Our scoring system, which is based on patient and institutional factors, provides criteria that can be easily used by clinicians to quantify perioperative risk for EVAR candidates.

Project description:BackgroundAbdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair has been performed by various surgical specialties for many years. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) may be a disruptive technology, having an impact on which specialties care for patients with AAA. Therefore, we examined the proportion of AAA repairs performed by various specialties over time in the United States and evaluated the impact of the introduction of EVAR.MethodsThe Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2001-2009) was queried for intact and ruptured AAA and for open repair and EVAR. Specific procedures were used to identify vascular surgeons (VSs), cardiac surgeons (CSs), and general surgeons (GSs) as well as interventional cardiologists and interventional radiologists for states that reported unique treating physician identifiers. Annual procedure volumes were subsequently calculated for each specialty.ResultsWe identified 108,587 EVARs and 85,080 open AAA repairs (3011 EVARs and 12,811 open repairs for ruptured AAA). VSs performed an increasing proportion of AAA repairs during the study period (52% in 2001 to 66% in 2009; P < .001). GSs and CSs performed fewer repairs during the same period (25% to 17% [P < .001] and 19% to 13% [P < .001], respectively). EVAR was increasingly used for intact (33% to 78% of annual cases; P < .001) as well as ruptured AAA repair (5% to 28%; P < .001). The proportion of intact open repairs performed by VSs increased from 52% to 65% (P < .001), whereas for EVAR, the proportion went from 60% to 67% (P < .001). The proportion performed by VSs increased for ruptured open repairs from 37% to 53% (P < .001) and for ruptured EVARs from 28% to 73% (P < .001). Compared with treatment by VSs, treatment by a CS (0.55 [0.53-0.56]) and GS (0.66 [0.64-0.68]) was associated with a decreased likelihood of undergoing endovascular rather than open AAA repair.ConclusionsVSs are performing an increasing majority of AAA repairs, in large part driven by the increased utilization of EVAR for both intact and ruptured AAA repair. However, GSs and CSs still perform AAA repair. Further studies should examine the implications of these national trends on the outcome of AAA repair.

Dataset Information

Defining risk and identifying predictors of mortality for open conversion after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

Publications

Defining risk and identifying predictors of mortality for open conversion after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets