Dataset Information

Endovascular Versus Open Repair of Intact Descending Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:For the management of descending thoracic aortic aneurysms, recent evidence has suggested that outcomes of open surgical repair may surpass thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in as early as 2 years. OBJECTIVES:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of TEVAR and open surgical repair in the treatment of intact descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. METHODS:Using the Medicare database, a retrospective study using regression discontinuity design and propensity score matching was performed on patients with intact descending thoracic aortic aneurysms who underwent TEVAR or open surgical repair between 1999 and 2010 with follow-up through 2014. Survival was assessed with restricted mean survival time. Perioperative mortality was assessed with logistic regression. Reintervention was evaluated as a secondary outcome. RESULTS:Matching created comparable groups with 1,235 open surgical repair patients matched to 2,470 TEVAR patients. The odds of perioperative mortality were greater for open surgical repair: high-volume center, odds ratio (OR): 1.97 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.53 to 2.61); low-volume center, OR: 3.62 (95% CI: 2.88 to 4.51). The restricted mean survival time difference favored TEVAR at 9 years, -209.2 days (95% CI: -298.7 to -119.7 days; p < 0.001) for open surgical repair. Risk of reintervention was lower for open surgical repair, hazard ratio: 0.40 (95% CI: 0.34 to 0.60; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Open surgical repair was associated with increased odds of early postoperative mortality but reduced late hazard of death. Despite the late advantage of open repair, mean survival was superior for TEVAR. TEVAR should be considered the first line for repair of intact descending thoracic aortic aneurysms in Medicare beneficiaries.

SUBMITTER: Chiu P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6675458 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Endovascular Versus Open Repair of Intact Descending Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms.

Chiu Peter P Goldstone Andrew B AB Schaffer Justin M JM Lingala Bharathi B Miller D Craig DC Mitchell R Scott RS Woo Y Joseph YJ Fischbein Michael P MP Dake Michael D MD

Journal of the American College of Cardiology 20190201 6

<h4>Background</h4>For the management of descending thoracic aortic aneurysms, recent evidence has suggested that outcomes of open surgical repair may surpass thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in as early as 2 years.<h4>Objectives</h4>The purpose of this study was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of TEVAR and open surgical repair in the treatment of intact descending thoracic aortic aneurysms.<h4>Methods</h4>Using the Medicare database, a retrospective study using regression d ...[more]

PMID: 30765029

Similar Datasets

Project description:For descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs), it is generally considered that thoracic endovascular aortic repairs (TEVARs) reduce operative morbidity and mortality compared with open surgical repair. However, long-term differences in survival of patients have not been demonstrated, and an increased need for aortic reintervention has been observed. Many assume that TEVAR becomes less cost-effective through time because of higher rates of reintervention and surveillance imaging. This study investigated midterm outcomes and hospital costs of TEVAR compared with open TAA repair.This was a retrospective, single-institution review of elective TAA repairs between 2005 and 2012. Patient demographics, operative outcomes, reintervention rates, and hospital costs were assessed. The literature was also reviewed to determine commonly observed complication and reintervention rates for TEVAR and open repair. Monte Carlo simulation was used to model and to forecast hospital costs for TEVAR and open TAA repair up to 3 years after intervention.Our cohort consisted of 131 TEVARs and 27 open repairs. TEVAR patients were significantly older (67.2 vs 58.7 years old; P = .02) and trended toward a more severe comorbidity profile. Operative mortality for TEVAR and open repair was 5.3% and 3.7%, respectively (P = 1.0). There was a trend toward more complications in the TEVAR group, although not statistically significant (all P > .05). In-hospital costs were significantly greater in the TEVAR group ($52,008 vs $37,172; P = .001). However, cost modeling by use of reported complication and reintervention rates from the literature overlaid with our cost data produced a higher cost for the open group in-hospital ($55,109 vs $48,006) and at 3 years ($58,426 vs $52,825). Interestingly, TEVAR hospital costs, not reintervention rates, were the most significant driver of cost in the TEVAR group.Our institutional data showed a trend toward lower mortality and complication rates with open TAA repair, with significantly lower costs within this cohort compared with TEVAR. These findings were likely, at least in part, to be due to the milder comorbidity profile of these patients. In contrast, cost modeling by Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated lower costs with TEVAR compared with open repair at all time points up to 3 years after intervention. Our institutional data show that with appropriate selection of patients, open repair can be performed safely with low complication rates comparable to those of TEVAR. The cost model argues that despite the costs associated with more frequent surveillance imaging and reinterventions, TEVAR remains the more cost-effective option even years after TAA repair.

Project description:BackgroundThoracic aortic arch aneurysms (TAAs) can be a life-threatening condition due to the potential risk of rupture. Treatment is recommended when the risk of rupture is greater than the risk of surgical complications. Depending on the cause, size and growth rate of the TAA, treatment may vary from close observation to emergency surgery. Aneurysms of the thoracic aorta can be managed by a number of surgical techniques. Open surgical repair (OSR) of aneurysms involves either partial or total replacement of the aorta, which is dependent on the extent of the diseased segment of the aorta. During OSR, the aneurysm is replaced with a synthetic graft. Hybrid repair (HR) involves a combination of open surgery with endovascular aortic stent graft placement. Hybrid repair requires varying degrees of invasiveness, depending on the number of supra-aortic branches that require debranching. The hybrid technique that combines supra-aortic vascular debranching with stent grafting of the aortic arch has been introduced as a therapeutic alternative. However, the short- and long-term outcomes of HR remain unclear, due to technical difficulties and complications as a result of the angulation of the aortic arch as well as handling of the arch during surgery.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness and safety of HR versus conventional OSR for the treatment of TAAs.Search methodsThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 22 March 2021. We also searched references of relevant articles retrieved from the electronic search for additional citations.Selection criteriaWe considered for inclusion in the review all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing HR to OSR for TAAs.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts obtained from the literature search to identify those that met the inclusion criteria. We retrieved the full text of studies deemed as potentially relevant by at least one review author. The same review authors screened the full-text articles independently for inclusion or exclusion.Main resultsNo RCTs or CCTs met the inclusion criteria for this review.Authors' conclusionsDue to the lack of RCTs or CCTs, we were unable to determine the safety and effectiveness of HR compared to OSR in people with TAAs, and we are unable to provide high-certainty evidence on the optimal surgical intervention for this cohort of patients. High-quality RCTs or CCTs are necessary, addressing the objective of this review.

Project description:Importance:Knowledge regarding the long-term outcomes of elective treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is increasing. However, data with greater than 10 years' follow-up remain sparse and are lacking from population-based studies. Objective:To determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR compared with open surgical repair (OSR) for elective treatment of AAA. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective, population-based cohort study used linked administrative health data from Ontario, Canada, to identify all patients 40 years and older who underwent elective EVAR or OSR for AAA repair from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2016, with follow-up terminating on March 31, 2017. A total of 17 683 patients were identified using validated procedure and billing codes and were propensity score matched. Analysis was conducted from June 26, 2018, to January 16, 2019. Exposures:Elective EVAR or OSR for AAA. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival, defined as being free of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; reintervention; and secondary rupture. Results:Among 17 683 patients who received elective AAA repairs (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [7.8] years; 14 286 [80.8%] men), 6100 (34.5%) underwent EVAR and 11 583 (65.5%) underwent OSR. From these patients, 4010 well-balanced propensity score-matched pairs of patients were defined, with a mean (SD) age of 73.0 (7.6) years and 6583 (82.1%) men. In the matched cohort, the mean (SD) follow-up was 4.4 (2.7) years, and maximum follow-up was 13.8 years. The overall median survival was 8.9 years. Compared with OSR, EVAR was associated with a higher survival rate up to 1 year after repair (91.0% [95% CI, 90.1%-91.9%] vs 94.0% [95% CI, 93.3%-94.7%]) and a higher major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival rate up to 4 years after repair (69.9% [95% CI, 68.3%-71.3%] vs 72.9% [95% CI, 71.4%-74.4%]). Cumulative incidence of reintervention was higher among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR at the 7-year follow-up (45.9% [95% CI, 44.1%-47.8%] vs 42.2% [95% CI, 40.4%-44.0%]). Survival analyses demonstrated no statistically significant differences in long-term survival, reintervention, and secondary rupture for patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR. Kaplan-Meier analysis suggested superior long-term major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR (32.6% [95% CI, 26.9%-38.4%] vs 14.1% [95% CI, 4.0%-30.4%]; stratified log-rank P < .001) during a maximum follow-up of 13.8 years. Conclusions and Relevance:Endovascular aortic repair was not associated with a difference in long-term survival during more than 13 years' maximum follow-up. The reasons for these findings will require studies to consider specific graft makes and models, adherence to instructions for use, and types and reasons for reintervention.

Project description:ObjectiveThere is a growing body of literature raising concerns about the long-term durability of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), suggesting that long-term outcomes may be better after open AAA repair. However, the data investigating these long-term outcomes largely originate from early in the endovascular era and therefore do not account for increasing clinical experience and technologic improvements. We investigated whether 4-year outcomes after EVAR and open repair have improved over time.MethodsWe identified all EVARs and open repairs for intact infrarenal AAA within the Vascular Quality Initiative database (2003-2018). We then stratified patients by procedure year into treatment cohorts of four years: 2003-2006, 2007-2010, 2011-2014, and 2015-2018. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards models to assess whether the survival after EVAR or open repair changed over time. In addition, we propensity matched EVAR and open repairs for each time cohort to investigate whether the relative survival benefit of EVAR over open repair changed over time.ResultsWe included 42,293 EVARs (increasing from 549 performed between 2003 and 2006 to 25,433 between 2015 and 2018) and 5189 open AAA repairs (increasing from 561 to 2306). Four-year survival increased for the periods 2003-2006, 2007-2010, 2011-2014, and 2015-2018 after both EVAR (76.6% vs 79.7% vs 83.5% vs 87.3%; P < .001) and open repair (82.2% vs 85.8% vs 87.7% vs 88.9%; P = .026). After risk adjustment, compared with 2003-2006, hazard of mortality up to 4 years after EVAR was lower for those performed between 2011 and 2014 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.87; P = .001) and for those performed between 2015 and 2018 (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46-0.68; P < .001). In contrast, the risk-adjusted hazard of mortality was similar between open repair cohorts (2011-2014: HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.61-1.08; P = .15]; and 2015-2018: HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.64-1.17; P = .34]). Finally, in matched EVAR and open repairs, there was no difference in mortality in the first three cohorts, whereas the hazard of mortality was lower for the 2015-2018 cohort (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.84; P = .001).ConclusionsFour-year survival improved in more recent years after EVAR but not after open repair. This finding suggests that midterm outcomes after EVAR are improving, perhaps because of technologic improvements and increased experience, information that should be considered by surgeons and policymakers alike in evaluating the value of contemporary EVAR and open AAA repair.

Project description:BackgroundThoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become an alternative to open repair for the treatment of ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysms (rTAAs). The aim of this study was to assess national trends in the use of TEVAR for the treatment of rTAA and to determine its impact on perioperative outcomes.MethodsPatients admitted with an rTAA between 1993 and 2012 were identified from the National Inpatient Sample. Patients were grouped in accordance with their treatment: TEVAR, open repair, or nonoperative treatment. The primary outcomes were treatment trends over time and in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications and length of stay. Trend analyses were performed using the Cochran-Armitage test for trend, and adjusted mortality risks were established using multivariable logistic regression analysis.ResultsA total of 12,399 patients were included, with 1622 (13%) undergoing TEVAR, 2808 (23%) undergoing open repair, and 7969 (64%) not undergoing surgical treatment. TEVAR has been increasingly used from 2% of total admissions in 2003-2004 to 43% in 2011-2012 (P < .001). Concurrently, there was a decline in the proportion of patients undergoing open repair (29% to 12%; P < .001) and nonoperative treatment (69% to 45%; P < .001). The proportion of patients undergoing surgical repair has increased for all age groups since 1993-1994 (P < .001 for all) but was most pronounced among those aged 80 years with a 7.5-fold increase. After TEVAR was introduced, procedural mortality decreased from 36% in 2003-2004 to 27% in 2011-2012 (P < .001); mortality among those undergoing nonoperative treatment remained stable between 63% and 60% (P = .167). Overall mortality after rTAA admission decreased from 55% to 42% (P < .001). Since 2005, mortality for open repair was 33% and 22% for TEVAR (P < .001). In adjusted analysis, open repair was associated with a twofold higher mortality than TEVAR (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-2.5).ConclusionsTEVAR has replaced open repair as primary surgical treatment for rTAA. The introduction of endovascular treatment appears to have broadened the eligibility of patients for surgical treatment, particularly among the elderly. Mortality after rTAA admission has declined since the introduction of TEVAR, which is the result of improved operative mortality as well as the increased proportion of patients undergoing surgical repair.

Dataset Information

Endovascular Versus Open Repair of Intact Descending Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms.

Publications

Endovascular Versus Open Repair of Intact Descending Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets