Evaluation of Survival Outcomes of Endovascular Versus Open Aortic Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms with a Big Data Approach.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mei H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7759828 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Evaluation of Survival Outcomes of Endovascular Versus Open Aortic Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms with a Big Data Approach.
Mei Hao H Xu Yaqing Y Wang Jiping J Ma Shuangge S
Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) 20201130 12
Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a localized enlargement of the abdominal aorta. Once ruptured AAA (rAAA) happens, repairing procedures need to be applied immediately, for which there are two main options: open aortic repair (OAR) and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). It is of great clinical significance to objectively compare the survival outcomes of OAR versus EVAR using randomized clinical trials; however, this has serious feasibility issues. In this study, with the Medicare data, we condu ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundFor 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.ObjectivesThe 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.MethodsUsing 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.ResultsMatching 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).ConclusionsOpen 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.
| S-EPMC6675458 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6624804 | biostudies-other
Project description:The repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a high-risk surgical procedure related to hormonal and metabolic stress-related response with an ensuing activation of the inflammatory cascade. In contrast to open repair (OR), endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) seems to decrease the postoperative stress by offering less extensive incisions, dissection, and tissue manipulation. However, these beneficial effects may be offset by the release of cytokines and arachidonic acid metabolites during intra-luminal manipulation of the thrombus using catheters in endovascular repair, resulting in systemic inflammatory response (SIR), which is clinically called post-implantation syndrome. In this systematic review we compared OR with EVAR in terms of the post-interventional inflammatory response resulting from alterations in the circulating cytokine levels. We sought to summarize all the latest evidence regarding post-implantation syndrome after EVAR. We searched Medline (PubMed), ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane library for clinical studies reporting on the release of cytokines as part of the inflammatory response after both open/conventional and endovascular repair of the AAA. We identified 17 studies examining the cytokine levels after OR versus EVAR. OR seemed to be associated with a greater SIR than EVAR, as evidenced by the increased cytokine levels, particularly IL-6 and IL-8, whereas IL-1?, IL-10 and TNF-? showed conflicting results or no difference between the two groups. Polyester endografts appear to be positively correlated with the incidence of post-implantation syndrome after EVAR. Future large prospective studies are warranted to delineate the underlying mechanisms of the cytokine interaction in the post-surgical inflammatory response setting.
| S-EPMC6289472 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has dramatically changed the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) as the number of open aneurysm repairs have declined over time. This report compares AAA-related demographics, operative data, complications, and mortality after treatment by open aneurysm repair or EVAR.We retrospectively reviewed 136 patients with AAAs who were treated over an 8-year time period with open aneurysm repair or EVAR.The mean age of the EVAR group was higher than that of the open repair group (p=0.001), and hospital mortality did not differ significantly between groups (p=0.360). However, overall survival was significantly lower in the EVAR group (p=0.033).Although EVAR is the primary treatment modality for elderly patients, it would be ideal to set slightly more stringent criteria within the anatomical guidelines contained in the instructions for use of the EVAR device when treating younger patients.
| S-EPMC5548202 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesTo systematically review studies comparing peri-operative mortality and length of hospital stay in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) to patients who underwent open surgical repair (OSR).MethodsThe Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched until Apr 30, 2013 using keywords such as abdominal aortic aneurysm, emergent, emergency, rupture, leaking, acute, endovascular, stent, graft, and endoscopic. The primary outcome was peri-operative mortality and the secondary outcome was length of hospital stay.ResultsA total of 18 studies (2 randomized controlled trials, 5 prospective studies, and 11 retrospective studies) with a total of 135,734 rAAA patients were included. rAAA patients who underwent EVAR had significantly lower peri-operative mortality compared to those who underwent OSR (overall OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.58 to 0.67, P<0.001). rAAA patients with EVAR also had a significantly shorter mean length of hospital stay compared to those with OSR (difference in mean length of stay ranged from -2.00 to -19.10 days, with the overall estimate being -5.25 days (95% CI = -9.23 to -1.26, P = 0.010). There was no publication bias and sensitivity analysis showed good reliability.ConclusionsEVAR confers significant benefits in terms of peri-operative mortality and length of hospital stay. There is a need for more randomized controlled trials to compare outcomes of EVAR and OSR for rAAA.
| S-EPMC3909181 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe PEVAR Trial demonstrated that compared to open femoral exposure, elective percutaneous endovascular AAA repair (ePEVAR) is associated with decreased perioperative morbidity and access site complications. We hypothesized that PEVAR for ruptured AAA (rPEVAR) may also improve perioperative morbidity compared to open femoral exposure (rEVAR). There are currently no reports that evaluate the utility and outcomes of rPEVAR.Materials and methodsFrom 2015 to 2021, all patients who underwent an endovascular repair of a ruptured AAA at a single institution were included in the study and grouped into rPEVAR and rEVAR. Demographics, procedural details (successful preclose technique, conversion to femoral cutdown), postoperative variables (blood transfusion, ICU and hospital length of stay) and short-term outcomes (30-day major adverse events (30-day MAE) and 30-day femoral access-site complications (30-day FAAC)) were collected and compared with 50 historical ePEVAR patients from the PEVAR Trial. Statistical significance was determined using χ 2 or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, and Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables.Results35 patients were identified (21 rPEVAR; 14 rEVAR), 86% were male with a mean age of 72 ± 9 years. All patients underwent emergent endovascular aortic repair with 100% technical success. Seventeen patients (49%) presented with evidence of hemorrhagic shock and 22 patients (63%) had blood transfusion. 30-day MAE occurred in 12 patients (34%) (7 rPEVAR; 5 rEVAR). There was no difference in demographic, perioperative outcomes and 30-day MAE rate between rPEVAR and rEVAR patients. Compared to ePEVAR patient (from PEVAR trial), rPEVAR patients had higher rate of 30-day MAE (34% vs. 6%; p < 0.006) but no difference in 30-day FAAC (19% vs. 12%; p = 0.54). The success rate of the preclose technique was higher in ePEVAR compared to rPEVAR (96% vs. 76%; p = 0.02), but the rate of conversion to femoral cutdown was similar between the two groups (10% vs. 4%; p = 0.57).ConclusionEmergent rPEVAR appears to have similar outcomes when compared to rEVAR. Although patients undergoing rPEVAR have higher 30-day major adverse events rate compared to ePEVAR, the method of percutaneous femoral cannulation does not appear to increase the overall procedural or 30-day femoral artery access-site complications.
| S-EPMC9634472 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8025309 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Several reports suggest unexpectedly high rates of late abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture occur after endovascular AAA repair (EVAR). However, a population-based study examining causes of late death after EVAR vs open surgical repair has not been performed.We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing infrarenal AAA repair using information from the Medicare inpatient hospital discharge records (MedPAR files), physician claim files (Part B files, 20% sample), and Medicare Denominator Files for the years 2001 to 2004. Using the Social Security Death Index, we identified all "late" deaths, defined as deaths occurring >30 days and after hospital discharge. We used the National Death Index to identify cause of death information; in particular, those deaths that were likely caused by late rupture. We compared causes of late death and survival between EVAR and open repair using Wilcoxon log-rank and rank-sum tests.Between 2001 and 2004, 13,971 patients underwent AAA repair (6119 EVAR, 7852 open repair). After a mean follow-up of 1.6 years in the EVAR cohort and 1.9 years in the open cohort, mortality rates were similar across repair type (15.4% EVAR, 15.9% open repair), with an adjusted odds ratio for death after open repair of 0.98 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.07). Of the 2194 documented deaths, 523 occurred before discharge or <or=30 days, and 1671 occurred >30 days and after hospital discharge. Cause of death information for the 1671 late deaths was available from the National Death Index for 1515 (91%). The 15 most common codes for causes of late death were dominated by cardiac disease (atherosclerotic heart disease, acute myocardial infarction) and pulmonary disease (lung cancer, respiratory failure). Causes of late death with specific mention of aneurysm were identified in 37 patients (2.4% of all deaths), but this event was not more common in EVAR or open repair (15 [0.3%] in the EVAR group, 22 [0.3%], in the open repair group; P = .71).Late deaths from aneurysm rupture after EVAR or open repair appear to be relatively infrequent and similarly distributed across procedure type. Our results emphasize that the effectiveness of EVAR is comparable to open AAA repair in preventing aneurysm-related death.
| S-EPMC5292250 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:The aim of the study was to compare short and long-term mortality and readmissions in patients with non-ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) treated with endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) or open aneurysm repair (OAR). DESIGN:Retrospective survival analysis based on prospectively collected medical records of the national Polish public health insurer. MATERIALS:In the National Health Fund database we identified all patients who underwent elective open or endovascular treatment of AAA between January 1st 2011 and March 22nd 2016. The data on mortality, selected concomitant diseases and readmissions were collected. A total of 7805 patients (mean age 70.9±8.1 yrs, 85.8% males) underwent OAR (n = 2336) or EVAR (n = 5469). A median follow up was 27.5 months (IQR range 10.0-38.4 months). METHODS:The primary outcome variable was all-cause mortality, secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and readmissions. Kaplan-Meier (K-M), Cox proportional-hazards and propensity score analyses were performed for primary and secondary outcomes adjusting for repair type of AAA (OAR vs. EVAR), age, sex and concomitant diseases. RESULTS:EVAR patients had higher all-cause mortality (6.4% vs. 4.6% P = 0.002, adjHR 1.34, 95%CI 1.07-1.67, P = 0.010) compared with OAR. The mortality risks for OAR patients decreased below those for EVAR patients after 9.9 months. Of all the tested confounding factors only age independently and significantly influenced long-term mortality. Readmissions occurred more often in EVAR than in OAR (16.5% vs. 8.4% P<0.001, adjHR 2.15, 95%CI 1.84-2.52, P<0.001) independently from other covariants. Survival and readmissions Kaplan-Meier curves remained statistically different between OAR and EVAR patients after propensity score matching. CONCLUSIONS:Survival benefit of EVAR over OAR disappeared early during the first year after procedure, particularly in patients below 70 years of age, accompanied by an increased frequency of readmissions of EVAR patients. Our data suggest re-evaluation of the strategy for AAA management in vascular units in the country.
| S-EPMC6002078 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4344903 | biostudies-literature