Outcomes of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in high-risk patients

Objective Although the endovascular aneurysm repair trial 2 (EVAR-2) demonstrated no benefit of EVAR in high-risk (HR) patients, EVAR is still performed widely in this patient cohort. This study compares the midterm outcomes after EVAR in HR patients with those in normal-risk (NR) patients. In turn,...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of vascular surgery 2015-04, Vol.61 (4), p.862-868
Hauptverfasser: Lim, Sungho, MD, Halandras, Pegge M., MD, Park, Taeyoung, PhD, Lee, Youngeun, BA, Crisostomo, Paul, MD, Hershberger, Richard, MD, Aulivola, Bernadette, MD, Cho, Jae S., MD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objective Although the endovascular aneurysm repair trial 2 (EVAR-2) demonstrated no benefit of EVAR in high-risk (HR) patients, EVAR is still performed widely in this patient cohort. This study compares the midterm outcomes after EVAR in HR patients with those in normal-risk (NR) patients. In turn, these data are compared with the EVAR-2 data. Methods A retrospective review from January 2006 to December 2013 identified 247 patients (75 HR [30.4%], 172 NR [69.6%]) who underwent elective EVAR for infrarenal aortic aneurysm in an academic tertiary institution and its affiliated Veterans Administration hospital. The same HR criteria used in the EVAR-2 trial were employed. Overall survival, graft-related complications, and reintervention rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. HR group outcomes were compared with the EVAR-2 data. Results HR patients had a larger abdominal aortic aneurysm size and had a higher prevalence of cardiac disease ( P  < .01), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ( P  = .02), renal insufficiency ( P  < .01), and cancer ( P  < .01). Use of aspirin (63% HR vs 66% NR; P  = .6), statin (83% HR vs 72% NR; P  = .2), and beta-blockers (71% HR vs 60% NR; P  = .2) was similar; in the EVAR-2 trial, the corresponding use of these medications was 58%, 42%, and not available, respectively. Perioperative mortality (0% HR vs 1.2% NR; P  = 1.0) and early complication rates (4% HR vs 6% NR; P  = .8) were similar. In contrast, perioperative mortality in the EVAR-2 trial was 9%. At a mean follow-up of 3 years, the incidence rates of delayed secondary interventions for aneurysm- or graft-related complications were 7% for HR patients and 10% for NR patients ( P  = .5). The 1-, 2-, and 4-year survival rates in HR patients (85%, 77%, 65%) were lower than those in NR patients (97%, 97%, 93%; P  < .001), but this was more favorable compared with a 36% 4-year survival in the EVAR-2 trial. No difference was seen in long-term reintervention-free survival in HR and NR patients ( P  = .8). Backward stepwise logistic regression analysis identified five prognostic indicators for post-EVAR death: age, chronic kidney disease stages 4 and 5, congestive heart failure, home oxygen use, and current cancer therapy. Conclusions EVAR can be performed in patients unfit for open surgical repair with excellent early survival and long-term durability. These outcomes in the HR group compare more favorably to the EVAR-2 trial data. However, not all HR patients for open su
ISSN:0741-5214
1097-6809
DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2014.11.081