• Virendra I Patel, Robert T Lancaster, Mark F Conrad, Glenn M Lamuraglia, Christopher J Kwolek, David C Brewster, and Richard P Cambria.
• Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA. vpatel4@partners.org
• J. Vasc. Surg. 2011 Oct 1;54(4):952-9.

BackgroundA consequence of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of anatomically straightforward infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair cohort (AAA) is that open aneurysm repair is more commonly performed for complex anatomy. Complex aneurysm repair with visceral vessel involvement (CAA) or combined aneurysm repair and visceral vessel reconstruction (VVR) has traditionally been considered to increase morbidity and mortality compared with repair of infrarenal AAA. This study evaluated contemporary outcomes of open abdominal aneurysm surgery, including AAA, CAA, and VVR using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database.MethodsThe NSQIP Participant Use File was queried by CPT code to identify patients undergoing AAA, CAA, and VVR (2005-2008). Comparative analysis of clinical features, technical details and 30-day outcomes was performed using univariate methods. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of morbidity and mortality.ResultsA total of 2820 patients underwent AAA and 592 CAA. Renal insufficiency (ie, creatinine >1.4 mg/dL) rates were similar in AAA and CAA patients, however, more frequent in patients with VVR (51% vs 31% [no bypass]; P < .01). CAA was less likely to be performed urgently (6.3% vs 9.1%; P < .05) and was associated with increased operative time (254 ± 100 vs 224 ± 93; P < .01) compared with AAA. Univariate analysis showed that CAA did not increase mortality (5.7% vs 5.1%; P = .5). CAA slightly increased overall complications (32% vs 27%; P = .01) compared with AAA. 73 (2.5%) AAA and 84 (12%) CAA patients had simultaneous VVR and these patients exhibited a trend toward increased mortality (8.9% vs 5.2%; P = .07). VVR increased complications (43% (VVR) vs 26% [no bypass]; P < .01), including ventilation >48 hours (21% [VVR] vs 12% [no bypass]; P < .01), renal failure (7.6% [VVR] vs 4.1% [no bypass]; P = .04), and sepsis (13% [VVR] vs 6.3% ([no bypass]; P < .01). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that CAA (odds ratio [OR], 1.3 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1-1.6]; P = .01) and VVR (OR, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.8-3.6]; P < .01) increased the odds of any complication. Independent predictors of mortality included dependent functional status (OR, 3.6 [95% CI, 2.3-5.4]; P < .01), elevated pre-op creatinine (OR, 2.9 [95% CI, 2.2-4.0]; P < .01), type II diabetes (OR, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.05-2.4]; P = .03), and age (OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.03-1.08]; P < .01). Neither CAA (OR, 1.2 [95% CI, 0.84-1.8]; P = .3) nor VVR (OR, 1.6 [95% CI, 0.89-2.9]; P = .11) were associated with increased mortality compared with AAA.ConclusionIn contemporary practice the migration of open repair to increasingly complex cases has been achieved with 30-day mortality essentially equivalent to open repair of infrarenal AAA. Patients who require VVR do sustain increased complications, in particular renal failure. These data also emphasize the importance of baseline renal insufficiency in clinical decision making. CAA and VVR are associated with increased morbidity in comparison to AAA repair; however, both procedures can be safely performed in patients without increased risk of operative mortality.Copyright © 2011 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

37 keywords...

hide…