• Natalia O Glebova, Shalini Selvarajah, Kristine C Orion, James H Black, Mahmoud B Malas, Bruce A Perler, and Christopher J Abularrage.
• Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Md; Section of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, Colo.
• J. Vasc. Surg. 2015 Mar 1;61(3):604-10.

ObjectiveA recent prospective study found that fenestrated endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (FEVAR) was safe and effective in appropriately selected patients at experienced centers. As this new technology is disseminated to the community, it will be important to understand how this technology compares with standard endovascular AAA repair (EVAR). The goal of this study was to compare the outcomes of FEVAR vs EVAR of AAAs.MethodsThe American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2005 to 2012 was queried for AAAs (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code 441.4). Patients were stratified according to procedure (FEVAR vs EVAR). A bivariate analysis was done to assess preoperative and intraoperative risk factors for postoperative outcomes. Thirty-day postoperative mortality and complication rates were described for each procedure type. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the association between the type of procedure and the risk of postoperative complications.ResultsA total of 458 patients underwent FEVAR and 19,060 patients underwent EVAR for AAA. Patients undergoing FEVAR were older (P = .02) and less likely to have a bleeding disorder (P = .046). Otherwise, the incidence of comorbidities in both groups was similar. FEVAR was associated with increased median operative time (156 vs 137 minutes; P < .001), and average postoperative length of stay (3.3 vs 2.8 days; P = .03). There was a statistically significant increase in overall complications (23.6% vs 14.3%; P < .001) and postoperative transfusions (15.3% vs 6.1%, P < .001) and trends toward increased cardiac complications (2.2% vs 1.3%; P = .09) and the need for dialysis (1.5% vs 0.8%; P = .08) in the FEVAR group. Mortality (2.4% vs 1.5%; P = .12) was not statistically different. On multivariable analysis, FEVAR remained independently associated with the need for postoperative transfusions when operative time was <75th percentile (adjusted odds ratio, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-2.72; P = .02) as well as when operative time was >75th percentile for respective procedures (adjusted odds ratio, 5.33; 95% confidence interval, 3.55-8.00; P < .001).ConclusionsPatients undergoing FEVAR are more likely than patients undergoing EVAR to receive blood transfusions postoperatively and are more likely to sustain postoperative complications. Although mortality was similar, trends toward increased cardiac and renal complications may suggest the need for judicious dissemination of this new technology. Future research with larger number of FEVAR cases will be necessary to determine if these associations remain.Copyright © 2015 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

35 keywords...

hide…