• Jeffrey J Siracuse, Heather L Gill, Ashley R Graham, Darren B Schneider, Peter H Connolly, Art Sedrakyan, and Andrew J Meltzer.
• Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY. Electronic address: Jes9061@nyp.org.
• J. Vasc. Surg. 2014 Nov 1;60(5):1154-8.

ObjectiveThe prevalence of significant comorbidities among patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) has contributed to widespread enthusiasm for endovascular AAA repair (EVAR). However, the advantages of EVAR in patients at low risk for open surgical repair (OSR) remain unclear. The objective of this study was to assess perioperative outcomes of EVAR and OSR in low-risk patients.MethodsPatients undergoing EVAR and OSR for infrarenal AAAs were identified in the 2007 to 2010 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data sets. AAA-specific risk stratification, by the Medicare aneurysm scoring system, was used to create matched low-risk (score <3) cohorts. Perioperative morbidity and mortality were assessed by crude comparisons of matched groups and regression models.ResultsOf 11,753 elective patients undergoing EVAR, 4339 (37%) were deemed low risk (score <3). A matched cohort of 1576 low-risk patients was developed from a total of 3804 (41%) undergoing OSR. The low-risk cohorts included only male patients and those <75 years of age, without significant cardiac, pulmonary, or vascular comorbidities. Mean age in both low-risk groups was 67 ± 6 years (P = NS). EVAR patients had higher rates of obesity (40% vs 33%; P < .001), diabetes (16% vs 13%; P = .005), history of cardiac intervention (24% vs 19%; P < .001), cardiac surgery (23% vs 20%; P = .02), steroid use (4% vs 2%; P = .002), and bleeding disorders/anticoagulation (9% vs 6%; P = .001) compared with OSR patients. There were no other differences between the matched cohorts. EVAR was associated with reduced 30-day mortality (0.5% vs 1.5%; P < .01) and reduced rates of major complications, including the following: sepsis (0.7% vs 3.2%; P < .01), unplanned intubation (1.0 vs 5.4%; P < .001), pneumonia (0.8% vs 6.1%; P < .001), acute renal failure (0.4% vs 2.7%; P < .001), and early reoperation (3.7% vs 6.0%; P < .001). Furthermore, EVAR was associated with reduced perioperative morbidity across organ systems, including venous thromboembolism (0.1% vs 0.3%; P = .001), transfusion requirement of more than 4 units (2.0% vs 13.0%; P < .001), cardiac arrest (0.2 vs 0.8; P = .001), neurologic deficits (0.2% vs 0.5%; P = .032), and urinary tract infections (1.2% vs 2%; P = .02).ConclusionsOur results demonstrate that even among those male patients at low risk for OSR on the basis of comorbidities, EVAR is associated with reduced perioperative mortality and major complications. Whereas clinical decisions must account for safety and long-term effectiveness, the short-term benefit of EVAR is evident even among male patients at the lowest risk for OSR.Copyright © 2014 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

27 keywords...

hide…