Survival, cardiovascular morbidity, and reinterventions after elective endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in patients with and without diabetes: A nationwide propensity-adjusted analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 539-546 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soumia Taimour ◽  
Tarik Avdic ◽  
Stefan Franzén ◽  
Moncef Zarrouk ◽  
Stefan Acosta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Aneurysm ◽  
Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽  
Total Mortality ◽  
Epidemiological Data ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Protective Effects ◽  
Adjusted Analysis ◽  
Patients With Diabetes ◽  
Aneurysm Repair

Epidemiological data indicate decreased risk for development and growth of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). On the other hand, DM adds to increased cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. In a nationwide observational cohort study of patients registered in the Swedish Vascular Register and the Swedish National Diabetes Register, we evaluated potential effects of DM on total mortality, CV morbidity, and the need for reintervention after elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for AAA. We compared 748 patients with and 2630 without DM with propensity score-adjusted analysis, during a median 4.22 years of follow-up for patients with DM, and 4.05 years for those without. In adjusted analysis, diabetic patients showed higher rates of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during follow-up (relative risk (RR) 1.44, 95% CI 1.06–1.95; p = 0.02), but lower need for reintervention (RR 0.12, CI 0.02–0.91; p = 0.04). There were no differences in total (RR 0.88, CI 0.74–1.05; p = 0.15) or CV (RR 1.58, CI 0.87–2.86; p = 0.13) mortality, or stroke (RR 0.95, CI 0.68–1.32; p = 0.75) during follow-up. In conclusion, patients with DM had higher rates of AMI and lower need for reintervention after elective EVAR than those without DM, whereas neither total nor CV mortality differed between groups. The putative protective effects of DM towards further AAA enlargement and late sac rupture may help explain the lower need for reintervention and absence of excess mortality.

scholarly journals Five-year survival after elective open and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

2021 ◽  
pp. 145749692110487
Author(s):  
Jüri Lieberg ◽  
Karl G. Kadatski ◽  
Mart Kals ◽  
Kaido Paapstel ◽  
Jaak Kals
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Aneurysm ◽  
Survival Data ◽  
Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽  
National Registry ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Aneurysm Repair

Background and objective: Current evidence suggests short-term survival benefit from endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) in elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) procedures, but this benefit is lost during long-term follow-up. The aim of this study was to compare short- and mid-term all-cause mortality in patients with non-ruptured aneurysm treated by OSR and EVAR; and to assess the rate of complications and reinterventions, as well as to evaluate their impact on survival. Methods: The medical records of the non-ruptured AAA patients undergoing OSR or EVAR between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2019 at Tartu University Hospital, Estonia, were retrospectively reviewed. We gathered survival data from the national registry (mean follow-up period was 3.7 ± 2.3 years). Results: A total of 225 non-ruptured AAA patients were treated operatively out of whom 95 (42.2%) were EVAR and 130 (57.8%) were OSR procedures. The difference in estimated all-cause mortality between the OSR and EVAR groups at day 30 was statistically irrelevant (2.3% vs 0%; p = 0.140), but OSR patients showed statistically significantly higher 5 year survival compared with EVAR patients (75.3% vs 50.0%, p = 0.002). Complication and reintervention rates for the EVAR and OSR groups did not differ statistically (26.3% vs 16.9%, p = 0.122; 10.5% vs 11.5%, p = 0.981, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that greater aneurysm diameter (p = 0.012), EVAR procedure (p = 0.016), male gender (p = 0.023), and cerebrovascular diseases (p = 0.028) were independently positively associated with 5-year mortality. Conclusions: Thirty-day mortality, and complication and reintervention rates for EVAR and OSR after elective AAA repair were similar. Although the EVAR procedure is an independent risk factor for 5-year mortality, higher age and greater proportion of comorbidities among EVAR patients may influence not only the choice of treatment modality, but also prognosis.

Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Patients with Challenging Anatomy: Utility of the Hybrid Endograft

Vascular ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 106-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
William D. Jordan ◽  
Thomas C. Naslund ◽  
Mark A. Adelman ◽  
Gene Simoni ◽  
Douglas J. Wirthlin
Keyword(s):  
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm ◽  
Aortic Aneurysm ◽  
Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽  
Radiographic Evaluation ◽  
Covered Stents ◽  
Aneurysm Size ◽  
Abdominal Aortic ◽  
Aneurysm Repair

Commercially available aortic stent grafts differ in construction and clinical advantage such that creating hybrid endografts by combining components from different manufacturers is sometimes useful. We describe a multicenter experience using hybrid endografts to treat patients with challenging anatomy. Hospital records and office charts were reviewed from four institutions. Hybrid endografts were defined as those with two types of covered stents in continuity to treat an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Indications for hybrid grafts were defined by type of endoleak and whether an endoleak was expected or unexpected as determined by the preoperative radiographic evaluation. Endpoints include intraoperative endoleaks, late endoleaks, change in aneurysm size, and rupture. Hybrid endografts were used to treat AAA (endovascular aneurysm repair [EVAR]) in 90 patients, representing 7.9% of the total multicenter experience. In 7 patients (7.8%), a hybrid graft construction as a secondary procedure successfully corrected a type 1 endoleak. In the remaining 83 patients (92.2%), hybrid grafts were created at the time of original EVAR to treat expected challenging anatomy or unexpected endoleaks. Hybrid endografts corrected 88 (97.8%) type 1 endoleaks, but 2 patients (2.2%) persisted with a proximal type 1 leak requiring conversion. During follow-up of 1 to 24 months, computed tomography and ultrasound surveillance, available for 73 patients (81.1%), detected one unresolved distal type 1 (1.1%) and seven type 2 (7.8%) endoleaks. Aneurysm size decreased at least 0.5 cm in 23 of 50 patients (46.0%) at 6 months and in 19 of 31 patients (61.3%) at 12 months. Aneurysm size increased at least 0.5 cm in 4 of 50 patients (8.0%) at 6 months and in 1 of 31 patients (3.2%) at 12 months. There were no ruptures. Hybrid endografts have favorable early and intermediate results in the treatment of AAA. Long-term follow-up will be needed to confirm the absence of significant adverse biomaterial interaction and the effect on AAA exclusion. We advocate the use of hybrid endografts as endovascular therapy for patients whose anatomy may be unsuitable for a single endograft type.

scholarly journals Postoperative surveillance and long-term outcome after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in the Netherlands: study protocol for the retrospective ODYSSEUS study

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e033584
Author(s):  
Anna Catharina Maria Geraedts ◽  
Sylvana de Mik ◽  
Dirk Ubbink ◽  
Mark Koelemay ◽  
Ron Balm
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Aneurysm ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽  
Term Outcome ◽  
Academic Medical Centre ◽  
Long Term Outcome ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Imaging Surveillance ◽  
Aneurysm Repair

IntroductionStrict imaging surveillance protocols to detect complications following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are common practice. However, controversy exists as to whether all EVAR patients need intense surveillance. The 2019 European Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines for management of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) suggest that patients may be considered for limited follow-up with imaging if classified as ‘low risk’ for complications based on their initial postoperative imaging. The current study aims to investigate the intervention-free survival and overall survival stratified for patients with and without yearly imaging surveillance.Methods and analysisThe Observing a Decade of Yearly Standardised Surveillance in EVAR patients with Ultrasound or CT Scan study comprises a national multicentre retrospective cohort study in 17 medical centres. Consecutive patients with an asymptomatic or symptomatic infrarenal AAA who underwent EVAR between January 2007 and January 2012 will be included in this study with follow-up until December 2018. Clinical variables and all follow-up information will be retrieved in extensive data collection from the patient’s medical records. In addition, an e-survey was sent to vascular surgeons at the 17 participating centres to gauge their opinions regarding the possibility of safely reducing the frequency of imaging surveillance. Primary endpoints are intervention after EVAR and aneurysm-related mortality. The initial estimated sample size is 1997 patients.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Review Committee of the Amsterdam UMC, location Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Study findings will be disseminated via presentations at conferences and publications in peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberThe Netherlands Trial Registry, NL6953 (old: NTR28773).

Effects of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Size on Mid- and Long-term Mortality After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haekyung Jeon-Slaughter ◽  
Harish Krishnamoorthi ◽  
David Timaran ◽  
Amanda Wall ◽  
Bala Ramanan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm ◽  
Aortic Aneurysm ◽  
Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽  
Optimal Cutoff ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Abdominal Aortic ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Aneurysm Repair

Purpose: To investigate the effect of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) size on mid- and long-term survival after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Materials and Methods: Retrospective data were collected from 325 consecutive patients (mean age 69.7 ± 8.5 years; 323 men) who underwent EVAR for intact AAA at a single institution between January 2003 and December 2013. The primary endpoint was death at 3, 5, and 10 years after EVAR. Optimal cutoff points for AAA size and age were determined using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. Time to event analyses (Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models) were employed to determine any differences in all-cause mortality outcomes between AAA size groups. Cox models were adjusted for age and other comorbidities (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, smoking status, symptomatic status, and creatinine); the outcomes are reported as the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The cohort was dichotomized according to the ROC analysis, which defined an optimal cutoff point of 5.6 cm for AAA size and >70 years for age. The mean follow-up period post EVAR was 45.5±29.2 months. In total, 134 (41.2%) patients died during the 10-year follow-up. Thirty-day mortality was 1.1% (2/184) in the patients with AAA <5.6 cm and 2.1% (3/141) in patients with AAA ≥5.6 cm (p=0.45). All-cause mortality was not significantly affected by comorbidities. However, AAA size ≥5.6 cm was associated with increased 3-year mortality risk (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.001 to 2.52, p<0.049) but not 5-year (HR 1.44, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.10, p=0.062) or 10-year mortality (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.80, p=0.149). After adjusting for comorbidities, AAA size ≥5.6 cm was no longer significantly associated with morality at any time point. Using a larger size cutoff (AAA size ≥6.0 cm) resulted in improved statistical significance in the unadjusted model. In the adjusted Cox model, AAA size ≥6.0 cm was significantly associated with increased risk of mortality at 3 years (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.77, p<0.047), but not at longer time points. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that midterm survival after EVAR is significantly and independently associated with AAA size even after correcting for comorbidities. However, in the long term, preoperative AAA size is not an independent predictor of mortality.

The effect of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair on Renal Function in Patients Treated for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (44) ◽  
pp. 4675-4685 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petroula Nana ◽  
George Kouvelos ◽  
Alexandros Brotis ◽  
Konstantinos Spanos ◽  
Athanasios Giannoukas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Failure ◽  
Renal Function ◽  
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm ◽  
Chronic Renal Failure ◽  
Aortic Aneurysm ◽  
Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽  
Abdominal Aortic ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Aneurysm Repair

Aim: The effect of endovascular aneurysm repair in patients treated for abdominal aortic aneurysm has not been clearly defined. The objective of the present article was to provide a contemporary literature review and perform an analysis to determine the effect of EVAR on renal function in the early post-operative period and during follow-up. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify all studies reporting the effect of EVAR on renal function. Outcome data were pooled and combined overall effect sizes were calculated using fixed or random-effects models. Results: Thirty-two studies reporting on 24846 patients were included. Acute renal failure after EVAR occurred with an estimated frequency of 9% (95%CI: 5-16%; I2=97%). Median follow-up period was 19.5 months (range 1-60 months). The estimated frequency of chronic renal failure during follow-up was 7% (95%CI: 3-17%; I2=98%). Hemodialysis was required in 2% (1-3%; I2=97%) of the cases. Conclusion: High-level evidence demonstrating the effect of EVAR on the incidence of acute and chronic renal failure is lacking. Based on the current available data, nearly 10% of patients undergoing EVAR for AAA have an increased risk for renal dysfunction after the procedure. Whether this deterioration may lead to a worse outcome has not been adequately proved.

scholarly journals Spondylodiscitis due to transmitted mycotic aortic aneurysm or infected grafts after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR): A retrospective single-centre experience with short-term outcomes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Heinz von der Höh ◽  
Philipp Pieroh ◽  
Jeanette Henkelmann ◽  
Daniela Branzan ◽  
Anna Völker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Aneurysm ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽  
Numeric Rating Scale ◽  
Aortic Aneurysms ◽  
Transmitted Infection ◽  
Posterior Surgery ◽  
Cage Subsidence ◽  
Aneurysm Repair

Abstract Purpose To report the challenging therapeutic approach and the clinical outcome of patients with pyogenic spondylodiscitis transmitted due to infected retroperitoneal regions of primary infected mycotic aortic aneurysms (MAAs) or secondary infected aortic stent grafts after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Methods Between 2012 and 2019, all patients suffering from spondylodiscitis based on a transmitted infection after the EVAR procedure were retrospectively identified. Patient data were analysed regarding the time between primary and secondary EVAR infection and spondylodiscitis detection, potential source of infection, pathogens, antibiotic treatment, complications, recovery from infection, mortality, numeric rating scale (NRS), COBB angle and cage subsidence. Results Fifteen patients with spondylodiscitis transmitted from primary or secondary infected aortic aneurysms after EVAR were included. The median follow-up time was 8 months (range 1–47). Surgery for spondylodiscitis was performed in 12 patients. In 9 patients, the infected graft was treated conservatively. MAAs were treated in 4 patients first with percutaneous aortic stent graft implantation followed by posterior surgery of the infected spinal region in a two-step procedure. Infection recovery was recorded in 11 patients during follow-up. The overall mortality rate was 27% (n = 4). The mean pain intensity improved from an NRS score of 8.4 (3.2–8.3) to 3.1 (1.3–6.7) at the last follow-up. Conclusion EVAR was used predominantly to treat primary infected MAAs. Secondary infected grafts were treated conservatively. Independent of vascular therapy, surgery of the spine led to recovery in most cases. Thus, surgery should be considered for the treatment of EVAR- and MAA-related spondylodiscitis.

Treatment of complex aortic aneurysms with fenestrated endografts and chimney stent repair: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Vascular ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang Yaoguo ◽  
Chen Zhong ◽  
Kou Lei ◽  
Xiao Yaowen
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Aneurysm ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽  
Aortic Aneurysms ◽  
Type I ◽  
Type I Endoleak ◽  
Comprehensive Search ◽  
Aneurysm Repair ◽  
Related Mortality

Objective We reviewed data pertaining to fenestrated endograft technique and chimney stent repair of complex aortic aneurysm for comparative analysis of the outcomes. Methods A comprehensive search of relevant databases was conducted to identify articles in English, related to the treatment of complex aortic aneurysm with fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair and chimney stent repair, published until January 2015. Results A total of 42 relevant studies and 2264 patients with aortic aneurysm undergoing fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair and chimney stent repair were included in our review. A total of 4413 vessels were involved in these processes. The cumulative 30-day mortality was 2.4% and 3.2% ( p = 0.459). The follow-up aneurysm-related mortality was 1.4% and 3.2% ( p = 0.018), and target organ dysfunction was 5.0% and 4.0% in fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair and chimney stent repair, respectively ( p = 0.27). A total of 156 vessels showed restenosis or occlusion after primary intervention (3.6% and 3.4% in fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair and chimney stent repair, respectively, p = 0.792). The cumulative type I endoleak was 2.0% (38/1884) after fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair compared with 3.4% (13/380) after chimney stent repair ( p = 0.092), and the type II endoleak was 5.4% (102/1884) and 5.3% (20/380), respectively ( p = 0.905). Approximately, 1.1% and 1.6% increase in aneurysm was observed following fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair and chimney stent repair, respectively ( p = 0.437). The re-intervention frequency was 205 and 19 cases after fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair and chimney stent repair, respectively (11.7%, 5.6%, p = 0.001). Conclusions Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair and chimney stent repair are safe and effective in treating patients with complex aortic aneurysm. A higher aneurysm-related mortality was observed in chimney stent repair while fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair was associated with a higher re-intervention rate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document