W Samir Cubas, Ludwig Cáceres-Farfán, Miguel Rojas-Huillca, Milagros Moreno-Loaiza, Franco Albán-Sánchez, Anna Paredes-Temoche, Milagros Salazar-Cuizano, Félix Tipacti-Rodríguez, Julio Huayllara-Reduzzi, Johnny Mayta-Rodríguez
{"title":"Survival, Short And Long-Term Outcomes Of Open And Endovascular Surgical Repair Of Unruptured Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.","authors":"W Samir Cubas, Ludwig Cáceres-Farfán, Miguel Rojas-Huillca, Milagros Moreno-Loaiza, Franco Albán-Sánchez, Anna Paredes-Temoche, Milagros Salazar-Cuizano, Félix Tipacti-Rodríguez, Julio Huayllara-Reduzzi, Johnny Mayta-Rodríguez","doi":"10.48729/pjctvs.358","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Endovascular Aortic Repair (EVAR) has become the standard management of Unruptured Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (UIAAA); however, current evidence is limited and uncertain in our environment compared to Open repair. Our study aimed to determine the survival, short and long-term outcomes of EVAR vs. Open in a Peruvian cohort of UIAAA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-center observational, analytical, longitudinal study using a retrospective registry of 251 patients treated (EVAR=205 vs Open=46) for UIAAA from 2000 to 2017. Variables considered were baseline, comorbidities, type of treatment, short-term (<30 days) and long-term (<5 years) outcomes, postoperative mortality according to the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) Risk Score, survival curves including reoperation-free rate and according to size (<65 mm vs. >65 mm) of long-term UIAAA. All variables were grouped according to the treatment performed (EVAR vs. Open) and we used the descriptive, multivariate, Cox regression, and Kaplan-Meier survival statistical analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>251 UIAAA were evaluated and the mean age was 74.5 years [±13.32], smoking, family members with UIAAA, and previous abdominal surgery were the main antecedents. Diabetes mellitus 2 was the main comorbidity; more than 50% of patients with UIAAA had diameters greater than 65 mm (p=0.021). The calculated mortality (VQI) was Open=2.21% vs. EVAR=1.65%. The outcomes in short-term were mortality (Open=2.92% vs. EVAR=0%; p=0.039), blood transfusion >4 Units (Open=72.68% vs. EVAR=17.39%; p=0.021) and overall hospital stay (Open=14 vs. EVAR=5 days; p=0.049. A reduction in mortality (HR 0.76, 95% CI, 0.62-0.96, p=0.045) and readmission for aneurysmal rupture was identified for EVAR (HR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.79-0.85, p=0.031). In long-term outcomes, mortality (Open=3.41% vs. EVAR=19.56%; p=0.047), aneurysmal rupture (Open=0% vs. EVAR 13.04%; p=0.032) and reinterventions (Open=2.43% vs. EVAR=10.86%; p=0.002). An 86% risk of mortality (HR 1.86, 95% CI, 1.32-2.38, p=0.039) and elevated risk of readmission for aneurysmal rupture was identified for EVAR (HR 2.21, 95% CI, 1.98-2.45, p=0.028). At 5 years, survival for Open=93.67% vs. EVAR=80.44% (p=0.043), reintervention-free survival for Open=89.26% vs. EVAR=47.82% (p=0.021), survival for treated IUAAA <65 mm for Open=95.77% vs. EVAR=63.63% (p=0.019) and >65 mm for Open=92.53% vs. EVAR=85.71% (p=0.059).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>EVAR has shown better short-term benefits and survival than Open management; however, the latter still prevails in the long term in our Peruvian UIAAA cohort. Further follow-up studies are required to demonstrate the long-term benefit of EVAR in our population.</p>","PeriodicalId":74480,"journal":{"name":"Portuguese journal of cardiac thoracic and vascular surgery","volume":"30 4","pages":"39-50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Portuguese journal of cardiac thoracic and vascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48729/pjctvs.358","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Endovascular Aortic Repair (EVAR) has become the standard management of Unruptured Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (UIAAA); however, current evidence is limited and uncertain in our environment compared to Open repair. Our study aimed to determine the survival, short and long-term outcomes of EVAR vs. Open in a Peruvian cohort of UIAAA.
Methods: A single-center observational, analytical, longitudinal study using a retrospective registry of 251 patients treated (EVAR=205 vs Open=46) for UIAAA from 2000 to 2017. Variables considered were baseline, comorbidities, type of treatment, short-term (<30 days) and long-term (<5 years) outcomes, postoperative mortality according to the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) Risk Score, survival curves including reoperation-free rate and according to size (<65 mm vs. >65 mm) of long-term UIAAA. All variables were grouped according to the treatment performed (EVAR vs. Open) and we used the descriptive, multivariate, Cox regression, and Kaplan-Meier survival statistical analyses.
Results: 251 UIAAA were evaluated and the mean age was 74.5 years [±13.32], smoking, family members with UIAAA, and previous abdominal surgery were the main antecedents. Diabetes mellitus 2 was the main comorbidity; more than 50% of patients with UIAAA had diameters greater than 65 mm (p=0.021). The calculated mortality (VQI) was Open=2.21% vs. EVAR=1.65%. The outcomes in short-term were mortality (Open=2.92% vs. EVAR=0%; p=0.039), blood transfusion >4 Units (Open=72.68% vs. EVAR=17.39%; p=0.021) and overall hospital stay (Open=14 vs. EVAR=5 days; p=0.049. A reduction in mortality (HR 0.76, 95% CI, 0.62-0.96, p=0.045) and readmission for aneurysmal rupture was identified for EVAR (HR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.79-0.85, p=0.031). In long-term outcomes, mortality (Open=3.41% vs. EVAR=19.56%; p=0.047), aneurysmal rupture (Open=0% vs. EVAR 13.04%; p=0.032) and reinterventions (Open=2.43% vs. EVAR=10.86%; p=0.002). An 86% risk of mortality (HR 1.86, 95% CI, 1.32-2.38, p=0.039) and elevated risk of readmission for aneurysmal rupture was identified for EVAR (HR 2.21, 95% CI, 1.98-2.45, p=0.028). At 5 years, survival for Open=93.67% vs. EVAR=80.44% (p=0.043), reintervention-free survival for Open=89.26% vs. EVAR=47.82% (p=0.021), survival for treated IUAAA <65 mm for Open=95.77% vs. EVAR=63.63% (p=0.019) and >65 mm for Open=92.53% vs. EVAR=85.71% (p=0.059).
Conclusion: EVAR has shown better short-term benefits and survival than Open management; however, the latter still prevails in the long term in our Peruvian UIAAA cohort. Further follow-up studies are required to demonstrate the long-term benefit of EVAR in our population.
导言:血管内主动脉修补术(EVAR)已成为治疗未破裂膈下腹主动脉瘤(UIAAA)的标准方法;然而,与开放式修补术相比,在我们的环境中,目前的证据有限且不确定。我们的研究旨在确定在秘鲁的 UIAAA 患者队列中,EVAR 与开腹手术的存活率、短期和长期疗效:这是一项单中心观察性、分析性、纵向研究,使用的是 2000 年至 2017 年期间对 251 名接受过 UIAAA 治疗(EVAR=205 vs Open=46)的患者进行的回顾性登记。考虑的变量包括基线、合并症、治疗类型、短期(65 毫米)和长期 UIAAA。所有变量均根据所进行的治疗(EVAR vs. Open)进行分组,我们使用了描述性、多变量、Cox回归和Kaplan-Meier生存统计分析。结果:共评估了251例UIAAA,平均年龄为74.5岁[±13.32],吸烟、家庭成员患有UIAAA和既往接受过腹部手术是主要前因。糖尿病 2 是主要合并症;50% 以上的 UIAAA 患者直径大于 65 毫米(P=0.021)。计算得出的死亡率(VQI)为开放式=2.21%,EVAR=1.65%。短期结果为死亡率(Open=2.92% vs. EVAR=0%;P=0.039)、输血>4单位(Open=72.68% vs. EVAR=17.39%;P=0.021)和总住院时间(Open=14 vs. EVAR=5天;P=0.049)。EVAR可降低死亡率(HR 0.76,95% CI,0.62-0.96,p=0.045)和动脉瘤破裂再入院率(HR 0.81,95% CI,0.79-0.85,p=0.031)。在长期结果方面,死亡率(Open=3.41% vs. EVAR=19.56%;P=0.047)、动脉瘤破裂(Open=0% vs. EVAR=13.04%;P=0.032)和再介入(Open=2.43% vs. EVAR=10.86%;P=0.002)。EVAR的死亡率风险为86%(HR 1.86,95% CI,1.32-2.38,p=0.039),动脉瘤破裂再入院风险升高(HR 2.21,95% CI,1.98-2.45,p=0.028)。5年后,Open=93.67% vs. EVAR=80.44%(P=0.043),Open=89.26% vs. EVAR=47.82%(P=0.021),Open=92.53% vs. EVAR=85.71%(P=0.059):结论:EVAR的短期疗效和存活率均优于开放式治疗,但在秘鲁的UIAAAA队列中,后者的长期疗效和存活率仍占优势。需要进一步的随访研究来证明 EVAR 在我国人群中的长期益处。