Endovascular versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm: a claims-based data analysis in Japan.

IF 2.1 Q2 SURGERY
BMJ Surgery Interventions Health Technologies Pub Date : 2022-07-29 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjsit-2022-000131
Yuki Kimura, Hiroshi Ohtsu, Naohiro Yonemoto, Nobuyoshi Azuma, Kazuhiro Sase
{"title":"Endovascular versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm: a claims-based data analysis in Japan.","authors":"Yuki Kimura,&nbsp;Hiroshi Ohtsu,&nbsp;Naohiro Yonemoto,&nbsp;Nobuyoshi Azuma,&nbsp;Kazuhiro Sase","doi":"10.1136/bmjsit-2022-000131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) evolved through competition with open aortic repair (OAR) as a safe and effective treatment option for appropriately selected patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Although endoleaks are the most common reason for post-EVAR reintervention, compliance with lifelong regular follow-up imaging remains a challenge.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective data analysis.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The Japan Medical Data Center (JMDC), a claims database with anonymous data linkage across hospitals, consists of corporate employees and their families of ≤75 years of age.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>The analysis included participants in the JMDC who underwent EVAR or OAR for intact (iAAA) or ruptured (rAAA) AAA. Patients with less than 6 months of records before the aortic repair were excluded.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Overall survival and reintervention rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 986 cases (837 iAAA and 149 rAAA) from JMDC with first aortic repairs between January 2015 and December 2020. The number of patients, median age (years (IQR)), follow-up (months) and post-procedure CT scan (times per year) were as follows: iAAA (OAR: n=593, 62.0 (57.0-67.0), 26.0, 1.6, EVAR: n=244, 65.0 (31.0-69.0), 17.0, 2.2), rAAA (OAR: n=110, 59.0 (53.0-59.0), 16.0, 2.1, EVAR: n=39, 62.0 (31.0-67.0), 18.0, 2.4). Reintervention rate was significantly higher among EVAR than OAR in rAAA (15.4% vs 8.2%, p=0.04). In iAAA, there were no group difference after 5 years (7.8% vs 11.0%, p=0.28), even though EVAR had initial advantage. There were no differences in mortality rate between EVAR and OAR for either rAAA or iAAA.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Claims-based analysis in Japan showed no statistically significant difference in 5-year survival rates of the OAR and EVAR groups. However, the reintervention rate of EVAR in rAAA was significantly higher, suggesting the need for regular post-EVAR follow-up with imaging. Therefore, international collaborations for long-term outcome studies with real-world data are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":33349,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Surgery Interventions Health Technologies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/31/5d/bmjsit-2022-000131.PMC9345055.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Surgery Interventions Health Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsit-2022-000131","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) evolved through competition with open aortic repair (OAR) as a safe and effective treatment option for appropriately selected patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Although endoleaks are the most common reason for post-EVAR reintervention, compliance with lifelong regular follow-up imaging remains a challenge.

Design: Retrospective data analysis.

Setting: The Japan Medical Data Center (JMDC), a claims database with anonymous data linkage across hospitals, consists of corporate employees and their families of ≤75 years of age.

Participants: The analysis included participants in the JMDC who underwent EVAR or OAR for intact (iAAA) or ruptured (rAAA) AAA. Patients with less than 6 months of records before the aortic repair were excluded.

Main outcome measures: Overall survival and reintervention rates.

Results: We identified 986 cases (837 iAAA and 149 rAAA) from JMDC with first aortic repairs between January 2015 and December 2020. The number of patients, median age (years (IQR)), follow-up (months) and post-procedure CT scan (times per year) were as follows: iAAA (OAR: n=593, 62.0 (57.0-67.0), 26.0, 1.6, EVAR: n=244, 65.0 (31.0-69.0), 17.0, 2.2), rAAA (OAR: n=110, 59.0 (53.0-59.0), 16.0, 2.1, EVAR: n=39, 62.0 (31.0-67.0), 18.0, 2.4). Reintervention rate was significantly higher among EVAR than OAR in rAAA (15.4% vs 8.2%, p=0.04). In iAAA, there were no group difference after 5 years (7.8% vs 11.0%, p=0.28), even though EVAR had initial advantage. There were no differences in mortality rate between EVAR and OAR for either rAAA or iAAA.

Conclusions: Claims-based analysis in Japan showed no statistically significant difference in 5-year survival rates of the OAR and EVAR groups. However, the reintervention rate of EVAR in rAAA was significantly higher, suggesting the need for regular post-EVAR follow-up with imaging. Therefore, international collaborations for long-term outcome studies with real-world data are warranted.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

腹主动脉瘤患者的血管内与开放式修复:日本基于索赔的数据分析
目的:血管内主动脉修复(EVAR)在与开放式主动脉修复(OAR)的竞争中发展成为一种安全有效的腹主动脉瘤(AAA)患者的治疗选择。虽然内漏是evar后再干预的最常见原因,但终身定期随访成像仍然是一个挑战。设计:回顾性数据分析。背景:日本医疗数据中心(JMDC)是一个跨医院匿名数据链接的索赔数据库,由年龄≤75岁的企业员工及其家属组成。参与者:该分析包括JMDC中接受完整(iAAA)或破裂(rAAA) AAA的EVAR或OAR的参与者。排除主动脉修复前记录少于6个月的患者。主要结局指标:总生存率和再干预率。结果:我们在2015年1月至2020年12月期间确定了986例JMDC患者(837例iAAA和149例rAAA)进行了首次主动脉修复。患者数、中位年龄(IQR)、随访时间(月)、术后CT扫描(年)次数如下:iAAA (OAR: n=593、62.0(57.0 ~ 67.0)、26.0、1.6次,EVAR: n=244、65.0(31.0 ~ 69.0)、17.0、2.2次),rAAA (OAR: n=110、59.0(53.0 ~ 59.0)、16.0、2.1次,EVAR: n=39、62.0(31.0 ~ 67.0)、18.0、2.4次)。EVAR组再干预率明显高于OAR组(15.4% vs 8.2%, p=0.04)。在iAAA中,尽管EVAR具有初始优势,但5年后没有组间差异(7.8% vs 11.0%, p=0.28)。无论是rAAA还是iAAA, EVAR和OAR的死亡率均无差异。结论:日本基于索赔的分析显示,OAR组和EVAR组的5年生存率无统计学差异。然而,在rAAA中EVAR的再干预率明显较高,提示需要在EVAR后定期随访影像学。因此,有必要开展国际合作,利用真实世界的数据进行长期结果研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
17 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信