Impact of Gradual Adoption of EVAR in Elective Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Retrospective Cohort Study from 2009 to 2015

Autores da FMUP

• Marina Felicidade Dias Neto

  Autor

• Fábio Sousa Nunes

  Autor

• João Manuel Palmeira Rocha Neves

  Autor

Participantes de fora da FMUP

• Norton, L
• Silva, JR
• Teixeira, JF
• Sampaio, S

Unidades de investigação

• Biomedicina

• Cirurgia e Fisiologia

• Laboratório Associado RISE- Rede de Investigação em Saúde

  

  Investigador

  Fernando Carlos De Landér Schmitt

• RISE-Health

  

  Investigador

  Fernando Carlos De Landér Schmitt

Abstract

Introduction: The recommendations about the preferred type of elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) still divides guidelines committees, even nowadays. The aim is to assess outcomes after AAA repair focusing on differences between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR). Methods: The observational retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients submitted to elective AAA repair at a tertiary center, 2009-2015. Exclusion criteria were as follows: nonelective cases or complex aortic aneurysms. Primary outcomes were postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, survival, freedom from aortic-related mortality, and vascular reintervention. Time trends were assessed along the period under analysis. Results: From a total of 211 included patients, those submitted to EVAR were older (74 +/- 7 vs. 67 +/- 9 years; P < 0.001), presented a higher prevalence of hypertension (83.5% vs. 68.5%, P = 0.004), obesity (28.7% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.029), previous cardiac revascularization (30.5% vs. 14.7%, P = 0.005), heart failure (17.2% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.013), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (32.8% vs. 13.3%, P = 0.002). Patients were followed during a median of 49 months. EVAR resulted in a significantly shorter length of hospital stay (median 4 and interquartile range 3 vs. 8 (9); P < 0.001), lower 30-day complications (10.6% vs. 22.8%, P = 0.017), lower aortic-related mortality, and similar reintervention after adjustment with a propensity score. Along the time under analysis, EVAR became the predominate type of repair (P = 0.024), the proportion of complications decreased (P = 0.014), and the 30-day mortality (P = 0.035). Conclusions: Although EVAR was offered to patients with more comorbidities, better and durable outcomes were achieved after EVAR, favoring its adoption for elective AAA repair.

Keywords

• ENDOVASCULAR REPAIR; OUTCOMES; TERM; MORTALITY; METAANALYSIS; STANDARDS