Dataset Information

Prognostic model for survival of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms treated with endovascular aneurysm repair.

ABSTRACT: The role of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) who are unfit for open surgical repair has been questioned. The impending risk of aneurysm rupture, the risk of elective repair, and the life expectancy must be balanced when considering elective AAA repair. This retrospective observational cohort study included all consecutive patients treated with standard EVAR for AAA at a referral centre between 2001 and 2020. A previously published predictive model for survival after EVAR in patients treated between 2001 and 2012 was temporally validated using patients treated at the same institution between 2013 and 2020 and updated using the overall cohort. 558 patients (91.2% males, mean age 74.9 years) were included. Older age, lower eGFR, and COPD were independent predictors for impaired survival. A risk score showed good discrimination between four risk groups (Harrel's C = 0.70). The 5-years survival probabilities were only 40% in "high-risk" patients, 68% in "moderate-to-high-risk" patients, 83% in "low-to-moderate-risk", and 89% in "low-risk" patients. Low-risk patients with a favourable life expectancy are likely to benefit from EVAR, while high-risk patients with a short life expectancy may not benefit from EVAR at the current diameter threshold.

SUBMITTER: Meuli L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9666454 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prognostic model for survival of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms treated with endovascular aneurysm repair.

Meuli Lorenz L Zimmermann Alexander A Menges Anna-Leonie AL Stefanikova Sandra S Reutersberg Benedikt B Makaloski Vladimir V

Scientific reports 20221115 1

The role of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) who are unfit for open surgical repair has been questioned. The impending risk of aneurysm rupture, the risk of elective repair, and the life expectancy must be balanced when considering elective AAA repair. This retrospective observational cohort study included all consecutive patients treated with standard EVAR for AAA at a referral centre between 2001 and 2020. A previously published ...[more]

PMID: 36380101

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe PEVAR Trial demonstrated that compared to open femoral exposure, elective percutaneous endovascular AAA repair (ePEVAR) is associated with decreased perioperative morbidity and access site complications. We hypothesized that PEVAR for ruptured AAA (rPEVAR) may also improve perioperative morbidity compared to open femoral exposure (rEVAR). There are currently no reports that evaluate the utility and outcomes of rPEVAR.Materials and methodsFrom 2015 to 2021, all patients who underwent an endovascular repair of a ruptured AAA at a single institution were included in the study and grouped into rPEVAR and rEVAR. Demographics, procedural details (successful preclose technique, conversion to femoral cutdown), postoperative variables (blood transfusion, ICU and hospital length of stay) and short-term outcomes (30-day major adverse events (30-day MAE) and 30-day femoral access-site complications (30-day FAAC)) were collected and compared with 50 historical ePEVAR patients from the PEVAR Trial. Statistical significance was determined using χ 2 or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, and Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables.Results35 patients were identified (21 rPEVAR; 14 rEVAR), 86% were male with a mean age of 72 ± 9 years. All patients underwent emergent endovascular aortic repair with 100% technical success. Seventeen patients (49%) presented with evidence of hemorrhagic shock and 22 patients (63%) had blood transfusion. 30-day MAE occurred in 12 patients (34%) (7 rPEVAR; 5 rEVAR). There was no difference in demographic, perioperative outcomes and 30-day MAE rate between rPEVAR and rEVAR patients. Compared to ePEVAR patient (from PEVAR trial), rPEVAR patients had higher rate of 30-day MAE (34% vs. 6%; p < 0.006) but no difference in 30-day FAAC (19% vs. 12%; p = 0.54). The success rate of the preclose technique was higher in ePEVAR compared to rPEVAR (96% vs. 76%; p = 0.02), but the rate of conversion to femoral cutdown was similar between the two groups (10% vs. 4%; p = 0.57).ConclusionEmergent rPEVAR appears to have similar outcomes when compared to rEVAR. Although patients undergoing rPEVAR have higher 30-day major adverse events rate compared to ePEVAR, the method of percutaneous femoral cannulation does not appear to increase the overall procedural or 30-day femoral artery access-site complications.

Project description:ObjectiveThere is a growing body of literature raising concerns about the long-term durability of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), suggesting that long-term outcomes may be better after open AAA repair. However, the data investigating these long-term outcomes largely originate from early in the endovascular era and therefore do not account for increasing clinical experience and technologic improvements. We investigated whether 4-year outcomes after EVAR and open repair have improved over time.MethodsWe identified all EVARs and open repairs for intact infrarenal AAA within the Vascular Quality Initiative database (2003-2018). We then stratified patients by procedure year into treatment cohorts of four years: 2003-2006, 2007-2010, 2011-2014, and 2015-2018. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards models to assess whether the survival after EVAR or open repair changed over time. In addition, we propensity matched EVAR and open repairs for each time cohort to investigate whether the relative survival benefit of EVAR over open repair changed over time.ResultsWe included 42,293 EVARs (increasing from 549 performed between 2003 and 2006 to 25,433 between 2015 and 2018) and 5189 open AAA repairs (increasing from 561 to 2306). Four-year survival increased for the periods 2003-2006, 2007-2010, 2011-2014, and 2015-2018 after both EVAR (76.6% vs 79.7% vs 83.5% vs 87.3%; P < .001) and open repair (82.2% vs 85.8% vs 87.7% vs 88.9%; P = .026). After risk adjustment, compared with 2003-2006, hazard of mortality up to 4 years after EVAR was lower for those performed between 2011 and 2014 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.87; P = .001) and for those performed between 2015 and 2018 (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46-0.68; P < .001). In contrast, the risk-adjusted hazard of mortality was similar between open repair cohorts (2011-2014: HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.61-1.08; P = .15]; and 2015-2018: HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.64-1.17; P = .34]). Finally, in matched EVAR and open repairs, there was no difference in mortality in the first three cohorts, whereas the hazard of mortality was lower for the 2015-2018 cohort (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.84; P = .001).ConclusionsFour-year survival improved in more recent years after EVAR but not after open repair. This finding suggests that midterm outcomes after EVAR are improving, perhaps because of technologic improvements and increased experience, information that should be considered by surgeons and policymakers alike in evaluating the value of contemporary EVAR and open AAA repair.

Project description:IntroductionEndovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has a marked short-term advantage over open surgical repair in managing abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA); however, this benefit is lost in the long term. The current trend towards stratified medicine has given rise to diverse prognostic prediction models and scoring systems for EVAR. These models could act as decision support tools that employ patient and operative factors, to improve long-term outcomes. Past literature evaluated and compared model performance for predicting one outcome, for example, mortality. None were deemed competent for clinical application. The proposed study will use a scoping review approach to capture literature on prognostic modelling in EVAR for all predictable outcomes. The results are anticipated to inform future research, identify knowledge gaps, and assist in determining the potential of models for clinical use.Methods and analysisThe proposed study will use the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping Reviews as a framework for conducting the review. PubMed Central, Embase and Cochrane Library will be searched and screened for peer-reviewed studies on prognostic modelling for EVAR, published between 2000 and 2022. No limits exist on predictor variables used and outcomes predicted by the model for inclusion, provided they apply to AAA patients managed with EVAR. Data will be abstracted using a charting form based on the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies guidelines and PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. The Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis checklist will be used to critically appraise included studies.Ethics and disseminationSince scoping reviews cover secondary data from published literature, ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and presentations at key conferences.

Project description:BackgroundEndovascular repair (EVR) has replaced open surgery as the procedure of choice for patients requiring elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Long-term outcomes of the 2 approaches are similar, making the relative cost of caring for these patients over time an important consideration.Methods and resultsWe linked Medicare claims to Vascular Quality Initiative registry data for patients undergoing elective EVR or open AAA repair from 2004 to 2015. The primary outcome was Medicare's cumulative disease-related spending, adjusted to 2015 dollars. Disease-related spending included the index operation and associated hospitalization, surveillance imaging, reinterventions (AAA-related and abdominal wall procedures), and all-cause admissions within 90 days. We compared the incidence of disease-related events and cumulative spending at 90 days and annually through 7 years of follow-up. The analytic cohort comprised 6804 EVR patients (median follow-up: 1.85 years; interquartile range: 0.82-3.22 years) and 1889 open repair patients (median follow-up: 2.62 years; interquartile range: 1.13-4.80 years). Spending on index surgery was significantly lower for EVR (median [interquartile range]: $25 924 [$22 280-$32 556] EVR versus $31 442 [$24 669-$40 419] open; P<0.001), driven by a lower rate of in-hospital complications (6.6% EVR versus 38.0% open; P<0.001). EVR patients underwent more surveillance imaging (1.8 studies per person-year EVR versus 0.7 studies per person-year open; P<0.001) and AAA-related reinterventions (4.0 per 100 person-years EVR versus 2.1 per 100 person-years open; P=0.041). Open repair patients had higher rates of 90-day readmission (12.9% EVR versus 17.8% open; P<0.001) and abdominal wall procedures (0.6 per 100 person-years EVR versus 1.5 per 100 person-years open; P<0.001). Overall, EVR patients incurred more disease-related spending in follow-up ($7355 EVR versus $2706 open through 5 years). There was no cumulative difference in disease-related spending between surgical groups by 5 years of follow-up (-$33 EVR [95% CI: -$1543 to $1476]).ConclusionsWe observed no cumulative difference in disease-related spending on EVR and open repair patients 5 years after surgery. Generalized recommendations about which approach to offer elective AAA patients should not be based on relative cost.

Dataset Information

Prognostic model for survival of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms treated with endovascular aneurysm repair.

Publications

Prognostic model for survival of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms treated with endovascular aneurysm repair.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets