Fenestrated endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms is associated with increased morbidity but comparable mortality with infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair.

A recent prospective study found that fenestrated endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (FEVAR) was safe and effective in appropriately selected patients at experienced centers. As this new technology is disseminated to the community, it will be important to understand how this technology compares with standard endovascular AAA repair (EVAR). The goal of this study was to compare the outcomes of FEVAR vs EVAR of AAAs. The American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2005 to 2012 was queried for AAAs (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code 441.4). Patients were stratified according to procedure (FEVAR vs EVAR). A bivariate analysis was done to assess preoperative and intraoperative risk factors for postoperative outcomes. Thirty-day postoperative mortality and complication rates were described for each procedure type. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the association between the type of procedure and the risk of postoperative complications. A total of 458 patients underwent FEVAR and 19,060 patients underwent EVAR for AAA. Patients undergoing FEVAR were older (P = .02) and less likely to have a bleeding disorder (P = .046). Otherwise, the incidence of comorbidities in both groups was similar. FEVAR was associated with increased median operative time (156 vs 137 minutes; P < .001), and average postoperative length of stay (3.3 vs 2.8 days; P = .03). There was a statistically significant increase in overall complications (23.6% vs 14.3%; P < .001) and postoperative transfusions (15.3% vs 6.1%, P < .001) and trends toward increased cardiac complications (2.2% vs 1.3%; P = .09) and the need for dialysis (1.5% vs 0.8%; P = .08) in the FEVAR group. Mortality (2.4% vs 1.5%; P = .12) was not statistically different. On multivariable analysis, FEVAR remained independently associated with the need for postoperative transfusions when operative time was <75th percentile (adjusted odds ratio, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-2.72; P = .02) as well as when operative time was >75th percentile for respective procedures (adjusted odds ratio, 5.33; 95% confidence interval, 3.55-8.00; P < .001). Patients undergoing FEVAR are more likely than patients undergoing EVAR to receive blood transfusions postoperatively and are more likely to sustain postoperative complications. Although mortality was similar, trends toward increased cardiac and renal complications may suggest the need for judicious dissemination of this new technology. Future research with larger number of FEVAR cases will be necessary to determine if these associations remain.

Glebova NO ，Selvarajah S ，Orion KC ，Black JH 3rd ，Malas MB ，Perler BA ，Abularrage CJ ... -  《-》

Thirty-day outcomes after fenestrated endovascular repair are superior to open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms involving visceral vessels.

Although few studies have reported outcomes after branched or fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (FEVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms involving visceral vessels (AAA-Vs), no multi-institutional study has compared FEVAR with open surgery (OS) for AAA-Vs. Our objective was to compare 30-day outcomes after FEVAR vs OS for AAA-Vs. Patients who underwent FEVAR (n = 535) and OS (n = 1207) for elective AAA-Vs were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) 2008 to 2013 database. Thoracoabdominal aneurysms were excluded. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. There were more men (82% vs 72%; P < .0001), diabetic patients (16% vs 11%; P = .005), patients with dependent functional status (4% vs 2%; P = .002), and nonsmokers (70% vs 56%; P < .0001) in the FEVAR group vs OS. There was no difference in rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiac history, peripheral artery disease, hypertension, and dialysis (P > .05). FEVAR had fewer major postoperative pulmonary complications (3.0% vs 19.0%; P < .0001), less renal failure requiring dialysis (1.9% vs 6.4%; P < .0001), less frequent cardiac arrest or myocardial infarction (2.2% vs 5.8%; P = .001), less bleeding with major transfusion (17.4% vs 50.2%; P < .0001), and decreased incidence of return to the operating room (4.5% vs 9.6%; P < .0001) and death (2.4% vs 4.7%; P = .02). The median length of stay was also significantly shorter for FEVAR (2 days vs 7 days; P < .0001). On multivariable analyses, OS was associated with higher risk than FEVAR for 30-day death (odds ratio [OR], 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-5.0), pulmonary complications (OR, 8.8; 95% CI, 5.1-15.0), cardiac complications (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.8-6.6), renal failure needing dialysis (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.9-7.7), and return to the operating room (OR 2.5; 95% CI, 1.6-4.0). FEVAR is associated with a lower risk for 30-day mortality and adverse events compared with OS for AAA-Vs.

Gupta PK ，Brahmbhatt R ，Kempe K ，Stickley SM ，Rohrer MJ ... -  《-》

Outcomes and cost of fenestrated versus standard endovascular repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysm in the United States.

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) has expanded the indications of this minimally invasive procedure to include patients with pararenal aneurysms. The actual cost of this relatively newer technology compared with standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has not been studied before. Thus, the aim of this study was to analyze in-hospital costs and adverse outcomes in patients undergoing FEVAR vs EVAR for intact abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Using the Premier Healthcare Database (2012-2015), we identified all patients who underwent elective EVAR and FEVAR. Univariable (χ2 test, Student t-test, median test) and multivariable (logistic regression and generalized linear modeling) analyses were implemented to examine in-hospital cost and adverse outcomes adjusting for patients' demographics, comorbidities, and regional characteristics. A total of 17,689 elective endovascular AAA repairs were performed; 1641 patients underwent FEVAR (9%), and the remaining 16,048 patients underwent standard EVAR (91%). Patients undergoing FEVAR were more likely to be white (86.3% vs 84.3%; P = .03). Both groups had similar comorbidities except for cerebrovascular disease, which was higher among patients undergoing FEVAR (8.4% vs 6.7%; P = .01). The total length of hospital stay was slightly higher in patients undergoing FEVAR compared with EVAR (mean [standard deviation], 2.40 [3.39] days vs 2.23 [3.10] days; P = .03). The rates of any complication (11.3% vs 9.6%), renal injury (5.8% vs 4.3%), and neurologic injury (0.7% vs 0.4%) were significantly higher in the FEVAR group (all P < .05). No differences were seen in mortality (0.8% vs 0.5%) or cardiac (4.9% vs 4.4%), pulmonary (2.4% vs 2.2%), and bowel (1.5% vs 1.2%) complications between the two groups (all P > .05). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, FEVAR was associated with 40% increased odds of renal failure (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.76; P = .004) and 91% increased odds of neurologic injury (odds ratio, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.02-3.57; P = .04). The median total cost of the treatment was also significantly higher among patients undergoing FEVAR ($28,227 vs $26,781; P < .001). After adjustment, generalized linear modeling analysis showed that the cost of FEVAR was on average $1612 higher than the cost of EVAR (adjusted cost, $1612; 95% CI, $1123-$2101; P < .001). In this large cohort of elective endovascular AAA repairs, compared with standard EVAR, FEVAR is associated with significantly increased odds of renal and neurologic injury. In addition, despite adjusting for patients' demographics, comorbidities, and major complications, total cost of FEVAR was significantly higher compared with standard EVAR. This is likely driven by the additional cost of fenestrated endografts and by the increased rate of complications related to FEVAR.

Locham S ，Faateh M ，Dhaliwal J ，Nejim B ，Dakour-Aridi H ，Malas MB ... -  《-》

Endovascular repair with fenestrated-branched stent grafts improves 30-day outcomes for complex aortic aneurysms compared with open repair.

Endovascular repair is associated with better 30-day outcomes than open surgical repair for patients with infrarenal aortic aneurysms. In patients with complex aortic aneurysms (CAAs) requiring suprarenal or supravisceral aortic cross-clamping during open repair, few data exist directly comparing the real-world outcomes of open repair versus endovascular repair with fenestrated-branched stent grafts (FEVAR). Outcomes for patients who underwent elective CAA repair using open repair and FEVAR between 2005 and 2010 were analyzed using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. CAA was defined as aneurysm of the aorta involving the visceral and/or renal arteries. This study compared 1091 patients who underwent open repair (group A: male, 71.5%; age, 71 ± 9 years) with 264 patients treated with FEVAR (group B: male, 82.2%; age, 74 ± 9 years). The 2 groups did not significantly differ with respect to American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification (ASA III/IV: A, 93%; B, 95%, P = 0.6), severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (A: 21%; B: 22%; P = 0.7), prior cardiac surgery (A: 24%; B: 20%; P = 0.19), or preoperative renal function (glomerular filtration rate: A: 69 ± 2; B: 70 ± 27; P = 0.535). Group A had significantly higher risk of any complication (A: 42%; B: 19%; P < 0.001), nonsurgical complications (A: 30%; B: 8%; P < 0.001), pulmonary complications (A: 21%; B: 2%; P < 0.001), renal complications (A: 10%; B: 1.5%; P = 0.001), and any cardiovascular complication (A: 8%; B: 2%; P < 0.001). The composite end point of surgical site infections/graft failure/bleeding transfusions were also higher in group A (A: 22%; B: 15%; P = 0.014). Thirty-day mortality was significantly lower for FEVAR (A: 5.4%; B: 0.8%; P = 0.001), as was total length of hospital stay (A: 11 ± 10 days; B: 4 ± 5 days; P < 0.001). This nationwide real-world database suggests that in similar patient populations, repair of CAAs with FEVAR is associated with reduced 30-day morbidity and mortality compared with open repair. Although long-term comparative studies are needed, FEVAR may represent a preferred treatment alternative to open repair for patients with CAAs.

Tsilimparis N ，Perez S ，Dayama A ，Ricotta JJ 2nd ... -  《-》

Comparable mortality with open repair of complex and infrarenal aortic aneurysm.

A consequence of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of anatomically straightforward infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair cohort (AAA) is that open aneurysm repair is more commonly performed for complex anatomy. Complex aneurysm repair with visceral vessel involvement (CAA) or combined aneurysm repair and visceral vessel reconstruction (VVR) has traditionally been considered to increase morbidity and mortality compared with repair of infrarenal AAA. This study evaluated contemporary outcomes of open abdominal aneurysm surgery, including AAA, CAA, and VVR using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. The NSQIP Participant Use File was queried by CPT code to identify patients undergoing AAA, CAA, and VVR (2005-2008). Comparative analysis of clinical features, technical details and 30-day outcomes was performed using univariate methods. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of morbidity and mortality. A total of 2820 patients underwent AAA and 592 CAA. Renal insufficiency (ie, creatinine >1.4 mg/dL) rates were similar in AAA and CAA patients, however, more frequent in patients with VVR (51% vs 31% [no bypass]; P < .01). CAA was less likely to be performed urgently (6.3% vs 9.1%; P < .05) and was associated with increased operative time (254 ± 100 vs 224 ± 93; P < .01) compared with AAA. Univariate analysis showed that CAA did not increase mortality (5.7% vs 5.1%; P = .5). CAA slightly increased overall complications (32% vs 27%; P = .01) compared with AAA. 73 (2.5%) AAA and 84 (12%) CAA patients had simultaneous VVR and these patients exhibited a trend toward increased mortality (8.9% vs 5.2%; P = .07). VVR increased complications (43% (VVR) vs 26% [no bypass]; P < .01), including ventilation >48 hours (21% [VVR] vs 12% [no bypass]; P < .01), renal failure (7.6% [VVR] vs 4.1% [no bypass]; P = .04), and sepsis (13% [VVR] vs 6.3% ([no bypass]; P < .01). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that CAA (odds ratio [OR], 1.3 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1-1.6]; P = .01) and VVR (OR, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.8-3.6]; P < .01) increased the odds of any complication. Independent predictors of mortality included dependent functional status (OR, 3.6 [95% CI, 2.3-5.4]; P < .01), elevated pre-op creatinine (OR, 2.9 [95% CI, 2.2-4.0]; P < .01), type II diabetes (OR, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.05-2.4]; P = .03), and age (OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.03-1.08]; P < .01). Neither CAA (OR, 1.2 [95% CI, 0.84-1.8]; P = .3) nor VVR (OR, 1.6 [95% CI, 0.89-2.9]; P = .11) were associated with increased mortality compared with AAA. In contemporary practice the migration of open repair to increasingly complex cases has been achieved with 30-day mortality essentially equivalent to open repair of infrarenal AAA. Patients who require VVR do sustain increased complications, in particular renal failure. These data also emphasize the importance of baseline renal insufficiency in clinical decision making. CAA and VVR are associated with increased morbidity in comparison to AAA repair; however, both procedures can be safely performed in patients without increased risk of operative mortality.

Patel VI ，Lancaster RT ，Conrad MF ，Lamuraglia GM ，Kwolek CJ ，Brewster DC ，Cambria RP ... -  《-》