Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

A comparison of open surgery versus endovascular repair of unstable ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.
J Vasc Surg. 2014 Dec; 60(6):1439-45.JV

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Two randomized trials to date have compared open surgery (OS) and endovascular (EVAR) repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA); however, neither addressed optimal management of unstable patients. Single-center reports have produced conflicting data regarding the superiority of one vs the other, with the lack of statistical power due to low patient numbers. Furthermore, previous studies have not delineated between the outcomes of stable patients with a contained rupture vs those patients with instability. Our objective was to compare 30-day outcomes in patients undergoing OS vs EVAR for all rAAAs, focusing specifically on patients with instability.

METHODS

Patients who underwent repair of rAAA were identified from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database (2005 to 2010). Unstable patients with rupture were identified as those who were American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification 4 or 5 requiring emergency repair with at least one of the following: preoperative shock, preoperative transfusion of >4 units, preoperative intubation, or preoperative coma or impaired sensorium. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 1447 patients with rAAA, 65.5% underwent OS and 34.5% EVAR. Forty-five percent were unstable, and for these patients, OS was performed in 71.3% and EVAR in 28.7%. The 30-day mortality rate was 47.9% (OS, 52.8%; EVAR, 35.6%; P < .0001) for unstable rAAAs and was 22.4% for stable rAAAs (OS, 26.3%; EVAR, 16.4%; P = .001). Amongst patients with unstable rAAA, 26% had a myocardial infarction or cardiac arrest ≤ 30 days (OS, 29.0%; EVAR, 19.1%; P = .006), and 17% needed postoperative dialysis (OS, 18.7%; EVAR, 12.8%; P = .04). Amongst patients with stable rAAA, 13.6% had a myocardial infarction or cardiac arrest ≤ 30 days (OS, 14.9%; EVAR, 11.6%; P = .20), and 11.5% needed postoperative dialysis (OS, 13.3%; EVAR, 8.7%; P = .047). Multivariable analyses showed OS was a predictor of 30-day mortality for unstable rAAA (odds ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.62) and stable rAAA (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.43).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one-third of patients treated for rAAA undergo EVAR in NSQIP participating hospitals. Not surprisingly, unstable patients have less favorable outcomes. In both stable and unstable rAAA patients, EVAR is associated with a diminished 30-day mortality and morbidity.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tenn.Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, Calif.Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, Wisc.Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, Wisc.Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, Wisc.Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, Wisc. Electronic address: kent@surgery.wisc.edu.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

25103257

Citation

Gupta, Prateek K., et al. "A Comparison of Open Surgery Versus Endovascular Repair of Unstable Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms." Journal of Vascular Surgery, vol. 60, no. 6, 2014, pp. 1439-45.
Gupta PK, Ramanan B, Engelbert TL, et al. A comparison of open surgery versus endovascular repair of unstable ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60(6):1439-45.
Gupta, P. K., Ramanan, B., Engelbert, T. L., Tefera, G., Hoch, J. R., & Kent, K. C. (2014). A comparison of open surgery versus endovascular repair of unstable ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 60(6), 1439-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2014.06.122
Gupta PK, et al. A Comparison of Open Surgery Versus Endovascular Repair of Unstable Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60(6):1439-45. PubMed PMID: 25103257.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - A comparison of open surgery versus endovascular repair of unstable ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. AU - Gupta,Prateek K, AU - Ramanan,Bala, AU - Engelbert,Travis L, AU - Tefera,Girma, AU - Hoch,John R, AU - Kent,K Craig, Y1 - 2014/08/04/ PY - 2014/03/25/received PY - 2014/06/26/accepted PY - 2014/8/9/entrez PY - 2014/8/12/pubmed PY - 2015/2/7/medline SP - 1439 EP - 45 JF - Journal of vascular surgery JO - J Vasc Surg VL - 60 IS - 6 N2 - OBJECTIVE: Two randomized trials to date have compared open surgery (OS) and endovascular (EVAR) repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA); however, neither addressed optimal management of unstable patients. Single-center reports have produced conflicting data regarding the superiority of one vs the other, with the lack of statistical power due to low patient numbers. Furthermore, previous studies have not delineated between the outcomes of stable patients with a contained rupture vs those patients with instability. Our objective was to compare 30-day outcomes in patients undergoing OS vs EVAR for all rAAAs, focusing specifically on patients with instability. METHODS: Patients who underwent repair of rAAA were identified from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database (2005 to 2010). Unstable patients with rupture were identified as those who were American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification 4 or 5 requiring emergency repair with at least one of the following: preoperative shock, preoperative transfusion of >4 units, preoperative intubation, or preoperative coma or impaired sensorium. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of the 1447 patients with rAAA, 65.5% underwent OS and 34.5% EVAR. Forty-five percent were unstable, and for these patients, OS was performed in 71.3% and EVAR in 28.7%. The 30-day mortality rate was 47.9% (OS, 52.8%; EVAR, 35.6%; P < .0001) for unstable rAAAs and was 22.4% for stable rAAAs (OS, 26.3%; EVAR, 16.4%; P = .001). Amongst patients with unstable rAAA, 26% had a myocardial infarction or cardiac arrest ≤ 30 days (OS, 29.0%; EVAR, 19.1%; P = .006), and 17% needed postoperative dialysis (OS, 18.7%; EVAR, 12.8%; P = .04). Amongst patients with stable rAAA, 13.6% had a myocardial infarction or cardiac arrest ≤ 30 days (OS, 14.9%; EVAR, 11.6%; P = .20), and 11.5% needed postoperative dialysis (OS, 13.3%; EVAR, 8.7%; P = .047). Multivariable analyses showed OS was a predictor of 30-day mortality for unstable rAAA (odds ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.62) and stable rAAA (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.43). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of patients treated for rAAA undergo EVAR in NSQIP participating hospitals. Not surprisingly, unstable patients have less favorable outcomes. In both stable and unstable rAAA patients, EVAR is associated with a diminished 30-day mortality and morbidity. SN - 1097-6809 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/25103257/A_comparison_of_open_surgery_versus_endovascular_repair_of_unstable_ruptured_abdominal_aortic_aneurysms_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0741-5214(14)01292-0 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -