scholarly journals A Comparative Study of Open Versus Endovascular Repair of Inflammatory Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

2013 ◽  
Vol 57 (5) ◽  
pp. 40S
Author(s):  
Stavros K. Kakkos ◽  
Konstantinos O. Papazoglou ◽  
Ioannis A. Tsolakis ◽  
George Lampropoulos ◽  
Spyros I. Papadoulas ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 271 (5) ◽  
pp. 969-977 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas F. X. O’Donnell ◽  
Laura T. Boitano ◽  
Sarah E. Deery ◽  
Marc L. Schermerhorn ◽  
Andres Schanzer ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 328
Author(s):  
T.F.X. O'Donnell ◽  
L.T. Boitano ◽  
S.E. Deery ◽  
M.L. Schermerhorn ◽  
A. Schanzer ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.C.V. Paravastu ◽  
J. Ghosh ◽  
D. Murray ◽  
F.G. Farquharson ◽  
F. Serracino-Inglott ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 62 (6) ◽  
pp. 1394-1404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brajesh K. Lal ◽  
Wei Zhou ◽  
Ziyi Li ◽  
Tassos Kyriakides ◽  
Jon Matsumura ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 189-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Satinderjit Locham ◽  
Hanaa Dakour-Aridi ◽  
Jatminderpal Bhela ◽  
Besma Nejim ◽  
Apurva Bhavana Challa ◽  
...  

Background: Fenestrated endovascular repair (FEVAR) and chimney endovascular repair (ChEVAR) endovascular repair offer a less invasive alternative to open aortic repair (OAR) in managing juxtarenal, pararenal, and suprarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). The aim of this study is to evaluate the 30-day postoperative outcomes following endovascular and open repair of nonruptured AAA involving the renal vessels. Study Design: All patients undergoing endovascular (FEVAR and ChEVAR) and open repair of juxtarenal, pararenal, and suprarenal AAA in National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2012 to 2016 were included. Continuous and categorical covariates were analyzed using medians and χ2/Fisher exact test, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate primary (mortality) and secondary (renal and cardiopulmonary failure) outcomes between open versus endovascular approach. Results: A total of 1191 patients underwent AAA repair using open (72%) or endovascular (FEVAR: 14%, ChEVAR: 14%) approach. In univariate analysis, no significant difference in 30-day mortality was seen between the 3 groups (FEVAR: 2.47% vs ChEVAR: 7.32% vs OAR: 6.13%, P = .13). However, 30-day major complications including renal failure (9.36% vs 6.10% vs 1.85%, P = .003) and cardiopulmonary complications (19.77% vs 3.66% vs 4.94%, P < 001) failure were significantly higher in patients undergoing OAR versus ChEVAR versus FEVAR. After adjusting for potential confounders, OAR was associated with 2- to 5-folds increased risk of mortality (odds ratio, OR [95% confidence interval, CI]: 2.14 [1.09-4.21], P = .03), renal (OR [95% CI]: 2.87 [1.48-5.57], P = .002), and cardiopulmonary failure (OR [95% CI]: 4.63 [2.47-8.67], P < .001) compared to any endovascular repair. Conclusion: Using a large national surgical data set, our study found 2- to 5-folds higher mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing open versus endovascular repair of AAA involving the renal vessels. Endovascular repair seems to be a safer approach, especially when managing older patients with AAA.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document