scholarly journals EP.WE.906Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm – A Retrospective Analysis of Outcomes from a UK Teaching Hospital

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Giordano Perin ◽  
Mukesh Garg ◽  
Nandan Haldipur

Abstract Aims Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (EVAR) is a minimally invasive technique that has become increasingly popular in the past few years. Recent evidence questioned the long term durability of the technique and highlighted the relevance of long term complications and reinterventions. The aim of this paper is to evaluate long term outcomes of EVAR with a focus on survival and aneurysm related reinterventions. Methods We retrospectively analysed all elective EVAR procedures performed for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) between May 2010 and June 2016 in our institution. Data collected included - comorbidities, post operative survival and post operative aneurysm related interventions. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meyer method. We build a Cox Proportional-Hazard model to identify factors associated with increased mortality. Results 182 patients were included in our analysis. Median age was 77 years (50-92). Median follow up was 65 months (31-104). During the follow up period we recorded 41 deaths. 30 day mortality was 0.5% (1), 2 year mortality was 8.7% (16). 17 patients (9.3%) required reintervention during the follow up period (2.4 reinterventions per 100 patient-years). Conclusions Our medium and long term outcomes following EVAR are comparable with what has been reported in the literature. A higher ASA grade and advanced age were associated with increased mortality in our cohort.

Author(s):  
SreyRam Kuy ◽  
Kai J. Yang ◽  
Anahita Dua

This chapter provides a summary of a landmark study in vascular surgery examining whether early, prophylactic repair of small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA; 4.0 to 5.5 cm) improves 5-year survival. The study found that among patients with a small AAA <5.5 cm in diameter, early surgical intervention confers no survival benefit over initial surveillance. The chapter describes the basics of the study, including funding, year study began, year study was published, study location, who was studied, who was excluded, how many patients, study design, study intervention, follow-up, endpoints, results, and criticism and limitations. The chapter briefly reviews other relevant studies and information, gives a summary and discusses implications, and concludes with a relevant clinical case.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 162
Author(s):  
Christian-Alexander Behrendt ◽  
Thea Kreutzburg ◽  
Jenny Kuchenbecker ◽  
Giuseppe Panuccio ◽  
Mark Dankhoff ◽  
...  

Objective: Previous studies have showed a potential disadvantage of female patients who underwent abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. The current study aims to determine sex-specific perioperative and long-term outcomes using propensity score matched unselected nationwide health insurance claims data. Methods: Insurance claims from a large German fund were used, covering around 8% of the insured German population. Patients who underwent endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) for intact AAA from 1 January 2011 to 30 April 2017 were included in the cohort. A 1:2 female to male propensity score matching was applied to adjust for confounding variables. Perioperative and long-term outcomes after 5 years were determined using matching and regression methods. Results: Among a total of 3736 patients (19.3% females, mean 75 years) undergoing EVAR for intact AAA, we identified 1863 matched patients. Before matching, females were more likely to be previously diagnosed with hypothyroidism, electrolyte disorders, rheumatoid disorders, and depression, while males were more often diabetics. In the matched sample, 23.4% of the females and 25.8% of the males died during a median follow-up of 776 and 792 days, respectively. Perioperatively, females were more likely to exhibit acute limb ischemia (5.3% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.031) and major bleeding (22.0% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.001) before they were discharged to rehabilitation (5.5% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.001) when compared to males. No statistically significant difference in perioperative (odds ratio 1.12, 95% CI 0.54–2.16) or long-term mortality (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.76–1.08) was observed between sexes. This was also true regarding aortic reintervention rates after 1 year (2.0% vs. 2.9%) and 5 years (10.9% vs. 8.1%). Conclusion: The current retrospective matched analysis of insurance claims revealed high early access-related morbidity in females when compared to their male counterparts. Short-term or long-term survival and reintervention outcomes were similar between sexes.


Angiology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 71 (7) ◽  
pp. 641-649
Author(s):  
Rebecka Hultgren ◽  
K. Miriam Elfström ◽  
Daniel Öhman ◽  
Anneli Linné

A screening program for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), inviting 65-year-old men, was started in Stockholm in 2010 (2.3 million inhabitants). The aim was to present a long-term follow-up of men participating in screening, as well as AAA repair and ruptures among nonparticipants. Demographics were collected for men with screening detected with AAA 2010 to 2016 (n = 672) and a control group with normal aortas at screening (controls, n = 237). Medical charts and regional Swedvasc (Swedish Vascular registry) data were analyzed for aortic repair for men born 1945 to 1951. Ultrasound maximum aortic diameter (AD) as well as Aortic Size Index (ASI) was recorded. Participation was 78% and prevalence of AAA was 1.2% (n = 672). Aortic repair rates correlated with high ASI and AD. During the study period, 22% of the AAA patients were treated with the elective repair; 35 men in surveillance died (5.2%), non-AAA-related causes (82.9%) dominated, followed by unknown causes among 4 (11.4%), and 2 (5.7%) possibly AAA-related deaths. Abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture rate was higher among nonparticipants (0.096% vs 0.0036%, P < .001). The low dropout rate confirms acceptability of follow-up after screening. The efficacy is shown by the much higher rupture rate among the nonparticipating men.


2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 2020-2027 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Reite ◽  
Kjetil Søreide ◽  
Jan Terje Kvaløy ◽  
Morten Vetrhus

2011 ◽  
Vol 53 (6) ◽  
pp. 42S
Author(s):  
Konstantinos Papazoglou ◽  
Giorgos S. Sfyroeras ◽  
Neofytos Zambas ◽  
Konstantinos Konstantinidis ◽  
Stavros Kakkos ◽  
...  

BMJ ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 344 (may04 1) ◽  
pp. e2958-e2958 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. L. Duncan ◽  
K. A. Harrild ◽  
L. Iversen ◽  
A. J. Lee ◽  
D. J. Godden

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document