Life expectancy after endovascular versus open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: Results of a decision analysis model on the basis of data from EUROSTAR

AbstractBackground/Objectives: Although endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (ENDO) has decreased operative morbidity risks compared with open AAA repair (OPEN), risks of rupture and reintervention are higher after ENDO. We used decision analysis to examine the effect of these competing risks on quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) after ENDO and OPEN. Methods: We used a Markov decision-analysis model to simulate hypothetic cohorts of patients undergoing ENDO or OPEN. Patients moved through a multistate transition model according to probabilities derived from the literature, the EUROSTAR database (for ENDO) and Medicare claims data (for OPEN). Our primary outcome measure was QALE after surgery. We used sensitivity analysis to determine which factors most influenced this outcome. Results: In the base-case analysis of 70-year-old men, life expectancy after ENDO was 7.09 quality-adjusted life years compared with 7.03 quality-adjusted life years for OPEN, a difference of 3 weeks. Sensitivity analysis showed that at less than age 64 years, OPEN results in greater QALE. However, the difference in QALE was small (<3 months) across the entire range of ages studied (60 to 85 years). The optimal strategy was sensitive to changes in ENDO and OPEN operative mortality rate, rupture rate after ENDO, late conversion to OPEN rate, ENDO revision rate, and OPEN reoperation rate. However, the difference between OPEN and ENDO strategies was small across the plausible range of most of these variables. Conclusion: For most patients who are candidates for AAA repair, ENDO and OPEN result in similar QALE. Decision analysis suggests that OPEN may be preferred for younger patients with low operative risk and ENDO may be preferred for older patients with higher operative risk. However, given the similarity in overall outcome, patient preference should be weighed heavily in decision making. (J Vasc Surg 2002;36:1112-20.

National trends in utilization, mortality, and survival after repair of type B aortic dissection in the Medicare population

ObjectiveThe application of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has changed treatment paradigms for thoracic aortic disease. We sought to better define specific treatment patterns and outcomes for type B aortic dissection treated with TEVAR or open surgical repair (OSR).MethodsMedicare patients undergoing type B thoracic aortic dissection repair (2000-2010) were identified by use of a validated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnostic and procedural code–based algorithm. Trends in utilization were analyzed by procedure type (OSR vs TEVAR), and patterns in patient characteristics and outcomes were examined.ResultsTotal thoracic aortic dissection repairs increased by 21% between 2000 and 2010 (2.5 to 3 per 100,000 Medicare patients; P = .001). A concomitant increase in TEVAR was seen during the same interval (0.03 to 0.8 per 100,000; P < .001). By 2010, TEVAR represented 27% of all repairs. TEVAR patients had higher rates of comorbid congestive heart failure (12% vs 9%; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (17% vs 10%; P < .001), diabetes (8% vs 5%; P < .001), and chronic renal failure (8% vs 3%; P < .001) compared with OSR patients. For all repairs, patient comorbidity burden increased over time (mean Charlson comorbidity score of 0.79 in 2000, 1.10 in 2010; P = .04). During this same interval, in-hospital mortality rates declined from 47% to 23% (P < .001), a trend seen in both TEVAR and OSR patients. Whereas in-hospital mortality rates and 3-year survival were similar between patients selected for TEVAR and OSR, there was a trend toward women having slightly lower 3-year survival after TEVAR (60% women vs 63% men; P = .07).ConclusionsSurgical treatment of type B aortic dissection has increased over time, reflecting an increase in the utilization of TEVAR. Overall, type B dissection repairs are currently performed at lower mortality risk in patients with more comorbidities

Results of the ANCHOR prospective, multicenter registry of EndoAnchors for type Ia endoleaks and endograft migration in patients with challenging anatomy

ObjectiveProximal attachment site complications continue to occur after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR), specifically type Ia endoleak and endograft migration. EndoAnchors (Aptus Endosystems, Sunnyvale, Calif) were designed to enhance endograft proximal fixation and sealing, and the current study was undertaken to evaluate the potential benefit of this treatment.MethodsDuring the 23-month period ending in December 2013, 319 subjects were enrolled at 43 sites in the United States and Europe. EndoAnchors were implanted in 242 patients (75.9%) at the time of an initial EVAR procedure (primary arm) and in 77 patients with an existing endograft and proximal aortic neck complications (revision arm). Technical success was defined as deployment of the desired number of EndoAnchors, adequate penetration of the vessel wall, and absence of EndoAnchor fracture. Procedural success was defined as technical success without a type Ia endoleak at completion angiography. Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation and interquartile range.ResultsThe 238 male (74.6%) and 81 female (25.4%) subjects had a mean age of 74.1 ± 8.2 years. Aneurysms averaged 58 ± 13 (51-63) mm in diameter at the time of EndoAnchor implantation (core laboratory measurements). The proximal aortic neck averaged 16 ± 13 (7-23) mm in length (42.7% <10 mm and 42.7% conical) and 27 ± 4 mm (25-30 mm) in diameter; infrarenal neck angulation was 24 ± 15 (13-34) degrees. The number of EndoAnchors deployed was 5.8 ± 2.1 (4-7). Technical success was achieved in 303 patients (95.0%) and procedural success in 279 patients (87.5%), 217 of 240 (89.7%) and 62 of 77 (80.5%) in the primary and revision arms, respectively. There were 29 residual type Ia endoleaks (9.1%) at the end of the procedure. During mean follow-up of 9.3 ± 4.7 months, 301 patients (94.4%) were free from secondary procedures. Among the 18 secondary procedures, eight were performed for residual type Ia endoleaks and the others were unrelated to EndoAnchors. There were no open surgical conversions, there were no aneurysm-related deaths, and no aneurysm ruptured during follow-up.ConclusionsUse of EndoAnchors to treat existing and acute type Ia endoleaks and endograft migration was successful in most cases. Prophylactic use of EndoAnchors in patients with hostile aortic neck anatomy appears promising, but definitive conclusions must await longer term follow-up data