A statewide experience with endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: rapid diffusion with excellent early results.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare survival and outcomes of endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in New York State (NYS).

METHODS

We used the NYS discharge dataset Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) to analyze the outcomes of elective admission for nonruptured (International Classification of Diseases-9th revision [ICD-9] 441.4) open aneurysm repair (38.44) and endovascular aneurysm repair (39.71) during the years 2000-2002. The ICD-9 code for endovascular repair was introduced in late 2000, thus capturing 3 months of empiric data for 2000.

RESULTS

There has been a significant increase in the number of AAA procedures performed in NYS (comparing before and after 2000: average, 1419 vs 1701; P =.0001), temporally coinciding with the implementation of training programs after US Food and Drug Administration approval of endovascular grafts and the new payment code. From 2000 to 2002 the number of NYS hospitals performing endovascular repairs increased from 24 to 60. By 2002 there were more endovascular repairs being performed than open repairs (871 vs 783). The target population for these surgical interventions showed interesting differences. In 2002, women had a 43% chance of receiving an endograft, whereas men had a 55% probability. The use of endovascular repair over the observation period was relatively constant in patients younger than 65 years. In patients older than 65 years, and especially those older than 75 years, endovascular use increased substantially, so that by 2002 older patients were more likely to undergo endovascular repair than open repair. Patients who underwent endovascular repair had significantly more hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia than did patients who underwent open repair. Yet the mean length of stay for endovascular procedures was approximately 3.6 days, and for open procedures was about 10.3 days, across all 3 years (P = <.0001). Moreover, patients who underwent endovascular repair had statistically fewer postoperative complications and significantly lower mortality. In-hospital mortality in 2001 was 3.55% for open repair and 1.14% for endovascular repair (P =.0018), and in 2002 these rates were 4.21% versus 0.8% (P <.0001), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This dataset suggests that endovascular AAA repairs are being performed in a patient population with a higher frequency of comorbidities. However, endovascular repairs still are associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality, fewer postoperative complications, and a dramatically shorter length of stay. These results suggest that, despite the rapid diffusion of this new technique, early perioperative outcomes may be superior to those with conventional open repair. However, prospective clinical studies are needed to confirm these insights, and such studies may require the infrastructure of consortia of hospitals or society-based registries.