Lesperance Kelly, Andersen Charles, Singh Niten, Starnes Benjamin, Martin Matthew J
Department of Surgery, Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, WA 98431, USA.
J Vasc Surg. 2008 Jun;47(6):1165-70; discussion 1170-1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.01.055. Epub 2008 Apr 3.
Endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) has become widely accepted in the elective setting but remains controversial for emergency repair of ruptured aneurysms (rAAA). We sought to examine the national trends in use and associated outcomes with EVAR.
The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) was used to analyze all admissions for rAAA from 2001 through 2004. Nationwide temporal trends and demographics using weighted samples were evaluated. Focused univariate and multivariate analyses comparing outcomes from open repair and EVAR were done for the years 2003 and 2004.
There were 28,123 admissions for rAAA, with a stepwise decline in admissions from 2001 to 2004. Use of EVAR increased significantly from 6% of all emergency repairs in 2001 to 11% in 2004 (P < .01). Mortality for EVAR declined significantly from 43% to 29% (P < .01), but mortality with open repair showed no change (40% to 43%). From the 2003 to 2004 data set, 949 EVAR and 8982 open repairs were identified. Compared with open repair, the EVAR patients had lower mortality (31% vs 42%), shorter hospital stay (6 vs 9 days), and were more likely to be discharged to home (59% vs 37%, all P < .01). The total hospital charges for EVAR and open repair were similar (dollars 71,428 vs $74,520, P = .59). Mortality for EVAR was significantly higher at nonteaching hospitals compared with teaching centers (55% vs 21%, P < .01) and at nonteaching centers, even exceeding that of open repair (46%). Regression modeling confirmed the overall benefits of EVAR as well as the worse outcomes at nonteaching facilities after adjusting for patient comorbidities, disease severity, and hospital or system covariates.
Endovascular repair is being increasingly used in the emergency management of ruptured AAA, with steadily decreasing mortality during the study period. Endovascular AAA repair is associated with improved mortality and outcomes compared with open repair, but results in nonteaching centers are substantially worse than those in teaching hospitals.
腹主动脉瘤(AAA)的血管内修复术(EVAR)在择期手术中已被广泛接受,但对于破裂性动脉瘤(rAAA)的急诊修复仍存在争议。我们试图研究EVAR的全国使用趋势及相关结果。
利用全国住院患者样本(NIS)分析2001年至2004年所有rAAA患者的住院情况。采用加权样本评估全国范围内的时间趋势和人口统计学特征。对2003年和2004年开放修复和EVAR的结果进行了重点单因素和多因素分析。
rAAA患者共住院28123例,从2001年到2004年住院人数呈逐步下降趋势。EVAR的使用比例从2001年所有急诊修复手术的6%显著增加到2004年的11%(P <.01)。EVAR的死亡率从43%显著下降到29%(P <.01),而开放修复的死亡率没有变化(40%至43%)。从2003年至2004年的数据集中,确定了949例EVAR和8982例开放修复手术。与开放修复相比,接受EVAR治疗的患者死亡率更低(31%对42%),住院时间更短(6天对9天),且更有可能出院回家(59%对37%,所有P <.01)。EVAR和开放修复的总住院费用相似(71428美元对74520美元,P =.59)。与教学中心相比,非教学医院EVAR的死亡率显著更高(55%对21%,P <.01),在非教学中心,甚至超过了开放修复的死亡率(46%)。回归模型证实了EVAR的总体益处,以及在调整患者合并症、疾病严重程度和医院或系统协变量后,非教学机构的结果更差。
血管内修复术在破裂性AAA的急诊治疗中使用越来越多,在研究期间死亡率稳步下降。与开放修复相比,血管内AAA修复术可改善死亡率和治疗结果,但非教学中心的结果明显比教学医院差。