Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
J Vasc Surg. 2011 Jan;53(1):6-12,13.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.08.051. Epub 2010 Oct 27.
Late survival is similar after open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (EVAR), despite a perioperative benefit with EVAR. AAA-related reinterventions are more common after EVAR, whereas laparotomy-related reinterventions are more common after open repair. The effect of reinterventions on survival, however, is unknown. We therefore evaluated the rate of reinterventions and readmission after initial AAA repair, 30-day mortality, and the effect on long-term survival.
We identified AAA-related and laparotomy-related reinterventions for propensity score-matched cohorts of 45,652 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing EVAR and open repair from 2001 to 2004. Follow-up was up to 6 years. Hospitalizations for ruptured AAA without repair and for bowel obstruction or ventral hernia without abdominal surgery were also recorded. Event rates were calculated per year and are presented through 6 years of follow-up as events per 100 person-years. Thirty-day mortality was calculated for each reintervention or readmission.
Through 6 years, overall reinterventions or readmissions were similar between repair methods but slightly more common after EVAR (7.6 vs 7.0/100 person-years; relative risk [RR], 1.1; P < .001). Overall 30-day mortality with any reintervention or readmission was 9.1%. EVAR patients had more ruptures (0.50 vs 0.09 [RR, 5.7; P < .001]), with a mortality of 28%, but these were uncommon. EVAR patients also had more AAA-related reinterventions through 6 years (3.7 vs 0.9 [RR, 4.0; P < .001]; mortality, 5.6%), most of which were minor endovascular reinterventions (2.4 vs 0.2 [RR, 11.4; P < .001]), with a 30-day mortality of 3.0%. However, minor open (0.8 vs 0.5 [RR, 1.4; P < .001]; mortality, 6.9%) and major reinterventions (0.4 vs 0.2 [RR, 2.4; P < .001]; mortality, 12.1%) were also more common after EVAR than open repair. Conversely, EVAR patients had fewer laparotomy-related reinterventions than open patients (1.4 vs 3.0 [RR, 0.5; P < .001]; mortality, 8.1%) and readmissions without surgery (2.0 vs 2.7 [RR, 0.7; P < .001]; mortality 10.9%). Overall, reinterventions or readmission accounted for 9.6% of all EVAR deaths and 7.6% of all open repair deaths in the follow-up period (P < .001).
Reintervention and readmission are slightly higher after EVAR. Survival is negatively affected by reintervention or readmission after EVAR and open surgery, which likely contributes to the erosion of the survival benefit of EVAR over time.
尽管 EVAR 具有围手术期优势,但开放和血管内腹主动脉瘤(AAA)修复术后的长期生存情况相似。EVAR 后 AAA 相关再干预更为常见,而开放修复后与剖腹手术相关的再干预更为常见。然而,再干预对生存的影响尚不清楚。因此,我们评估了初始 AAA 修复后再干预和再入院的发生率、30 天死亡率以及对长期生存的影响。
我们从 2001 年至 2004 年确定了接受 EVAR 和开放修复的 Medicare 受益人的倾向评分匹配队列的 AAA 相关和剖腹手术相关再干预。随访时间长达 6 年。还记录了破裂性 AAA 未经修复、肠梗阻或腹疝未经腹部手术的住院情况。每年计算住院率,并通过 6 年的随访以每 100 人年发生的事件数表示。计算每次再干预或再入院的 30 天死亡率。
在 6 年的随访中,两种修复方法的总体再干预或再入院率相似,但 EVAR 后略高(分别为 7.6 与 7.0/100 人年;相对风险 [RR],1.1;P<0.001)。任何再干预或再入院的 30 天总死亡率为 9.1%。EVAR 患者发生更多破裂(0.50 与 0.09[RR,5.7;P<0.001]),死亡率为 28%,但这些破裂较为罕见。EVAR 患者在 6 年内还进行了更多的 AAA 相关再干预(3.7 与 0.9[RR,4.0;P<0.001]),其中大多数为较小的血管内再干预(2.4 与 0.2[RR,11.4;P<0.001]),30 天死亡率为 3.0%。然而,EVAR 后较小的开放(0.8 与 0.5[RR,1.4;P<0.001])和较大的再干预(0.4 与 0.2[RR,2.4;P<0.001])也更为常见,死亡率分别为 6.9%和 12.1%。相反,EVAR 患者的剖腹手术相关再干预(1.4 与 3.0[RR,0.5;P<0.001])和无手术再入院(2.0 与 2.7[RR,0.7;P<0.001])也少于开放修复患者,死亡率分别为 8.1%和 10.9%。总的来说,EVAR 相关死亡中有 9.6%和开放修复相关死亡中有 7.6%归因于再干预或再入院(P<0.001)。
EVAR 后再干预和再入院率略高。EVAR 和开放手术后的再干预或再入院会对生存产生负面影响,这可能导致 EVAR 的生存获益随时间逐渐减少。