Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa.
J Vasc Surg. 2018 May;67(5):1404-1409.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.08.057. Epub 2017 Oct 31.
Evidence for benefit of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) over open surgical repair for de novo infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in younger patients remains conflicting because of heterogeneous study populations and small sample sizes. The objective of this study was to compare perioperative and short-term outcomes for EVAR and open surgery in younger patients using a large national disease and procedure-specific data set.
We identified patients 65 years of age or younger undergoing first-time elective EVAR or open AAA repair from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2003-2014). We excluded patients with pararenal or thoracoabdominal aneurysms, those medically unfit for open repair, and those undergoing EVAR for isolated iliac aneurysms. Clinical and procedural characteristics were balanced using inverse propensity of treatment weighting. A supplemental analysis extended the study to those younger than 70 years.
We identified 2641 patients, 73% (n = 1928) EVAR and 27% (n = 713) open repair. The median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 59-64 years), and 13% were female. The median follow-up time was 401 days (interquartile range, 357-459 days). Unadjusted perioperative survival was 99.6% overall (open repair, 99.1%; EVAR, 99.8%; P < .001), with 97.4% 1-year survival overall (open repair, 97.3%; EVAR, 97.4%; P = .9). Unadjusted reintervention rates were five (open repair) and seven (EVAR) reinterventions per 100 person-years (P = .8). After propensity weighting, the absolute incidence of perioperative mortality was <1% in both groups (open repair, 0.9%, EVAR, 0.2%; P < .001), and complication rates were low. Propensity-weighted survival (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.38; P = .6) and reintervention rates (open repair, 6; EVAR, 8; reinterventions per 100 person-years; P = .8) did not differ between the two interventions. The analysis of those younger than 70 years showed similar results.
In this study of younger patients undergoing repair of infrarenal AAA, 30-day morbidity and mortality for both open surgery and EVAR are low, and the absolute mortality difference is small. The prior published perioperative mortality and 1-year survival benefit of EVAR over open AAA repair is not observed in younger patients. Further studies of long-term durability are needed to guide decision-making for open repair vs EVAR in this population.
由于研究人群异质性和样本量小,对于年轻患者的新发肾下腹主动脉瘤(AAA),血管内修复术(EVAR)相对于开放手术的益处证据仍存在争议。本研究的目的是使用大型全国性疾病和特定手术数据集比较年轻患者中 EVAR 和开放手术的围手术期和短期结果。
我们从血管质量倡议(2003-2014 年)中确定了 65 岁或以下接受首次择期 EVAR 或开放 AAA 修复的患者。我们排除了肾旁或胸腹主动脉瘤患者、不适合开放修复的患者以及因孤立性髂动脉瘤而行 EVAR 的患者。使用逆倾向治疗权重平衡临床和程序特征。补充分析将研究扩展到 70 岁以下的患者。
我们确定了 2641 名患者,73%(n=1928)接受 EVAR,27%(n=713)接受开放修复。中位年龄为 62 岁(四分位距,59-64 岁),13%为女性。中位随访时间为 401 天(四分位距,357-459 天)。未调整的围手术期生存率总体为 99.6%(开放修复,99.1%;EVAR,99.8%;P<0.001),总体 1 年生存率为 97.4%(开放修复,97.3%;EVAR,97.4%;P=0.9)。未调整的再干预率为每 100 人年 5(开放修复)和 7(EVAR)次再干预(P=0.8)。在倾向加权后,两组的围手术期死亡率绝对值均<1%(开放修复,0.9%;EVAR,0.2%;P<0.001),并发症发生率较低。倾向加权后的生存率(风险比,0.88;95%置信区间,0.56-1.38;P=0.6)和再干预率(开放修复,6;EVAR,8;每 100 人年的再干预次数;P=0.8)在两种干预措施之间没有差异。对 70 岁以下患者的分析显示出类似的结果。
在这项对接受肾下 AAA 修复的年轻患者的研究中,开放手术和 EVAR 的 30 天发病率和死亡率均较低,绝对死亡率差异较小。EVAR 与开放 AAA 修复相比,先前发表的围手术期死亡率和 1 年生存率优势在年轻患者中并不明显。需要进一步的长期耐久性研究来指导该人群中开放修复与 EVAR 的决策。