Deery Sarah E, Lancaster Robert T, Gubala Anna M, O'Donnell Thomas F X, Kwolek Christopher J, Conrad Mark F, Cambria Richard P, Patel Virendra I
Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2018 Apr;48:151-158. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2017.10.017. Epub 2017 Dec 5.
Early data suggest that fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is feasible but may have higher morbidity and unclear durability compared to open surgical repair (OSR) of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAs). We compared the early experience following elective FEVAR to traditional OSR of CAAA in a high-volume open aortic center.
All patients undergoing FEVAR and OSR for elective CAAA from 1/2010-7/2015 were identified. Univariate, multivariable logistic, and Cox hazards modeling were used to compare perioperative and intermediate outcomes.
We identified 116 patients who underwent CAAA repair (18 FEVAR) with a median follow-up of 26 months. FEVAR patients had higher rates of congestive heart failure (22% vs. 5.1%; P = 0.03). Operative time was slightly longer following FEVAR (282 vs. 240 min, P = 0.02). There was no difference in 30-day operative mortality (0% in both) or major complications. Median intensive care unit (0 vs. 3 days; P < 0.001) and hospital length of stay (2.5 vs. 7 days; P < 0.001) were shorter after FEVAR. Rates of 30-day graft complications (5.6% FEVAR vs. 5.1% OSR, P = 1.0) were similar, and there was no statistically significant difference in rates of graft complications in follow-up (17% vs. 8.2%, P = 0.37). After multivariable modeling, FEVAR patients were more likely to develop late graft-related complications (hazard ratio [HR]; 5.0, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98-25). Kaplan-Meier 1-year survival was similar (100% vs. 92%), even after multivariable adjustment (HR, 0.6; 95% CI: 0.1-5.0).
Early experience in FEVAR at a high-volume open aortic center shows that FEVAR can be performed safely with comparable perioperative risk to OSR. FEVAR may be associated with graft complications during follow-up, which should be considered in clinical decision-making. Further study is warranted to better elucidate late durability of FEVAR and the impact of the learning curve on outcomes.
早期数据表明,与复杂腹主动脉瘤(CAAA)的开放手术修复(OSR)相比,开窗式血管内动脉瘤修复术(FEVAR)是可行的,但可能具有更高的发病率且耐久性不明确。我们在一个高容量的开放主动脉中心比较了择期FEVAR与传统CAAA的OSR后的早期经验。
确定了2010年1月至2015年7月期间所有接受择期CAAA的FEVAR和OSR的患者。采用单变量、多变量逻辑回归和Cox风险模型比较围手术期和中期结果。
我们确定了116例接受CAAA修复的患者(18例FEVAR),中位随访时间为26个月。FEVAR患者的充血性心力衰竭发生率更高(22%对5.1%;P = 0.03)。FEVAR后的手术时间略长(282对240分钟,P = 0.02)。30天手术死亡率(两者均为0%)或主要并发症无差异。FEVAR后中位重症监护病房住院时间(0对3天;P < 0.001)和住院时间(2.5对7天;P < 0.001)更短。30天移植物并发症发生率相似(FEVAR为5.6%对OSR为5.