Locham Satinderjit, Dakour-Aridi Hanaa, Bhela Jatminderpal, Nejim Besma, Bhavana Challa Apurva, Malas Mahmoud
1 Johns Hopkins Bayview Vascular and Endovascular Clinical Research Center, Baltimore, MD, USA.
2 University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2019 Apr;53(3):189-198. doi: 10.1177/1538574418819284. Epub 2018 Dec 26.
: Fenestrated endovascular repair (FEVAR) and chimney endovascular repair (ChEVAR) endovascular repair offer a less invasive alternative to open aortic repair (OAR) in managing juxtarenal, pararenal, and suprarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). The aim of this study is to evaluate the 30-day postoperative outcomes following endovascular and open repair of nonruptured AAA involving the renal vessels.
: All patients undergoing endovascular (FEVAR and ChEVAR) and open repair of juxtarenal, pararenal, and suprarenal AAA in National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2012 to 2016 were included. Continuous and categorical covariates were analyzed using medians and χ/Fisher exact test, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate primary (mortality) and secondary (renal and cardiopulmonary failure) outcomes between open versus endovascular approach.
: A total of 1191 patients underwent AAA repair using open (72%) or endovascular (FEVAR: 14%, ChEVAR: 14%) approach. In univariate analysis, no significant difference in 30-day mortality was seen between the 3 groups (FEVAR: 2.47% vs ChEVAR: 7.32% vs OAR: 6.13%, P = .13). However, 30-day major complications including renal failure (9.36% vs 6.10% vs 1.85%, P = .003) and cardiopulmonary complications (19.77% vs 3.66% vs 4.94%, P < 001) failure were significantly higher in patients undergoing OAR versus ChEVAR versus FEVAR. After adjusting for potential confounders, OAR was associated with 2- to 5-folds increased risk of mortality (odds ratio, OR [95% confidence interval, CI]: 2.14 [1.09-4.21], P = .03), renal (OR [95% CI]: 2.87 [1.48-5.57], P = .002), and cardiopulmonary failure (OR [95% CI]: 4.63 [2.47-8.67], P < .001) compared to any endovascular repair.
: Using a large national surgical data set, our study found 2- to 5-folds higher mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing open versus endovascular repair of AAA involving the renal vessels. Endovascular repair seems to be a safer approach, especially when managing older patients with AAA.
对于累及肾周、肾旁和肾上腹主动脉瘤(AAA)的治疗,开窗式血管腔内修复术(FEVAR)和烟囱式血管腔内修复术(ChEVAR)为开放性主动脉修复术(OAR)提供了一种侵入性较小的替代方案。本研究旨在评估涉及肾血管的非破裂性AAA血管腔内修复术和开放性修复术后30天的结果。
纳入2012年至2016年国家外科质量改进计划数据库中接受肾周、肾旁和肾上AAA血管腔内修复术(FEVAR和ChEVAR)及开放性修复术的所有患者。连续和分类协变量分别采用中位数和χ²/费舍尔精确检验进行分析。进行多变量逻辑回归分析以评估开放性与血管腔内修复方法之间的主要(死亡率)和次要(肾衰竭和心肺衰竭)结果。
共有1191例患者采用开放性(72%)或血管腔内修复术(FEVAR:14%,ChEVAR:14%)进行AAA修复。在单变量分析中,三组之间30天死亡率无显著差异(FEVAR:2.47%,ChEVAR:7.32%,OAR:6.13%,P = 0.13)。然而,与ChEVAR和FEVAR相比,接受OAR的患者30天主要并发症包括肾衰竭(9.36%对6.10%对1.85%,P = 0.003)和心肺并发症(19.77%对3.66%对4.94%,P < 0.001)的发生率显著更高。在调整潜在混杂因素后,与任何血管腔内修复术相比,OAR与死亡风险(比值比,OR[95%置信区间,CI]:2.14[1.09 - 4.21],P = 0.03)、肾衰竭(OR[95%CI]:2.87[1.48 - 5.57],P = 0.002)和心肺衰竭(OR[95%CI]:4.63[2.47 - 8.67],P < 0.001)增加2至5倍相关。
通过使用大型国家外科数据集,我们的研究发现,对于涉及肾血管的AAA患者,开放性修复术与血管腔内修复术相比,死亡率和发病率高出2至5倍。血管腔内修复术似乎是一种更安全的方法,尤其是在治疗老年AAA患者时。