Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair and open surgical repair for the treatment of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare surgical risk and early and late mortality of patients treated for anatomically classified juxtarenal aortic aneurysms (JRAs) by fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (F-EVAR) or open surgical repair (OSR) during a period when the two treatments were available and to validate an institutional algorithm for JRA repair.

METHODS

We retrospectively included all patients treated electively in our center between January 2005 and December 2015 for JRAs classified into three anatomic categories, excluding suprarenal aneurysms. Lee score and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class evaluated preoperative surgical risk. We compared clinical and radiologic parameters between the patients treated by F-EVAR and those treated by OSR. The primary study end point was 30-day mortality. We also compared 5-year survival.

RESULTS

From 2005 to 2015, there were 191 patients separated into two groups, one treated by OSR (n = 134; mean age, 69 years) and the other treated by F-EVAR (n = 57; mean age, 74 years). Patients of the F-EVAR group were significantly older (P = .001). Intensive care unit length of stay was significantly higher in the OSR group (3.4 days vs 1.5 days; P = .01). Surgical risk was significantly higher in the F-EVAR group as measured by Lee score ≥2 (OSR, 8.9 %; F-EVAR, 21%; P = .02) and ASA class 3 and class 4 (OSR, 32.8%; F-EVAR, 73.6%; P = .001), whereas 30-day postoperative mortality was not significantly different (OSR, 1.5%; F-EVAR, 0%; P = .394). The 5-year survival was not significantly different in the two groups (OSR, 82.1%; F-EVAR, 69.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, despite a higher surgical risk by Lee score and higher ASA class in the group of patients treated by F-EVAR, postoperative mortality was not significantly different between these groups. In our opinion, F-EVAR and OSR of JRA are complementary.