Davis Frank M, Albright Jeremy, Battaglia Michael, Eliason Jonathan, Coleman Dawn, Mouawad Nicolas, Knepper Jordan, Mansour M Ashraf, Corriere Matthew, Osborne Nicholas H, Henke Peter K
Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
J Vasc Surg. 2021 Feb;73(2):417-425.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.05.039. Epub 2020 May 27.
Complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) have traditionally been treated with an open surgical repair (OSR). During the past decade, fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) has emerged as a viable option. Hospital procedural volume to outcome relationship for OSR of complex AAAs has been well established, but the impact of procedural volume on FEVAR outcomes remains undefined. This study investigated the outcomes of OSR and FEVAR for the treatment of complex AAAs and examined the hospital volume-outcome relationship for these procedures.
A retrospective review of a statewide vascular surgery registry was queried for all patients between 2012 and 2018 who underwent elective repair of a juxtarenal/pararenal AAA with FEVAR or OSR. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, and new dialysis. Secondary end points included postoperative pneumonia, renal dysfunction (creatine concentration increase of >2 mg/dL from preoperative baseline), major bleeding, early procedural complications, length of stay, and need for reintervention. To evaluate procedural volume-outcomes relationship, hospitals were stratified into low- and high-volume aortic centers based on a FEVAR annual procedural volume. To account for baseline differences, we calculated propensity scores and employed inverse probability of treatment weighting in comparing outcomes between treatment groups.
A total of 589 patients underwent FEVAR (n = 186) or OSR (n = 403) for a complex AAA. After adjustment, OSR was associated with higher rates of 30-day mortality (10.7% vs 2.9%; P < .001) and need for dialysis (11.3% vs 1.8; P < .001). Postoperative pneumonia (6.8% vs 0.3%; P < .001) and need for transfusion (39.4% vs 10.4%; P < .001) were also significantly higher in the OSR cohort. The median length of stay for OSR and FEVAR was 9 days and 3 days, respectively. For those who underwent FEVAR, endoleaks were present in 12.1% of patients at 30 days and 6.1% of patients at 1 year, with the majority being type II. With a median follow-up period of 331 days (229-378 days), 1% of FEVAR patients required a secondary procedure, and there were no FEVAR conversions to an open aortic repair. Hospitals were divided into low- and high-volume aortic centers based on their annual FEVAR volume of complex AAAs. After adjustment, hospital FEVAR procedural volume was not associated with 30-day mortality or myocardial infarction.
FEVAR was associated with lower perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with OSR for the management of complex AAAs. Procedural FEVAR volume outcome analysis suggests limited differences in 30-day morbidity, although long-term durability warrants further research.
复杂腹主动脉瘤(AAA)传统上采用开放手术修复(OSR)治疗。在过去十年中,开窗型血管腔内动脉瘤修复术(FEVAR)已成为一种可行的选择。复杂AAA的OSR的医院手术量与预后关系已得到充分证实,但手术量对FEVAR预后的影响仍不明确。本研究调查了OSR和FEVAR治疗复杂AAA的预后,并探讨了这些手术的医院手术量与预后的关系。
对全州血管外科登记处进行回顾性查询,以获取2012年至2018年间所有接受FEVAR或OSR择期修复近肾/肾旁AAA的患者。主要结局为30天死亡率、心肌梗死和新的透析需求。次要终点包括术后肺炎、肾功能不全(肌酐浓度较术前基线升高>2mg/dL)、大出血、早期手术并发症、住院时间和再次干预需求。为了评估手术量与预后的关系,根据FEVAR年度手术量将医院分为低手术量和高手术量主动脉中心。为了考虑基线差异,我们计算了倾向得分,并在比较治疗组之间的结局时采用了治疗加权的逆概率。
共有589例患者接受了FEVAR(n = 186)或OSR(n = 403)治疗复杂AAA。调整后,OSR与较高的30天死亡率(10.7%对2.9%;P <.001)和透析需求(11.3%对1.8;P <.001)相关。OSR队列中的术后肺炎(6.8%对0.3%;P <.001)和输血需求(39.4%对10.4%;P <.001)也显著更高。OSR和FEVAR的中位住院时间分别为9天和3天。对于接受FEVAR的患者,30天时12.1%的患者存在内漏,1年时6.1%的患者存在内漏,大多数为II型。中位随访期为331天(229 - 378天),1%的FEVAR患者需要二次手术,且没有FEVAR转换为开放主动脉修复。根据复杂AAA的年度FEVAR手术量将医院分为低手术量和高手术量主动脉中心。调整后,医院FEVAR手术量与30天死亡率或心肌梗死无关。
对于复杂AAA的治疗,FEVAR与OSR相比,围手术期发病率和死亡率更低。FEVAR手术量结局分析表明30天发病率差异有限,尽管长期耐久性值得进一步研究。