Siribumrungwong Boonying, Kurita Jiro, Ueda Tatsuo, Yasui Daisuke, Takahashi Ken-Ichiro, Sasaki Takashi, Miyagi Yasuo, Sakamoto Shun-Ichiro, Ishii Yosuke, Morota Tetsuro, Nitta Takashi
Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Thammasat University Hospital, Pathum Thani, Thailand; Center of Excellence in Applied Epidemiology, Thammasat University, Thailand.
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Nippon Medical School Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Asian J Surg. 2022 Jan;45(1):346-352. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2021.06.015. Epub 2021 Jun 27.
Operative mortality after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been reported as lower than open surgical repair (OSR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in randomized controlled trials. However, many cohort studies have demonstrated similar mortality rates for both procedures. We compared operative mortality between EVAR and OSR, at our institution.
All AAA operations from 2012 to 2017 were reviewed, and baseline characteristics were collected. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, operative data, complications, length of hospital stay (LOS), costs, re-intervention, and survival rates were compared. A multivariable analysis with unbalanced characteristics was performed.
We had a total of 162 patients, 100 having OSR and 62 for EVAR. The EVAR group was older, with higher ASA classification. Thirty-day mortality rate did not significantly differ (0/100 for OSR and 2/62 (3%) for EVAR; p = 0.145), while the EVAR group had less blood loss, shorter operative times, and LOS, but higher re-intervention rates (adjusted hazard ratio 6.4 (95%CI: 1.4, 26.8)). Survival rates did not significantly differ between the groups. EVAR cost approximately 1-million yen more.
OSR had low 30-day mortality rate in selected low-risk patients whereas EVAR had less blood loss, shorter operative times, LOS and could be done in high-risk patients with low 30-day mortality but with higher re-intervention rate.
在随机对照试验中,腹主动脉瘤(AAA)腔内修复术(EVAR)后的手术死亡率已被报道低于开放手术修复(OSR)。然而,许多队列研究表明两种手术的死亡率相似。我们在本机构比较了EVAR和OSR之间的手术死亡率。
回顾了2012年至2017年所有的AAA手术,并收集了基线特征。比较的结果包括30天死亡率、手术数据、并发症、住院时间(LOS)、费用、再次干预情况和生存率。进行了具有不平衡特征的多变量分析。
我们共有162例患者,100例行OSR,62例行EVAR。EVAR组患者年龄更大,美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)分级更高。30天死亡率无显著差异(OSR为0/100,EVAR为2/62(3%);p = 0.145),而EVAR组失血量更少,手术时间和住院时间更短,但再次干预率更高(调整后风险比为6.4(95%CI:1.4,26.8))。两组间生存率无显著差异。EVAR的费用大约多100万日元。
在选定的低风险患者中,OSR的30天死亡率较低,而EVAR失血量更少,手术时间和住院时间更短,可用于30天死亡率低但再次干预率高的高风险患者。