Suppr超能文献

开窗式与传统血管内主动脉瘤修复术后30天再入院情况及预后

30-Day Readmission and Outcomes after Fenestrated Versus Traditional Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

作者信息

Camazine Maraya, Kruse Robin L, Bath Jonathan, Singh Priyanka, Vogel Todd R

机构信息

Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Missouri, School of Medicine, Columbia, MO.

Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri, School of Medicine, Columbia, MO.

出版信息

Ann Vasc Surg. 2022 Sep;85:314-322. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2022.03.016. Epub 2022 Mar 24.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative for repairing complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). Comparisons of outcomes for FEVAR and traditional endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are limited. We evaluated outcomes following elective endovascular AAA repair with FEVAR or EVAR.

METHODS

Hospitalizations for elective nonruptured AAA repair from 2014 to 2016 were selected from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) using ICD-9 and ICD-10 procedure and diagnosis codes. In-hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), complications, 30-day readmission, and charges were evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to control for confounding between groups.

RESULTS

We identified 23,262 EVAR and 2,373 FEVAR with nonruptured elective procedures. In-hospital mortality was 0.14% for both groups (P = 0.99). Of those at risk for readmission (21,152 EVAR, 1,915 FEVAR), index LOS was greater for FEVAR compared to EVAR, 1.8 days versus 1.7 days (P = 0.028). There was no difference in procedure type based on hospital location (P = 0.37), teaching status (P = 0.17) or hospital size (P = 0.26). During the index hospitalization, pneumonia, renal, and respiratory complications were similar between groups (all P > 0.05). FEVAR patients were more likely to experience cardiac complications (P = 0.0098) or hemorrhage (P = 0.029). Total charges for the index stay were greater for FEVAR compared to EVAR ($125,381 vs. $113,513, P < 0.0001). All-cause 30-day readmission was similar between groups (7.0% EVAR vs. 8.0% FEVAR, P = 0.37), as were time to readmission (11.9 vs. 13.3 days, P = 0.16) and readmission charges ($53,967 vs. $56,617, P = 0.75). Renal failure was the most common readmission stay complication, with similar rates for EVAR and FEVAR patients (P = 0.22). Pneumonia was a more common complication during the readmission stay for EVAR patients (P = 0.004). Renal disease and chronic pulmonary disease were the most common comorbidities in the readmission stay for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with nonruptured elective AAA, FEVAR was not associated with increased mortality, length of stay, readmission, or most complications compared to traditional EVAR. Despite the increased technical complexity of cannulating and stenting visceral arteries with FEVAR, these data demonstrate that FEVAR carries a similar risk of renal, respiratory, and infectious complications compared to traditional EVAR. FEVAR patients were more likely to experience hemorrhagic and cardiac complications during the index hospitalization. EVAR patients were more likely to have pneumonia during readmission. The overall risk for readmission after an endovascular aortic repair was associated with female sex, greater age, chronic pulmonary disease, malignancy, and loss of function. Further investigations into the causes and prevention of 30-day readmissions are needed for both procedures.

摘要

背景

开窗型血管腔内动脉瘤修复术(FEVAR)已成为修复复杂腹主动脉瘤(AAA)的一种微创替代方法。FEVAR与传统血管腔内动脉瘤修复术(EVAR)的疗效比较有限。我们评估了择期采用FEVAR或EVAR进行腹主动脉瘤血管腔内修复术后的疗效。

方法

使用ICD-9和ICD-10手术及诊断编码,从全国再入院数据库(NRD)中选取2014年至2016年择期非破裂性AAA修复的住院病例。评估住院死亡率、住院时间(LOS)、并发症、30天再入院率及费用。采用多变量逻辑回归控制组间混杂因素。

结果

我们确定了23262例接受EVAR和2373例接受FEVAR的非破裂性择期手术病例。两组的住院死亡率均为0.14%(P = 0.99)。在有再入院风险的患者中(21152例EVAR,1915例FEVAR),FEVAR组的首次住院LOS比EVAR组长,分别为1.8天和1.7天(P = 0.028)。基于医院位置(P = 0.37)、教学状况(P = 0.17)或医院规模(P = 0.26),手术类型无差异。在首次住院期间,两组的肺炎、肾脏及呼吸并发症相似(均P > 0.05)。FEVAR患者更易发生心脏并发症(P = 0.0098)或出血(P = 0.029)。FEVAR组首次住院的总费用高于EVAR组(125381美元对113513美元,P < 0.0001)。两组的全因30天再入院率相似(EVAR组为7.0%,FEVAR组为8.0%,P = 0.37);再入院时间(11.9天对13.3天,P = 0.16)及再入院费用(53967美元对56617美元,P = 0.75)也相似。肾衰竭是最常见的再入院并发症,EVAR和FEVAR患者的发生率相似(P = 0.22)。肺炎是EVAR患者再入院期间更常见的并发症(P = 0.004)。肾病和慢性肺病是两组再入院患者中最常见的合并症。

结论

对于择期非破裂性AAA患者,与传统EVAR相比,FEVAR与死亡率增加、住院时间延长、再入院或大多数并发症无关。尽管FEVAR在对内脏动脉进行插管和置入支架方面技术复杂性增加,但这些数据表明,与传统EVAR相比,FEVAR发生肾脏、呼吸及感染并发症的风险相似。FEVAR患者在首次住院期间更易发生出血和心脏并发症。EVAR患者在再入院期间更易发生肺炎。血管腔内主动脉修复术后再入院的总体风险与女性、高龄、慢性肺病、恶性肿瘤及功能丧失有关。两种手术均需要对30天再入院的原因及预防进行进一步研究。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验