Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston MA, USA.
Department of Surgery, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
J Vasc Surg. 2023 Jun;77(6):1676-1684. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2023.02.009. Epub 2023 Feb 24.
Endoleaks may be seen at case completion of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), and the presence of an endoleak may impact outcomes. However, the clinical implications of various endoleaks seen during follow-up is not well-described. Therefore, we studied the impact of endoleaks at completion and at follow-up on mid-term outcomes.
We reviewed patients who underwent EVAR from 2003 to 2016 within the Vascular Quality Initiative-Medicare database and identified patients with endoleak at procedure completion and during follow-up, excluding those presenting with rupture. We stratified cohorts by presence of completion and follow-up endoleak subtypes. The primary outcome was 5-year survival, and secondary outcomes included 5-year freedom from reintervention and freedom from rupture. We used Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank tests to analyze differences in time-to-event endpoints.
Of 21,745 patients with completion endoleak data, 5085 (23%) had an endoleak. Compared with those without endoleak, those with type I endoleaks had lower 5-year survival (69% vs 75%; P < .001), type II endoleaks had higher survival (79%; P < .001), and types III, IV, and indeterminate were not statistically different (73%, 73%, and 75%, respectively). Freedom from reintervention for types I and III endoleaks were significantly lower than no endoleak cohort (I: 76%; P < .001; III: 72%; P < .001 vs 83%), but freedom from rupture was higher for those with type II and III endoleak (95% and 97% vs 94%; P < .001). Of 14,479 patients with detailed follow-up endoleak data, 2290 (16%) had an endoleak. Compared with those without endoleak, types I and III had significantly lower 5-year survival (I: 80%; P = .002; III: 66%; P < .001 vs 84%), but there were no differences for types II (82%) and indeterminate (77%). Those with any type of follow-up endoleak had lower 5-year freedom from reintervention (I: 70%; P < .001; II: 76%; P = .006; III: 36%; P < .001; indeterminate: 60%; P = .007 vs 84%), and lower freedom from rupture (I: 92%; P < .001; II: 91%; P = .16; III: 88%; P = .01; indeterminate: 90%; P = .11 vs 94%).
Compared with patients with no endoleak, those with type I completion endoleaks have lower 5-year survival and freedom from reintervention. Patients with types I and III follow-up endoleaks also have lower survival, and any endoleak at follow-up is associated with lower freedom from reintervention and freedom from rupture. These data highlight the importance of careful patient selection and close postoperative follow-up after EVAR, as the presence of endoleaks, specifically type I and III, over time portends worse outcomes.
血管内腹主动脉瘤修复术(EVAR)完成时可能会出现内漏,内漏的存在可能会影响结果。然而,在随访过程中出现的各种内漏的临床意义尚未得到很好的描述。因此,我们研究了完成时和随访时的内漏对中期结果的影响。
我们回顾了 2003 年至 2016 年期间血管质量倡议-医疗保险数据库中接受 EVAR 的患者,并确定了在手术完成时和随访期间存在内漏的患者,排除了破裂的患者。我们根据完成时和随访时内漏亚型的存在对队列进行分层。主要结果是 5 年生存率,次要结果包括 5 年免于再次干预和免于破裂。我们使用 Kaplan-Meier 估计和对数秩检验来分析时间事件终点的差异。
在有完成时内漏数据的 21745 名患者中,5085 名(23%)有内漏。与无内漏患者相比,I 型内漏患者的 5 年生存率较低(69% vs 75%;P<0.001),II 型内漏患者的生存率较高(79%;P<0.001),而 III 型、IV 型和不确定型内漏则无统计学差异(分别为 73%、73%和 75%)。I 型和 III 型内漏的免于再次干预率明显低于无内漏组(I:76%;P<0.001;III:72%;P<0.001 与 83%),但 II 型和 III 型内漏的免于破裂率较高(95%和 97%与 94%;P<0.001)。在有详细随访内漏数据的 14479 名患者中,2290 名(16%)有内漏。与无内漏患者相比,I 型和 III 型患者的 5 年生存率明显较低(I:80%;P=0.002;III:66%;P<0.001 与 84%),但 II 型和不确定型内漏无差异(82%和 77%)。任何类型的随访内漏患者的 5 年免于再次干预率较低(I:70%;P<0.001;II:76%;P=0.006;III:36%;P<0.001;不确定型:60%;P=0.007 与 84%),免于破裂率较低(I:92%;P<0.001;II:91%;P=0.16;III:88%;P=0.01;不确定型:90%;P=0.11 与 94%)。
与无内漏患者相比,I 型完成时内漏患者的 5 年生存率和免于再次干预率较低。I 型和 III 型随访内漏患者的生存率也较低,随访时任何内漏均与免于再次干预和免于破裂的可能性降低有关。这些数据强调了在 EVAR 后仔细选择患者和密切随访的重要性,因为内漏的存在,特别是 I 型和 III 型,随着时间的推移预示着更差的结果。