Department of Surgery, Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Vascular Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Surgery, Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of General Surgery, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick NJ, USA.
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2024 Mar;67(3):408-415. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2023.08.037. Epub 2023 Aug 15.
Age stratified mortality was examined following fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (F-EVAR) vs. open repair of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) METHODS: All patients undergoing first time elective F-EVAR and complex open aneurysm repair (c-OAR) for juxtarenal AAA in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2014 and 2021 were identified. Open repairs were compared with commercially available fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair and physician modified endografts (PMEGs). Patients were stratified into three age groups (< 65, 65 - 75, > 75 years). Primary outcomes were peri-operative and five year mortality, and inverse probability weighted risk adjustment was performed to account for baseline differences.
Overall, 1 961 patients underwent F-EVAR (82% commercial F-EVAR, 18% PMEG) and 3 385 patients underwent c-OAR. Across age groups, the distribution of F-EVAR (vs. c-OAR) was: < 65 years: 23%, 65 - 75 years: 33%, > 75 years: 52%. After adjustment, among patients < 65 years, compared with c-OAR, F-EVAR was associated with similar peri-operative mortality (0.9% vs. 2.1%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07 - 1.44], p = .22), and five year mortality (13% vs. 9.5%; HR 1.44, 95% CI 0.71 - 2.90, p = .31). Among patients aged 65 - 75 years, between juxtarenal AAA repair modalities, compared with c-OAR, F-EVAR was associated with a significantly lower risk of peri-operative mortality (2.2% vs. 5.0%; HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 - 0.79, p = .004), and five year mortality (13% vs. 13%; HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 - 1.36, p = .74). Similarly, among patients > 75 years, compared with c-OAR, F-EVAR was associated with lower peri-operative mortality (2.2% vs. 6.5%; HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 - 0.47, p < .001), but with similar five year mortality (18% vs. 21%; HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.57 - 1.20, p = .31).
Among patients with a juxtarenal AAA, F-EVAR was associated with a lower peri-operative mortality compared with c-OAR in patients ≥ 65 years, but was similar in those < 65 years. At five years, F-EVAR was associated with similar mortality in all age groups, though there was a non-significant trend for a higher mortality rate in younger patients.
通过比较开窗血管内动脉瘤修复术(F-EVAR)与开放手术治疗肾下腹主动脉瘤(AAA)的分层死亡率。
在血管质量倡议中,确定了 2014 年至 2021 年间首次接受择期 F-EVAR 和复杂开放动脉瘤修复(c-OAR)治疗肾下 AAA 的所有患者。将开放修复与市售的开窗血管内动脉瘤修复和医生改良的内支架(PMEGs)进行比较。患者分为三组(<65 岁、65-75 岁、>75 岁)。主要结果是围手术期和五年死亡率,并进行逆概率加权风险调整以考虑基线差异。
总体而言,1961 名患者接受了 F-EVAR(82%为商业 F-EVAR,18%为 PMEG),3385 名患者接受了 c-OAR。在各个年龄组中,F-EVAR(与 c-OAR 相比)的分布为:<65 岁:23%,65-75 岁:33%,>75 岁:52%。经过调整,在<65 岁的患者中,与 c-OAR 相比,F-EVAR 与围手术期死亡率相似(0.9%对 2.1%;风险比[HR]0.40,95%置信区间[CI]0.07-1.44],p=0.22),五年死亡率也相似(13%对 9.5%;HR 1.44,95% CI 0.71-2.90,p=0.31)。在 65-75 岁的患者中,与肾下 AAA 修复方式相比,与 c-OAR 相比,F-EVAR 显著降低围手术期死亡率(2.2%对 5.0%;HR 0.50,95% CI 0.30-0.79,p=0.004),五年死亡率也较低(13%对 13%;HR 0.94,95% CI 0.65-1.36,p=0.74)。同样,在>75 岁的患者中,与 c-OAR 相比,F-EVAR 降低了围手术期死亡率(2.2%对 6.5%;HR 0.26,95% CI 0.13-0.47,p<.001),但五年死亡率相似(18%对 21%;HR 0.83,95% CI 0.57-1.20,p=0.31)。
在肾下 AAA 患者中,与 c-OAR 相比,F-EVAR 与≥65 岁患者的围手术期死亡率较低,但在<65 岁患者中则相似。在五年时,F-EVAR 在所有年龄组中与相似的死亡率相关,但年轻患者的死亡率呈升高趋势,但无统计学意义。