Comparison of open and endovascular repair of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Yadavalli SD, Rastogi V, Mehta A, Allievi S, Solomon Y, de Bruin JL, Arya S, Stangenberg L, Verhagen HJM, Schermerhorn ML. Comparison of open and endovascular repair of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms. Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2024 Oct 19.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare perioperative and 5-year outcomes following endovascular (FEVAR) and open repair (OAR) of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (cAAAs) in males and females separately, given the known sex-related differences in perioperative outcomes. METHODS: We studied all elective cAAA repairs between 2014 and 2019 in the Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION) registry. We stratified patients based on sex. We calculated propensity scores for assignment to either OAR or FEVAR. Covariates including age, race, diameter, baseline comorbidities, proximal extent of repair, annual center volumes, and annual surgeon volumes were introduced into the model for estimating propensity scores. Within matched cohorts, perioperative outcomes and 5-year outcomes (mortality, reinterventions, and ruptures) were evaluated using multivariable logistic and Cox regression models. RESULTS: We identified 2825 patients, of whom 29% were female. Within both the sexes, OAR was more commonly performed (OAR vs FEVAR: males: 53% vs 47%; females: 63% vs 37%). After matching, among males (n  = 1326), FEVAR was associated with lower perioperative mortality (FEVAR vs OAR: 2.3% vs 5.1%; P  < .001). However, FEVAR was associated with comparable 5-year mortality (38% vs 28%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.4; P  = .22) and a higher hazard of 5-year reintervention (19% vs 3.7%; adjusted HR, 4.5; 95% CI, 2.6-7.6; P  < .001). Among females (n  = 456), FEVAR and OAR showed similar perioperative mortality (8.3% vs 7.0%; P  = .73). At 5 years, FEVAR was associated with higher hazards of mortality (43% vs 32%; adjusted HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.03-2.2; P  = .034) and reintervention (20% vs 3.0%; adjusted HR, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.1-11; P  < .001) compared with OAR. CONCLUSIONS: Among males, FEVAR was associated with favorable perioperative outcomes compared with OAR, although these advantages attenuate over time. However, among females, FEVAR was associated with similar perioperative outcomes, eventually leading to higher reinterventions and possibly higher mortality within 5 years. Future efforts should focus on determining the factors associated with these sex disparities to improve outcomes following FEVAR in females. Based on current evidence, females undergoing elective cAAA repair should be selected with due caution, especially for endovascular repair.