Search

Purpose: To evaluate the differences in technical outcomes and secondary interventions between elective endovascular aneurysm repair (el-EVAR) procedures and those for ruptured aneurysms (r-EVAR)., Methods: Of the 906 patients treated with primary EVAR from September 1998 until July 2012, 43 cases were excluded owing to the use of first-generation stent-grafts. Among the remaining 863 patients, 773 (89.6%) patients (mean age 72 years; 697 men) with asymptomatic or symptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) were assigned to the el-EVAR group; 90 (10.4%) patients (mean age 73 years; 73 men) were assigned to the r-EVAR group based on blood outside the aortic wall on preoperative imaging. The primary study outcome was technical success; secondary endpoints, including freedom from secondary interventions and late survival, were examined with Kaplan-Meier analyses., Results: At baseline, r-EVAR patients had larger aneurysms on average (p<0.001) compared to el-EVAR patients. Technical success was comparable (p=0.052), but there were more type Ia endoleaks at completion angiography in the r-EVAR group (p=0.038). As anticipated, more patients died in the first month in the r-EVAR group (18.9% vs 2.2% el-EVAR, p<0.001). At 5 years, there was an overall survival of 65.1% for the el-EVAR patients vs 48.1% in the r-EVAR group (p<0.001). The freedom from AAA-related mortality was 95.7% for el-EVAR and 71.0% for r-EVAR (p<0.001). Five-year freedom from type I/III endoleaks was significantly lower in the r-EVAR group (78.7% vs 90.0%, p=0.003). Five-year freedom from secondary intervention estimates were not significantly different (el-EVAR 84.2% vs r-EVAR 78.2%, p=0.064)., Conclusion: Within our cohort of primary EVAR patients, r-EVAR cases showed comparable stent-graft-related technical outcome. Although there was a higher incidence of type Ia endoleaks on completion angiography in the r-EVAR group, the overall secondary intervention rate was comparable to el-EVAR., (© The Author(s) 2016.)

Purpose: To examine outcomes of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) using general, regional, or local anesthesia., Methods: From March 2009 to April 2011, patients were enrolled from 79 sites in 30 countries worldwide and treated with an Endurant Stent Graft System. Data were compared among 3 groups based on the method of anesthesia: general anesthesia (GA) was used in 785 (62%) patients, regional anesthesia (RA) in 331 (27%) patients, and local anesthesia (LA) in 145 (11%) patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust for possible confounding factors; outcomes are presented as the odds ratio and 95% confidence interval., Results: There were intercontinental differences in the distribution of type of anesthesia used for EVAR. Higher ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) classification was associated with predominant use of GA. Procedure time was reduced in LA (80.4±40.0 minutes) compared with RA (94.2±41.6 min, adjusted p=0.001) and GA (105.3±46.0 minutes, adjusted p<0.001). Intensive care unit (ICU) admission was less frequent for RA than for GA (adjusted OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.97, p=0.030) and LA (adjusted OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.79, p=0.002). Postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter for RA and LA compared with GA (adjusted p=0.003 and p=0.010, respectively). There were no significant differences in systemic and surgical complications. Mortality rates within 30 days did not differ among the groups., Conclusion: Type of anesthesia used during EVAR has no influence on perioperative mortality and morbidity. The use of local or regional anesthesia during EVAR appeared to be beneficial concerning procedure time, ICU admission, and postoperative hospital stay., (© The Author(s) 2015.)