Introduction: Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is the standard method for AAA repair. This is especially true for elective and ruptured AAAs, where the outcomes of this repair have been extensively studied. Outcomes of symptomatic AAA (sAAA) have been scarcely studied on their own, as they are usually grouped together with asymptomatic AAAs as “intact” or ruptured AAAs as “acute” repairs. The aim of this study is to assess the outcomes of sAAA as compared to asymptomatic AAA (aAAA) repair using the ZenithTM stentgraft system.
Methods: All consecutive patients treated for sAAA and aAAA from 1998 – 2012 at our institution, using the Cook-ZenithTM stentgraft, were included in the study. Patient charts were reviewed to obtain pre-, intra-, and post-operative data. Clinical success was assessed as per the reporting standards. All available imaging was reviewed to assess for causes of clinical failure, including endoleaks, stentgraft migrations and aneurysm expansion amongst others. Life-tables were constructed to assess for overall and late-AAA related survival, clinical success and endoleak freedom.
Results: A total of 681 patients, including 541 (79.4 %) patients underwent elective EVAR for aAAA using the Cook-Zenith stentgraft, while 140 (21.6 %) underwent acute EVAR due to sAAA. Aneurysm diameter was marginally larger pre-operatively for sAAA (61 (52 – 74) mm) compared to aAAA (58 (53 – 66) mm) (p= 0.051). Technical failure rate was almost identical (5.7 % sAAA versus 4.3 % aAAA) in (p= 0.494). 30-day mortality was 6.4 % sAAA versus 1.5 % aAAA (p= 0.003). Re-intervention rates for sAAA were 10 ± 3 %, 22 ± 4 % and 27 ± 5 %, while for aAAA 7 ± 1 %, 19 ± 2 % and 25 ± 2 % at 1, 5 and 10-years post-operatively (p=0.345). Primary, primary assisted and secondary clinical success rates were, at 10-years, 55 ± 5 %, 64 ± 5 % and 72 ± 5 % for sAAA, while for aAAA 58 ± 3 %, 70 ± 3 % and 75 ± 3 %, being significantly different for primary assisted and secondary success (p < 0.05) respectively. Primary and assisted type I/III endoleak freedom, at 10-years, were 84 ± 5 % and 92 ± 3 % for sAAA and 80 ± 5 % and 90 ± 3 % for aAAA, with non-significant (p > 0.05) difference between the groups. Overall survival at 10-years was 33 ± 5 % for sAAA and 32 ± 2 % for aAAA (p=0.979) (Fig. 1). Freedom from late AAA-related death was, for sAAA (N=4, 2.86 %) 98 ± 1 % and 96 ± 2 % at 5-and 10-years, while for aAAA (N=16, 2.35 %) these were 99 ± 1 % and 95 ± 1 % at the same time points (p= 0.938) (Fig. 1).
Conclusion: sAAA demonstrates similar outcomes to aAAA using the ZenithTM stentgraft. Especially with regards to overall survival, freedom from late AAA-related deaths and post-operative re-interventions. Clinical success was low in both groups at 10 years post-operatively, potentially related to increased unfitness to undergo redo procedures to correct causes of failure. The almost quadrupled 30-day mortality associated with sAAA as compared to aAAA may be related to a less extensive pre-operative medical assessment and optimization. To conclude, the similar outcomes of EVAR for sAAA as compared to aAAA are encouraging, with improvement potential with regards to the relatively high 30-day mortality achievable by more aggressive medical optimization of sAAA patients.
P-128 Abdominal Aortic Diseases
© 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc.
User licenseElsevier user license |
How you can reuse
Elsevier's open access license policy
Elsevier user license
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
Elsevier's open access license policy
ScienceDirectAccess this article on ScienceDirect
To submit a comment for a journal article, please use the space above and note the following:
- We will review submitted comments as soon as possible, striving for within two business days.
- This forum is intended for constructive dialogue. Comments that are commercial or promotional in nature, pertain to specific medical cases, are not relevant to the article for which they have been submitted, or are otherwise inappropriate will not be posted.
- We require that commenters identify themselves with names and affiliations.
- Comments must be in compliance with our Terms & Conditions.
- Comments are not peer-reviewed.