A propensity-matched comparison of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair and open surgical repair of pararenal and paravisceral aortic aneurysms

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid


ObjectiveThis study investigated the outcomes of a current series of patients treated with fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR) or open surgical repair (OSR) for pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (pr-AAAs), including juxtarenal, suprarenal, and type IV thoracoabdominal aneurysms. This study compares the outcomes of these procedures from two high-volume centers without the bias induced by a learning curve.MethodsAll patients with pr-AAAs undergoing repair at two centers between January 2010 and June 2016 were included in a prospective database. Patients undergoing F-BEVAR and OSR were propensity matched for age, sex, anatomic criteria (aortic clamp site), coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, smoking, chronic kidney disease, aneurysm diameter, and previous aortic surgery. The primary end points were mortality and dialysis. Secondary end points included any myocardial ischemia, respiratory and early procedural complications, acute kidney injury (AKI) according to RIFLE criteria (Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of kidney function, and End-stage renal failure), spinal cord ischemia, a composite of these complications, and postoperative intensive care unit length of stay. During follow-up, all-cause survival and freedom from reintervention were compared, as was the patency of stented vessels and renal and visceral bypasses. Late renal function deterioration was evaluated.ResultsIn this period, 157 F-BEVAR patients and 119 OSR patients were operated on. After 1:1 propensity matching, the study cohort consisted of 102 F-BEVARs and 102 OSRs. In the matched population, an average of 2.5 vessels were treated per patient. Univariate analysis demonstrated no significant difference in 30-day mortality (2.9% vs 2.0%; P = .68), dialysis (4.9% vs 3.9%; P = 1), cardiac ischemic complications (3.8% vs 5.9%; P = .52), pulmonary complications (5.9% vs 5.9%; P = 1), or any complications (28.4% vs 30.4%; P = .63) in the F-BEVAR and OSR groups, respectively. AKI was significantly lower in the F-BEVAR group than in the OSR group (19.6% vs 52%; P < .001), as was severe AKI (>50% decrease in glomerular filtration rate, 6.9% vs 16.7%; P = .03). There was no spinal cord ischemia. The median intensive care unit length of stay was 1 day in both groups (P = .33). During follow-up, we found occlusions of five stented vessels and three surgical bypasses. Late renal function deterioration was comparable between the two groups. According to Kaplan-Meier estimates, all-cause survival at 24, 48, and 72 months was 85.6%, 66.8%, and 55.8% after F-BEVAR and 90.5%, 82.9%, and 68.5% after OSR (P = .04). Rates of freedom from reintervention were 97.6% vs 97.5% at 24 months, 90.1% vs 93.4% at 48 months, and 63.9% vs 93.4% at 72 months in the F-BEVAR and OSR groups (P = .05), respectively. Thus, both all-cause survival and freedom from reintervention were lower in the F-BEVAR group.ConclusionsThis propensity score analysis in patients with pr-AAA undergoing F-BEVAR or OSR suggests no difference in terms of 30-day mortality, dialysis, or organ-specific postoperative complications, with the exception of AKI. Postoperative AKI was significantly higher after OSR, although most patients had recovered before discharge. Our data suggest similar outcomes after F-BEVAR or OSR for pr-AAA.

    loading  Loading Related Articles