Open versus endo

Early experience with endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair beyond the clinical trials

Trent L. Prault, Scott Stevens, Michael Freeman, David Cassada, Rob Hardin, Mitchell Goldman

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To analyze and compare open (OR) versus endovascular (EVAR) abdominal aortic aneurysm repair at our institution. Methods: EVAR was attempted in 256 patients at the University of Tennessee Medical Center, Knoxville, between December 1999 and November 2002. One hundred forty patients underwent attempted EVAR, and 116 underwent OR. All patients were included on an intent-to-treat basis, and results were reviewed retrospectively. Statistical methods included the Student t test and chi-square analysis. Results: Patients were age matched between the 2 groups (70.2 years versus 69.0 years; P = .936). Patients in the OR group had significantly higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classes than the EVAR group (2.96 versus 3.07; P = .006). However, there was no difference between the groups, OR versus EVAR, with respect to the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (55% versus 46%; P = .129), coronary artery disease (69% versus 66%; P = .638), diabetes mellitus (12% versus 18%; P = .167), mean left ventricular ejection fraction (51.8% versus 53.9%; P = .28), or mean preoperative creatinine level (1.2 mg/dL versus 1.1 mg/dL; P = .167). Tobacco use was more prevalent in the OR group (78.4% versus 64.2%; P = .013), and known carotid artery disease was more prevalent in the EVAR group (20.0% versus 6.9%; P = .003). The EVAR group had significantly shorter lengths of stay (4.2 versus 9.0 days; P = .000), intensive care unit days (0 versus 3.2; P = .000), time in the operating room (119.6 minutes versus 225.7 minutes; P = .000), and estimated blood loss (189.1 mL versus 897.9 mL; P = .000). Mean aneurysm size was larger in the OR group (5.6 cm versus 4.9 cm; P = .000). Perioperative complications occurred in 31 patients in the OR group and 5 in the EVAR group (P = .000). Two perioperative deaths occurred in the OR group and none in the EVAR group. As of this writing there has been no significant difference in all-cause mortality in the 2 groups (OR 9.6% versus EVAR 8.0%; P = .651). Seven patients in the EVAR group needed secondary interventions. Six were managed with endovascular techniques, and 1 underwent femoral-femoral bypass. Conclusions: Patients who undergo EVAR have significantly less morbidity and mortality in the perioperative period than do equally matched patients undergoing open repair. In midterm follow-up (2-5 years), mortality is no different. Morbidity conferred by the need for secondary intervention in the endovascular group is minimal.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)342-344
Number of pages3
JournalHeart Surgery Forum
Volume7
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2004

Fingerprint

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
Clinical Trials
Thigh
Mortality
Morbidity
Puromycin
Endovascular Procedures
Perioperative Period
Carotid Artery Diseases
Tobacco Use
Operating Rooms
Chi-Square Distribution
Stroke Volume
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Aneurysm
Intensive Care Units
Coronary Artery Disease
Length of Stay
Creatinine
Diabetes Mellitus

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Open versus endo : Early experience with endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair beyond the clinical trials. / Prault, Trent L.; Stevens, Scott; Freeman, Michael; Cassada, David; Hardin, Rob; Goldman, Mitchell.

In: Heart Surgery Forum, Vol. 7, No. 5, 01.12.2004, p. 342-344.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{61842e29fe5f46b69a4acd45b52efb33,
title = "Open versus endo: Early experience with endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair beyond the clinical trials",
abstract = "Objective: To analyze and compare open (OR) versus endovascular (EVAR) abdominal aortic aneurysm repair at our institution. Methods: EVAR was attempted in 256 patients at the University of Tennessee Medical Center, Knoxville, between December 1999 and November 2002. One hundred forty patients underwent attempted EVAR, and 116 underwent OR. All patients were included on an intent-to-treat basis, and results were reviewed retrospectively. Statistical methods included the Student t test and chi-square analysis. Results: Patients were age matched between the 2 groups (70.2 years versus 69.0 years; P = .936). Patients in the OR group had significantly higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classes than the EVAR group (2.96 versus 3.07; P = .006). However, there was no difference between the groups, OR versus EVAR, with respect to the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (55{\%} versus 46{\%}; P = .129), coronary artery disease (69{\%} versus 66{\%}; P = .638), diabetes mellitus (12{\%} versus 18{\%}; P = .167), mean left ventricular ejection fraction (51.8{\%} versus 53.9{\%}; P = .28), or mean preoperative creatinine level (1.2 mg/dL versus 1.1 mg/dL; P = .167). Tobacco use was more prevalent in the OR group (78.4{\%} versus 64.2{\%}; P = .013), and known carotid artery disease was more prevalent in the EVAR group (20.0{\%} versus 6.9{\%}; P = .003). The EVAR group had significantly shorter lengths of stay (4.2 versus 9.0 days; P = .000), intensive care unit days (0 versus 3.2; P = .000), time in the operating room (119.6 minutes versus 225.7 minutes; P = .000), and estimated blood loss (189.1 mL versus 897.9 mL; P = .000). Mean aneurysm size was larger in the OR group (5.6 cm versus 4.9 cm; P = .000). Perioperative complications occurred in 31 patients in the OR group and 5 in the EVAR group (P = .000). Two perioperative deaths occurred in the OR group and none in the EVAR group. As of this writing there has been no significant difference in all-cause mortality in the 2 groups (OR 9.6{\%} versus EVAR 8.0{\%}; P = .651). Seven patients in the EVAR group needed secondary interventions. Six were managed with endovascular techniques, and 1 underwent femoral-femoral bypass. Conclusions: Patients who undergo EVAR have significantly less morbidity and mortality in the perioperative period than do equally matched patients undergoing open repair. In midterm follow-up (2-5 years), mortality is no different. Morbidity conferred by the need for secondary intervention in the endovascular group is minimal.",
author = "Prault, {Trent L.} and Scott Stevens and Michael Freeman and David Cassada and Rob Hardin and Mitchell Goldman",
year = "2004",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1532/HSF98.20041067",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
pages = "342--344",
journal = "Heart Surgery Forum",
issn = "1098-3511",
publisher = "Carden Jennings Publishing Co. Ltd",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Open versus endo

T2 - Early experience with endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair beyond the clinical trials

AU - Prault, Trent L.

AU - Stevens, Scott

AU - Freeman, Michael

AU - Cassada, David

AU - Hardin, Rob

AU - Goldman, Mitchell

PY - 2004/12/1

Y1 - 2004/12/1

N2 - Objective: To analyze and compare open (OR) versus endovascular (EVAR) abdominal aortic aneurysm repair at our institution. Methods: EVAR was attempted in 256 patients at the University of Tennessee Medical Center, Knoxville, between December 1999 and November 2002. One hundred forty patients underwent attempted EVAR, and 116 underwent OR. All patients were included on an intent-to-treat basis, and results were reviewed retrospectively. Statistical methods included the Student t test and chi-square analysis. Results: Patients were age matched between the 2 groups (70.2 years versus 69.0 years; P = .936). Patients in the OR group had significantly higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classes than the EVAR group (2.96 versus 3.07; P = .006). However, there was no difference between the groups, OR versus EVAR, with respect to the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (55% versus 46%; P = .129), coronary artery disease (69% versus 66%; P = .638), diabetes mellitus (12% versus 18%; P = .167), mean left ventricular ejection fraction (51.8% versus 53.9%; P = .28), or mean preoperative creatinine level (1.2 mg/dL versus 1.1 mg/dL; P = .167). Tobacco use was more prevalent in the OR group (78.4% versus 64.2%; P = .013), and known carotid artery disease was more prevalent in the EVAR group (20.0% versus 6.9%; P = .003). The EVAR group had significantly shorter lengths of stay (4.2 versus 9.0 days; P = .000), intensive care unit days (0 versus 3.2; P = .000), time in the operating room (119.6 minutes versus 225.7 minutes; P = .000), and estimated blood loss (189.1 mL versus 897.9 mL; P = .000). Mean aneurysm size was larger in the OR group (5.6 cm versus 4.9 cm; P = .000). Perioperative complications occurred in 31 patients in the OR group and 5 in the EVAR group (P = .000). Two perioperative deaths occurred in the OR group and none in the EVAR group. As of this writing there has been no significant difference in all-cause mortality in the 2 groups (OR 9.6% versus EVAR 8.0%; P = .651). Seven patients in the EVAR group needed secondary interventions. Six were managed with endovascular techniques, and 1 underwent femoral-femoral bypass. Conclusions: Patients who undergo EVAR have significantly less morbidity and mortality in the perioperative period than do equally matched patients undergoing open repair. In midterm follow-up (2-5 years), mortality is no different. Morbidity conferred by the need for secondary intervention in the endovascular group is minimal.

AB - Objective: To analyze and compare open (OR) versus endovascular (EVAR) abdominal aortic aneurysm repair at our institution. Methods: EVAR was attempted in 256 patients at the University of Tennessee Medical Center, Knoxville, between December 1999 and November 2002. One hundred forty patients underwent attempted EVAR, and 116 underwent OR. All patients were included on an intent-to-treat basis, and results were reviewed retrospectively. Statistical methods included the Student t test and chi-square analysis. Results: Patients were age matched between the 2 groups (70.2 years versus 69.0 years; P = .936). Patients in the OR group had significantly higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classes than the EVAR group (2.96 versus 3.07; P = .006). However, there was no difference between the groups, OR versus EVAR, with respect to the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (55% versus 46%; P = .129), coronary artery disease (69% versus 66%; P = .638), diabetes mellitus (12% versus 18%; P = .167), mean left ventricular ejection fraction (51.8% versus 53.9%; P = .28), or mean preoperative creatinine level (1.2 mg/dL versus 1.1 mg/dL; P = .167). Tobacco use was more prevalent in the OR group (78.4% versus 64.2%; P = .013), and known carotid artery disease was more prevalent in the EVAR group (20.0% versus 6.9%; P = .003). The EVAR group had significantly shorter lengths of stay (4.2 versus 9.0 days; P = .000), intensive care unit days (0 versus 3.2; P = .000), time in the operating room (119.6 minutes versus 225.7 minutes; P = .000), and estimated blood loss (189.1 mL versus 897.9 mL; P = .000). Mean aneurysm size was larger in the OR group (5.6 cm versus 4.9 cm; P = .000). Perioperative complications occurred in 31 patients in the OR group and 5 in the EVAR group (P = .000). Two perioperative deaths occurred in the OR group and none in the EVAR group. As of this writing there has been no significant difference in all-cause mortality in the 2 groups (OR 9.6% versus EVAR 8.0%; P = .651). Seven patients in the EVAR group needed secondary interventions. Six were managed with endovascular techniques, and 1 underwent femoral-femoral bypass. Conclusions: Patients who undergo EVAR have significantly less morbidity and mortality in the perioperative period than do equally matched patients undergoing open repair. In midterm follow-up (2-5 years), mortality is no different. Morbidity conferred by the need for secondary intervention in the endovascular group is minimal.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=10944222978&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=10944222978&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1532/HSF98.20041067

DO - 10.1532/HSF98.20041067

M3 - Review article

VL - 7

SP - 342

EP - 344

JO - Heart Surgery Forum

JF - Heart Surgery Forum

SN - 1098-3511

IS - 5

ER -