Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Patients With the Highest Risk and In-Hospital Mortality in the United States | Research, Methods, Statistics | JAMA Surgery | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.170.64.36. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Comparison of Endovascular and Open Surgical Repairs for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Evidence Report/Technology Assessment Number 144. http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/aaarepair/aaarep.pdf. Accessed October 31, 2006
2.
Nowygrod  REgorova  NGreco  G  et al.  Trends, complications, and mortality in peripheral vascular surgery.  J Vasc Surg 2006;43205- 216PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Sicard  GARubin  BGSanchez  LA  et al.  Endoluminal graft repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms in high-risk patients and octogenarians: is it better than open repair?  Ann Surg 2001;234427- 435PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Brewster  DCCronenwett  JLHallett  JW  JrJohnston  KWKrupski  WCMatsumura  JS Guidelines for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms: report of a subcommittee of the Joint Council of the American Association for Vascular Surgery and Society for Vascular Surgery.  J Vasc Surg 2003;371106- 1117PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
 Endovascular aneurysm repair and outcome in patients unfit for open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 2): randomised controlled trial.  Lancet 2005;3652187- 2192PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
 Endovascular aneurysm repair versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1): randomised controlled trial.  Lancet 2005;3652179- 2186PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Blankensteijn  JDde Jong  SEPrinssen  M  et al.  Two-year outcomes after conventional or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms.  N Engl J Med 2005;3522398- 2405PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Overview of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp. Accessed January 20, 2007
9.
Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Clinical Classifications Software. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/toolssoftware/icd_10/ccs_icd_10.jsp. Accessed January 20, 2007
10.
Deyo  RACherkin  DCCiol  MA Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases.  J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45613- 619PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Dueck  ADKucey  DSJohnston  KWAlter  DLaupacis  A Survival after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: effect of patient, surgeon, and hospital factors.  J Vasc Surg 2004;391253- 1260PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Quality Control Procedures. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/quality.jsp. Accessed January 20, 2007
13.
Buth  Jvan Marrewijk  CJHarris  PLHop  WCRiambau  VLaheij  RJ Outcome of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in patients with conditions considered unfit for an open procedure: a report on the EUROSTAR experience.  J Vasc Surg 2002;35211- 221PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Sicard  GAZwolak  RMSidawy  ANWhite  RASiami  FS Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: long-term outcome measures in patients at high-risk for open surgery.  J Vasc Surg 2006;44229- 236PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Anderson  PLArons  RRMoskowitz  AJ  et al.  A statewide experience with endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: rapid diffusion with excellent early results.  J Vasc Surg 2004;3910- 19PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Lee  WACarter  JWUpchurch  GSeeger  JMHuber  TS Perioperative outcomes after open and endovascular repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysms in the United States during 2001.  J Vasc Surg 2004;39491- 496PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Brown  LCEpstein  DManca  ABeard  JDPowell  JTGreenhalgh  RM The UK Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) trials: design, methodology and progress.  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2004;27372- 381PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Paper
June 1, 2007

Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Patients With the Highest Risk and In-Hospital Mortality in the United States

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas (Drs Timaran, Rosero, Modrall, Arko, Clagett, and Valentine); and the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio (Dr Veith).

Arch Surg. 2007;142(6):520-525. doi:10.1001/archsurg.142.6.520
Abstract

Background  A randomized clinical trial from the United Kingdom (EVAR trial 2) comparing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) with no intervention found no advantage for EVAR in patients with high risk. This finding was predominantly caused by the substantial in-hospital mortality after EVAR (9%).

Hypothesis  The nationwide in-hospital mortality for patients with the highest risk undergoing EVAR in the United States is lower than that reported in EVAR trial 2.

Design  Population-based, cross-sectional study.

Setting  The 2001-2004 Nationwide Inpatient Sample.

Patients and Methods  The Nationwide Inpatient Sample identified EVAR procedures for nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Risk stratification was based on comorbidities and the Charlson comorbidity index, a validated predictor of in-hospital mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysms repairs. Weighted univariate and logistic regression analyses were used to determine the association between comorbidity measures and risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality.

Results  During the 4-year period, 65 502 EVARs were performed with an in-hospital mortality of 2.2%. Risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates ranged from 1.2% to 3.7%. Stratified analyses, including only elective EVAR procedures, revealed that in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in patients with the most severe comorbidities (1.7%) vs those with lower comorbidity (0.4%; P<.001). Patients with high risk had only a 1.6-fold increased risk of adjusted in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.2) compared with patients with low risk.

Conclusions  The EVAR procedure is currently being performed in the United States with low in-hospital mortality, even in patients with the highest risk. Therefore, EVAR should not be denied to high-risk patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms in the United States on the basis of the level I evidence from the United Kingdom study.

×