Next Article in Journal
Environmental Enrichment Components Required to Reduce Methamphetamine-Induced Behavioral Sensitization in Mice: Examination of Behaviors and Neural Substrates
Next Article in Special Issue
Predictors and Consequences of Sac Shrinkage after Endovascular Infrarenal Aortic Aneurysm Repair
Previous Article in Journal
Efficacy of Acupuncture on Quality of Life, Functional Performance, Dyspnea, and Pulmonary Function in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Protocol for a Randomized Clinical Trial
Previous Article in Special Issue
Arterial Aneurysm Localization Is Sex-Dependent
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Open Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in the Endovascular Era

by
Abdulhakim Ibrahim
*,
Miroslav Dimitrov Yordanov
,
Mohammad Hasso
,
Benjamin Heine
and
Alexander Oberhuber
Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital Muenster, 48149 Muenster, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(11), 3050; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11113050
Submission received: 23 March 2022 / Revised: 27 April 2022 / Accepted: 25 May 2022 / Published: 28 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pathogenesis and Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm)

Abstract

:
The aim of the study was to analyse outcomes and determine the early and late complications in patients after open surgical treatment of AAA in the endovascular era. Two hundred and fourteen patients between January 2012 and December 2021 with open repair in primary infrarenal and juxtarena aneurysm in elective setting were included in the study. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative clinical data were statistically analysed. The mean age of the 214 patients was 65.5 ± 9.3 years. The mean follow-up was 22.1 ± 2.1 months. Men represented the majority of the studied group (85.5%). The mean aortic diameter was 58.2 ± 13.4. The median ICU (days) stay was 5 ± 4.9 days for infrarenal aneurysm and 6 ± 6.1 days for juxtarenal aneurysm. Four patients died within 30 days, giving an in-hospital mortality rate of 1.9%. In multivariate logistic regression, COPD (p = 0.015) was the only predictor significantly associated with the mortality. A comparison of survival and reintervention using a Kaplan–Meier curve showed no significant difference between the groups in terms of risk stratification and the groups with juxtarenal versus infrarenal aneurysms. In conclusion, open aneurysm repair is in the era of endovascular aneurysm repair, being safe and effective, especially when performed in specialised high-volume centres with large expertise.

1. Introduction

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a pathological dilatation of the aorta, the diameter of which is 50% larger than normal [1]. The goal of aortic aneurysm repair is to prevent rupture. Open repair of AAA is associated with significantly high morbidity and mortality. A 30-day mortality rate of 5.2% (n = 39,966) for elective cases during the period from 2001 through 2008 was reported for AAA [2]. The most common complications after elective open surgical repair (OSR) are cardiac and respiratory events and wound infections, which occur perioperatively in 10.2%, 7%, and 3.5% of patients after surgery, respectively [3]. An analysis of registry data (>35,000 patients) from the German Society for Vascular Surgery and Vascular Medicine (DGG) revealed a mortality of elective AAA therapy of around 3.6% OSR [4]. The aim of our study was to determine the type, frequency, and early and late complications in patients after open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the endovascular era and to analyse the mortality and reintervention rates according to surgical risk and aneurysm type (juxta- vs. infrarenal).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Patient Selection

This was a single-centre, retrospective, observational study on a total of 214 consecutive patients who underwent open aortic repair between January 2012 and December 2021. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and intraoperative data, as well as pre- and postoperative computed tomographic angiogram (CTA) findings, vital parameters, and complications were analysed.

2.2. Data Collection and Definitions

All data were collected from our digital medical documentation. Wound infection was defined as clinical signs of local wound inflammation and positive culture from this site. Kidney failure was defined as postoperative serum creatinine increase greater than 2 mg/dL from baseline or new dialysis in the 30-day post-operative period, as defined by NSQIP (National Surgical Quality Improvement Program). Lower limb ischemia was defined as acute or critical ischemia, which required surgical intervention. A pulmonary complication was defined as pneumonia, failure to wean from mechanical ventilation within 48 h, re-intubation, or pulmonary embolism. Ileus was defined by postoperative clinical and radiological findings. Urinary tract infection was considered as positive urine bacterial culture and leukocyte count. Bleeding (re-operation) and bowel ischemia were defined as clinical, radiological, and laboratory signs requiring surgical intervention. Patients were stratified according to the surgical risk using the Medicare Aneurysm Scoring System [5]. This scale was developed as a prediction tool for perioperative death in patients treated for AAA. Variables in this model include age, sex, congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic kidney disease (CKD), peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and cerebrovascular disease (CVD). The division of low-, moderate-, and high-risk corresponds to score ranges of <3 (low), 3 to 11 (moderate), and >11 (high) (Table 1).
Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, 30-day reinterventions, and access-related complications. Secondary outcomes were mortality, aortic rupture, and late reinterventions.

2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

In our study, only patients with open repair of infrarenal and juxtarenal aneurysm in elective setting were included. All patients who underwent an open treatment with supra- or intrarenal anastomosis and patients for another diagnosis (aortoenteric/aortocaval fistula, Leriche syndrome, postdissection aneurysm, persistent endoleak with sac enlargement despite endovascular treatment, aortitis and prosthesis infection) were excluded from our study cohort. Moreover, all elective endovascular repairs (EVAR) were excluded.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation for parametric data and median with interquartile range for non-parametric data, whereas dichotomous variables are presented as crude numbers and percentages. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to elucidate the independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. We used the univariate analysis for all possible risk factors and tested only the significant variables in a multivariate regression analysis. A Kaplan–Meier curve was used to compare survival and reintervention. The differences between groups were compared using the Mantel–Cox log-rank test. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics for Windows version 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

A total of 502 patients underwent open aortic repair between January 2012 and December 2021. Only patients with open repair in primary infrarenal and juxtarenal aneurysm in elective setting were included in the study (n = 214). In all patients, the proximal anastomosis was situated below the renal arteries. On the basis of the exclusion criteria, 288 patients were excluded due to aortoenteric fistula with aortic prosthesis infection (n = 49), Leriche syndrome (n = 27), postdissection aneurysm (n = 29), persistent endoleak after endovascular treatment (n = 22), aortitis (n = 2), thoracal and thoracoabdominal aneurysm (n = 112), and ruptured aortic aneurysm (n = 47).
The mean age was 65.5 ± 9.3 years. One hundred and forty-seven patients (68.7%) were younger than 70 years, and two hundred and three (94.9%) younger than 80 years. Men represented the majority of the studied group (n = 183, 85.5%). The mean aortic diameter was 58.2 ± 13.4 mm. Mean follow up time was 22.1 ± 2.1 months. Hypertension (n = 129, 60%), coronary artery disease (n = 68, 31.8%), and being a current/previous smoker (n = 71, 33.2%) were the most common comorbidities. Patients often received the following medications: betablocker (n = 93, 43.5%), statin (n = 97, 45.3%), and aspirin (n = 107, 50%) (Table 2).
The patients were divided into three groups according to the surgical risk using the Medicare Aneurysm Scoring System. Most patients were in the low-risk group (n = 134, 62.6%), 61 patients (28.5%) were in the moderate-risk group, and only 19 patients (8.9%) were in the high-risk group (Table 3). In most patients, a transperitoneal approach (n = 182, 85%) was used. Eighty patients (37.3%) needed a temporary suprarenal clamping of at least one renal artery. After performing the proximal anastomosis, the prosthesis was clamped out infrarenal. The mean clamping time was 26.1 ± 2.8 min. The IMA (inferior mesenteric artery) was reimplanted only in 14 patients (6.5%). Indication was occlusion of the hypogastric arteries or inadequate back bleeding. The mean operation duration was (189.5 min ± 78.7). The median ICU stay was 5.0 ± 4.9 days for infrarenal aneurysm and 6.0 ± 6.1 days for juxtarenal aneurysm. The median in-hospital stay for infrarenal aneurysm was 10.0 ± 12.4 days, and for juxtarenal aneurysm, 11.0 ± 7.7 days (Table 3).

3.1. Complications and Reinterventions after OSR

Fifteen patients required reintervention in the first 30 days after OSR. Postoperative wound infection, including burst abdomen, were registered in 13 patients (6.1%), with only 6 patients requiring reintervention. Postoperatively, ileus developed in 12 patients, and only 2 patients were reintervened for this purpose. Bowel ischemia was registered in four patients. All four patients underwent bowel resection. One of them died due to the attendant complications. Other complications included lower limb ischemia (n = 6, 2.6%), pneumonia (n = 12, 5.6%), myocardial infarction (n = 3, 1.4%), urinary tract infection (n = 3, 4.2%), and bleeding (n = 3, 1.4%). The most common late complication after OSR was incisional hernia (n = 17, 7.5%). Kidney failure was registered in five patients (2.3%), and kidney failure requiring dialysis was not reported in any patient. Other complications included anastomosis aneurysm (n = 2, 0.9%), prosthesis infection (n = 4, 1.9%), and vascular prosthesis obstruction (n = 1, 0.5%) (Table 4).

3.2. Mortality

Of the 214 patients who had elective open abdominal repair for aortic aneurysm, four died within 30 days, giving a surgical mortality rate of 1.9%. One patient had complicated sigmoid ischemia as a postoperative complication, and the three remaining patients died as a result of cardiovascular events. In the follow-up, eight further deaths were registered. Three patients died from malignancy, and two patients from cardiovascular events. The cause of death in the remaining three patients remained unclear. On the basis of the univariable analysis, different mortality predictors such as COPD, high risk factor of the patient, and transfusion of PRBS were determined. In the multivariate logistic regression, the COPD (p = 0.015) remained the only variable significantly associated with mortality (Table 5).
Patients with different degrees of aortic pathology and different increased risk for surgery could show different late mortality and reintervention rate, and thus we evaluated our patients according to Kaplan–Meier survival/reintervention estimate curves. At late follow-up for patients undergoing elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, a comparison of survival and juxta- versus infrarenal aneurysm gave a p-value of 0.923 (Figure 1A). The reintervention also did not differ between the two aneurysm types (Figure 1B). A comparison of survival and reintervention between the patients in Kaplan–Meier estimate curves according to the risk stratification also showed no significant difference between the groups (survival: p = 0.80, reintervention: p = 0.11) (Figure 1).

4. Discussion

There have been 72 years since the first successful abdominal aneurysm repair by Charls Dubost (1951) with an aortic homograft, which is considered to be the beginning of the modern era of the aneurysm repair [6]. In the following decades, the introduction of aortic prostheses along with the constant improvements of the surgical and anaesthesiologic care led to the standardisation of the open surgical aneurysm repair with mortality rates of less than 5%.
In 1989, Volodos introduced the endovascular aneurysm repair [7]. With the improvement of the endovascular materials and diagnostic techniques, this novel approach became rapidly the preferred method of treatment of AAA, due to its low mortality and complication rates.
It is well known that the preoperative clinical examination and risk factors estimation plays a crucial role in the decision making and choice of the individual therapeutic approach for each patient. According to the literature, the cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases are the leading cause of early and late death after aortic aneurysm operations. Among these high-risk patients, EVAR is associated with threefold reduction in perioperative mortality, compared with propensity-matched patients undergoing elective OSR [6,7,8]. For patients with COPD and chronic renal failure, the outcome after EVAR is better than by OSR [9,10]. It is not surprising that the EVAR rapidly became the first-choice therapy, and nowadays nearly 80% of the patients in the USA are treated endovascularly.
The OSR is a preferred method of treatment by patients unsuitable for EVAR due to anatomic reasons such as short or angulated aneurysm neck (hostile neck), large accessory renal arteries, excessive thrombus, or unsuitable access arteries. The patients with complex aneurysm morphology can still be operated endovascularly with a custom-made stent graft, but the long production and delivery time could possibly increase the risk of aortic rupture. If the perioperative risk in not significantly increased, they can safely undergo an OSR.
In patients with low to intermediate perioperative risk, OSR is as safe as EVAR [11]. However, the studies demonstrated a higher reintervention rate after EVAR than those undergoing OSR. Operative complications, health-related quality of life, and sexual dysfunction were generally comparable between EVAR and OSR [12]. These results are consistent with the observations in the EVAR1 study conducted in the UK with follow-up of 15 years. Total and aneurysm-related mortality were lower in patients who received EVAR in the first 6 months, but increased after 6 months follow-up, leading to a significantly higher rate after 8 years follow-up in EVAR than in those who received OR. After the first 6 months, the increased aneurysm-related deaths in the EVAR group were predominantly from secondary sac rupture. The rate of reintervention was higher in the EVAR group at all time periods. On the basis of these conclusions, we could suggest that the OSR is a more durable treatment option for young patients with relatively low perioperative risk.
The repair of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms (JAA) still raises a large number of debates. In many cases, due to the complex aneurysm morphology with inadequate infrarenal landing zone, calcifications, or extensive thrombus, the endovascular repair in terms of FEVAR or ch-EVAR could be very challenging. In these patients, the OSR is the preferred method of treatment. Although the suprarenal aortic clamping is correlated with a high risk of cardiac stress and renal ischemia, there are many studies demonstrating a low mortality rate (2.5%) and low permanent dialysis rate (3.7%) [13,14,15]. According to the literature, the 30-day mortality rate by the open and endovascular JAA repair is comparable: OSR—3.4 [12], FEVAR—2.53 [13], ch-EVAR—3.7 [14]. Impairment of renal function was found in 25%, 30%, and 36.4%, respectively. New-onset haemodialysis was required in 9.4%, 10%, and 13.6%, respectively [16].
In our study, we reviewed the outcome of 214 patients who underwent an open surgical repair and observed a mortality rate of 1.9% after OSR. Our results are consistent with the statement in the NICE Guideline [17], that by patients with unruptured complex AAA in whom open repair would be suitable, there is no evidence that the endovascular treatment is associated with benefits in terms of perioperative mortality. When the patients survive the perioperative period, those who have undergone EVAR face double the hazard of death of those whose abdominal aneurysm was repaired in an open operation. In this group of patients, it would be inappropriate to recommend the use of complex EVAR as a standard practice. The NICE committee saw that the OSR is increasingly cost-effective in younger patients who would be more likely to survive the open surgery and experience the long-term survival benefit.
In our cohort of 214 patients, we observed in-hospital mortality rate of 1.9%, which is consistent with the published results in other centres at 1.2–5.2% [2,17,18,19,20,21]. The most common mortality cause in our series was a major cardiac event due to coronary artery disease. As demonstrated in Table 4, 7% (n = 15) of the patients underwent a reoperation in the early postoperative period due to wound infection (n = 6), bowel ischemia (n = 4), mechanical bowel obstruction (n = 2), and acute lower limb ischaemia (n = 3). With 5.6% (n = 12), the pulmonary insufficiency was one of the most encountered postoperative complications. Interestingly, the severity of the respiratory insufficiency was related to the invasiveness of the operation. This correlation was already observed and discussed from other authors [18,19]. Surprisingly, despite the 37.3% (n = 80) suprarenal clamping, acute renal failure occurred in only 2.3% (n = 5) of our patients, which is a relatively low rate according to the literature [18,19].
According to the NICE guideline, on the basis of a thorough analysis, the OSR is increasingly cost-effective in younger patients, which is consistent with the expectations that younger people will typically be more likely to survive the open surgical procedure and experience the long-term survival benefit. It is known that the aneurysm-related mortality rate and the reintervention rate rise significantly postoperatively by 8 years in comparison with the OSR. These factors lead to the suggestion that the OSR is the more appropriate treatment option in younger patients with low perioperative risk [20]. Our cohort consists of relatively younger patients and therefore low perioperative risk. This could be the reason for the low mortality rate.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, our study demonstrated that the OSR in the era of the endovascular aneurysm repair is safe, effective, and durable in terms of graft integrity and preservation of the renal function, even in patients with increased cardiovascular risk. In our study, COPD is the risk factor for mortality, and we believe that younger patients with long life expectancy and low perioperative risk may benefit more from open repair, especially when OSR is performed in specialised high-volume centres with large expertise.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, A.I. and A.O.; methodology, A.I. and A.O.; software, A.I.; validation, A.I., A.O., B.H. and M.D.Y.; formal analysis, A.I. and A.O.; investigation, M.H. and A.I.; resources, A.I., A.O. and M.H.; data curation, M.H. and A.I.; writing, A.I. and M.D.Y.; writing—review and editing, A.O.; visualisation, A.I. and A.O.; supervision, A.O.; project administration, A.O.; funding acquisition, A.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was approved by the local ethics committee (protocol number 2021-189-f-S).

Informed Consent Statement

Due to the retrospective nature of the study, no written informed consent was needed.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kent, K.C. Clinical practice. Abdominal aortic aneurysms. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 371, 2101–2108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Schermerhorn, M.L.; Buck, D.B.; O’Malley, A.J.; Curran, T.; McCallum, J.C.; Darling, J.; Landon, B.E. Long-Term Outcomes of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in the Medicare Population. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 373, 328–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Debus, E.S.; Gross-Fengels, W.; Kölbel, R. Infrarenale Aorta. In Operative und Interventionelle Gefäßmedizin; Debus, E.S., Gross-Fengels, W., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  4. Golledge, J.; Muller, J.; Daugherty, A.; Norman, P. Abdominal aortic aneurysm: Pathogenesis and implications for management. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 2006, 26, 2605–2613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Giles, K.A.; Schermerhorn, M.L.; O’Malley, A.J.; Cotterill, P.; Jhaveri, A.; Pomposelli, F.B.; Landon, B.E. Risk prediction for perioperative mortality of endovascular vs open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms using the Medicare population. J. Vasc. Surg. 2009, 50, 256–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Dubost, C.; Allary, M.; Oeconomos, N. Resection of an aneurysm of the abdominal aorta: Reestablishment of the continuity by a preserved human arterial graft, with result after five months. AMA Arch. Surg. 1952, 64, 405–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Volodos, N.L.; Karpovich, I.P.; Troyan, V.I.; Kalashnikova, Y.V.; Shekhanin, V.E.; Ternyuk, N.E.; Neoneta, A.S.; Ustinov, N.I.; Yakovenko, L.F. Clinical experience of the use of self-fixing synthetic prostheses for remote endoprosthetics of the thoracic and the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries through the femoral artery and as intraoperative endoprosthesis for aorta reconstruction. Vasa Suppl. 1991, 33, 93–95. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  8. Schermerhorn, M.L.; O’Malley, A.J.; Jhaveri, A.; Cotterill, P.; Pomposelli, F.; Landon, B.E. Endovascular vs. open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the Medicare population. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 358, 464–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Siracuse, J.J.; Gill, H.L.; Graham, A.R.; Schneider, D.B.; Connolly, P.H.; Sedrakyan, A.; Meltzer, A.J. Comparative safety of endovascular and open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in lowrisk male patients. J. Vasc. Surg. 2014, 60, 1154–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Hicks, C.W.; Wick, E.C.; Canner, J.K.; Black, J.H.; Arhuidese, I.; Qazi, U. Hospital-level factors associated with mortality after endovascular and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. JAMA Surg. 2015, 150, 632–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Becquemin, J.P.; Pillet, J.C.; Lescalie, F.; Sapoval, M.; Goueffic, Y.; Lermusiaux, P.; Steinmetz, E.; Marzelle, J. ACE trialists. A randomized controlled trial of endovascular aneurysm repair versus open surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysms in low- to moderate-risk patients. J. Vasc. Surg. 2011, 53, 1167–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. West, C.A.; Noel, A.A.; Bower, T.C.; Cherry, K.J.; Gloviczki, P.; Sullivan, T.M.; Kalra, M.; Hoskin, T.L.; Harrington, J.R. Factors affecting outcomes of open surgical repair of pararenal aortic aneurysms: A 10-year experience. J. Vasc. Surg. 2006, 43, 921–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Knott, A.W.; Kalra, M.; Duncan, A.A.; Reed, N.R.; Bower, T.C.; Hoskin, T.L.; Oderich, G.S.; Gloviczki, P. Open repair of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms (JAA) remains a safe option in the era of fenestrated endografts. J. Vasc. Surg. 2008, 47, 695–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Jean-Claude, J.M.; Reilly, L.M.; Stoney, R.J.; Messina, L.M. Pararenal aortic aneurysms. J. Vasc. Surg. 1999, 29, 902–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Desole, A.; Ferrari, A.; Tosato, F.; Milite, D. Open Repair for Juxtarenal Aortic Aneurysm: Short and Long-term Results. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2019, 54, 161–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Donas, K.P.; Eisenack, M.; Panuccio, G.; Austermann, M.; Osada, N.; Torsello, G. The role of open and endovascular treatment with fenestrated and chimney endografts for patients with juxtarenal aortic aneurysms. J. Vasc. Surg. 2012, 56, 285–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Sultan, S.; Veith, F.J.; Ascher, E.; Ouriel, K.; Hynes, N. NICE Guidelines for AAA Repair: An Enigma. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2020, 27, 869–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Donas, K.P.; Lee, J.T.; Lachat, M.; Torsello, G.; Veith, F.J. PERICLES investigators. Collected world experience about the performance of the snorkel/chimney endovascular technique in the treatment of complex aortic pathologies: The PERICLES registry. Ann. Surg. 2015, 262, 546–553, discussion 552–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Chinsakchai, K.; Prapassaro, T.; Salisatkorn, W.; Hongku, K.; Moll, F.L.; Ruangsetakit, C.; Wongwanit, C.; Puangpunngam, N.; Hahtapornsawan, S.; Sermsathanasawadi, N.; et al. Outcomes of Open Repair, Fenestrated Stent Grafting, and Chimney Grafting in Juxtarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Is It Time for a Randomized Trial? Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2019, 56, 114–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Lederle, F.A.; Stroupe, K.T.; Kyriakides, T.C.; Ge, L.; Freischlag, J.A. Open vs endovascular repair (over) veterans affairs cooperative study group. Long-term cost-effectiveness in the veterans affairs open vs endovascular repair study of aortic abdominal aneurysm: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2016, 151, e44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Shirasu, T.; Furuya, T.; Nagai, M.; Nomura, Y. Factors Affecting Longer Stay and Higher Costs during Elective Open Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Case-Control Study. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2019, 60, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier survival and reintervention estimates showed no significant difference between the groups. (A,B) Patients stratified into two groups: infrarenal aneurysm (n = 137) and juxtrarenal aneurysm (n = 77). (C,D) Patients were stratified into three groups according to the surgical risk (Medicare Aneurysm Scoring System): low risk (n = 137), moderate risk (n = 61), and high risk (n = 19).
Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier survival and reintervention estimates showed no significant difference between the groups. (A,B) Patients stratified into two groups: infrarenal aneurysm (n = 137) and juxtrarenal aneurysm (n = 77). (C,D) Patients were stratified into three groups according to the surgical risk (Medicare Aneurysm Scoring System): low risk (n = 137), moderate risk (n = 61), and high risk (n = 19).
Jcm 11 03050 g001
Table 1. Medicare aneurysm scoring system.
Table 1. Medicare aneurysm scoring system.
Risk FactorScore
Age > 80 years11
Age 76–80 years6
Age 71–751
Female4
ESRD9
CRI, no dialysis7
CHF6
PAD or CBVD3
ESRD, end-stage renal disease; CRI, chronic renal insufficiency; CHF, congestive heart. failure; PAD, peripheral arterial disease; CBVD, cerebrovascular disease. High risk: >11, moderate risk: 3–11, low risk: <3.
Table 2. Baseline characteristics of the study population.
Table 2. Baseline characteristics of the study population.
Number of Patients (n = 214)Percentage (%)
Demographic characteristics
Age (years) mean ± SD65.5 ± 9.3
Age < 70 years14768.7
Age < 80 years20394.9
Male gender, n (%)18385.5
BMI (mean ± SD)26.2 ± 4.4
Aneurysm max. diameter (mean ± SD)58.2 ± 13.4
Medical history, n (%)
Hypertension12960
Previous stroke/TIA146.5
COPD198.9
Coronary artery disease6831.8
NYHA III–IV219.8
Current/previous smoker 7133.2
Atrial fibrillation188.4
CKI2210.3
Connective tissue disease52.3
Previose aortic surgery157.0
Malignant disease2511.7
Peripheral arterial disease4922.9
Diabetes mellitus177.9
Medication treatment, n (%)
β-Blocker9343.5
ACEIs6329.4
Aspirin10750
Anticoagulation2813.1
Statins9745.3
TIA, transient ischemic attack; ACEIs, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CKI, chronic kidney injury; BMI, body mass index; NYHA, New York Heart Association.
Table 3. Baseline characteristics and procedural data.
Table 3. Baseline characteristics and procedural data.
Surgical Risk PatientsNumber of Patients (n = 214)Percentage (%)
  Low risk13462.6
  Moderate risk6128.5
  High risk198.9
Procedure characteristics
Aortic access
  Retroperitoneal2310.7
  Transperitoneal18285
Suprarenal clamping8037.3
Reimplantation of IMA146.5
OP duration (minutes), mean (SD)189.5 ± 78.7
ICU stay (days), median (SD)6.5 ± 5.4
  Infrareal aneurysm, median (SD)5.0 ± 0.9
  Juxtarenal aneurysm, median (SD)60.0 ± 6.1
In-hospital stay (days), mean (SD)11.0 ± 10.9
  Infrareal aneurysm, median (SD)10.0 ± 12.4
  Juxtarenal aneurysm, median (SD)11.0 ± 7.7
IMA, inferior mesenteric artery
IMA, inferior mesenteric artery; SD, standard deviation.
Table 4. Postoperative outcomes.
Table 4. Postoperative outcomes.
Early ComplicationsNumber of Patients (n = 214)Percentage (%)
Need for reoperation157
In-hospital mortality41.9
Wound infection136.1
Lower limb ischemia62.8
Pulmonary complication 125.6
Myocardial infarction31.4
Bowel ischemia41.9
Ileus125.6
Urinary tract infection94.2
Bleeding (re-operation)31.4
Late ComplicationsNumber of PatientsPercentage (%)
Incisional hernia167.5
Kidney failure52.3
Anastomosis aneurysm20.9
Prosthesis infection/AEF41.9
Vascular prosthesis obstruction10.5
Death at the end of FU125.6
AEF, aortoenteric fistula; FU, follow-up.
Table 5. Multivariate analysis.
Table 5. Multivariate analysis.
Univariable AnalysisMultivariate Logistic Regression
OR95% CIp-ValueOR95% CIp-Value
High risk factor (MASS)4.11.1–15.80.0342.10.38–11.370.388
COPD31.83.1–3240.00323.41.8–2950.015
Transfusion of PRBCs2.071.33–3.20.0011.60.85–3.210.139
CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; MASS, Medicare Aneurysm Scoring System; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; PRBC, Packed red blood cells. Statistically significant p-values are marked in bold.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ibrahim, A.; Yordanov, M.D.; Hasso, M.; Heine, B.; Oberhuber, A. Open Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in the Endovascular Era. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 3050. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11113050

AMA Style

Ibrahim A, Yordanov MD, Hasso M, Heine B, Oberhuber A. Open Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in the Endovascular Era. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(11):3050. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11113050

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ibrahim, Abdulhakim, Miroslav Dimitrov Yordanov, Mohammad Hasso, Benjamin Heine, and Alexander Oberhuber. 2022. "Open Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in the Endovascular Era" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 11: 3050. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11113050

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop