Late outcomes after endovascular and open repair of large abdominal aortic aneurysms

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The risk of aortic abdominal aneurysm (AAA) rupture increases with an increasing aneurysm diameter. However, the effect of the AAA diameter on late outcomes after aneurysm repair is unclear. Therefore, we assessed the association of a large AAA diameter with late outcomes for patients undergoing open and endovascular AAA repair. METHODS: We identified all patients who had undergone elective open or endovascular infrarenal aneurysm repair from 2003 to 2016 in the Vascular Quality Initiative linked to Medicare claims for long-term outcomes. A large AAA diameter was defined as a diameter >65 mm. We assessed the 5-year reintervention, rupture, mortality, and follow-up rates. We constructed propensity scores and used inverse probability-weighted Kaplan-Meier estimations and Cox proportional hazard models to identify independent associations between large AAA repair and our outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 21,119 aneurysm repairs identified, 15.2% were for large AAAs. Of the 21,119 repairs, 19,017 were endovascular and 2102 were open. The large AAA cohort was less likely to have undergone endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR; 84.9% vs 91%; P < .001), more likely to be older (median age, 76 vs 75 years; P < .001), and were less likely to be women (16.2% vs 21.7%; P < .001). After EVAR, patients with large AAAs had had lower adjusted 5-year freedom from reintervention (73.9% vs 84.6%; P < .001), freedom from rupture (88.5% vs 93.6%; P < .001), survival (58.0% vs 66.4%; P < .001), and freedom from loss to follow-up (77.7% vs 83.3%; P < .001) compared with patients with smaller AAAs. However, after open repair, the adjusted 5-year freedom from reintervention (95.8% vs 93.3%; P = .11), freedom from rupture (97.4% vs 97.8%; P = .32), survival (70.4% vs 74.0%; P = .13), and loss to follow-up (60.5% vs 62.8%; P = .86) were similar to the results for patients with smaller AAAs. For patients with large AAAs, the adjusted 5-year survival was lower after EVAR than that after open repair (55.3% vs 63.7%) but not after smaller AAA repair (67.3% vs 70.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The 5-year adjusted reintervention, ruptures, mortality, and loss to follow-up rates for patients who had undergone large AAA EVAR were higher than those for patients who had undergone small AAA EVAR and large AAA open repair. Therefore, for patients with large AAAs who are medically fit, open repair should be strongly considered. Furthermore, these findings highlight the necessity for rigorous long-term follow-up after EVAR.