Outcomes of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair conversion in octogenarians treated at a high-volume aorta center.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the dominant treatment strategy for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms but has been especially preferred for octogenarian (age ≥80 years) patients because of concerns surrounding comorbidity severity and physiologic frailty. However, EVAR failure resulting in subsequent open conversion (EVAR-c) has been increasingly reported in older patients, although a paucity of literature focusing on the outcomes in this subgroup is available. The purpose of the present analysis was to evaluate our experience with EVAR-c for octogenarians (age ≥80 years) compared with that for younger patients (age <80 years). METHODS: A retrospective review of all nonmycotic EVAR-c procedures (2002-2020) at a single high-volume academic hospital with a dedicated aorta center (available at: https://www.uf-health-aortic-disease-center) was performed. A total of 162 patients were categorized into octogenarian (age ≥80 years; n = 43) and nonoctogenarian (age <80 years; n = 119) cohorts and compared. The primary end point was 30-day mortality. The secondary end points included complications, 90-day mortality, and overall survival. Cox regression was used to determine the effects of selected covariates on mortality risk. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival. RESULTS: No differences in the preadmission EVAR reintervention rates were present (octogenarians, 42%; nonoctogenarians, 43%; P = 1.00) although the interval to the first reintervention was longer for the octogenarians (41 months) than for the nonoctogenarians (15 months; P = .01). In addition, the time to EVAR-c was significantly longer for the octogenarian patients (61 months) than for the nonoctogenarian patients (39 months; P < .01). No difference in rupture presentation was evident (14% vs 10%; P = .6). However, elective EVAR-c occurred less frequently for octogenarians (42%) than for nonoctogenarians (59%; P = .07). The abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter was significantly larger for elective octogenarian EVAR-c (7.8 ± 1.9 cm) than for nonoctogenarian EVAR-c (7.0 ± 1.5 cm; P = .02), and the presence of a type Ia endoleak was the most common indication overall (58%; n = 91). A trend toward greater 30-day mortality was evident for octogenarian patients (16%) compared with nonoctogenarian patients (7%; P = .06). Similarly, the 90-day mortality was greater for the octogenarian patients (26%) than for the nonoctogenarian patients (10%; P = .02). However, the incidence of any complication (56% vs 49%; P = .5), readmission rate (12% vs 6%; P = .3), unplanned reoperation rate (10% vs 5%; P = .5), and length of stay (11 days vs 9 days; P = .3) were not significantly different between the two groups. Age ≥80 years was predictive of short-term mortality after nonelective but not after elective surgery. However, increasing comorbidities, nonelective admission, and renal or mesenteric revascularization showed the strongest association with mortality risk. Survival at 1 and 3 years was not different between the two groups when comparing all patients after the first 90 days postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Although the unadjusted perioperative mortality was greater for octogenarian patients, the risk-adjusted elective outcomes were comparable to those for younger EVAR-c patients when treated at a high-volume aortic surgery center. This finding underscores the importance of appropriate patient selection and modulation of operative complexity when feasible to achieve optimal results. Providers caring for octogenarian patients with EVAR failure should consider timely elective referral to high-volume aorta centers to reduce resource usage and the frequency of nonelective presentations.

Endovascular aneurysm repair conversion is an increasingly common indication for open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Although endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) reintervention is common, conversion to open repair (EVAR-c) occurs less frequently but can be associated with significant technical complexity and perioperative risk. There is a paucity of data highlighting the evolution of periprocedural results surrounding EVAR-c and change in practice patterns, especially for referral centers that increasingly manage EVAR failures. The purpose of this analysis was to perform a temporal analysis of our EVAR-c experience and describe changes in patient selection, operative details, and outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective single-center review of all open abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs was performed (2002-2019), and EVAR-c procedures were subsequently analyzed. EVAR-c patients (n = 184) were categorized into two different eras (2002-2009, n = 21; 2010-2019, n = 163) for comparison. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards modeling were used for risk-adjusted comparisons. RESULTS: A significant increase in EVAR-c as an indication for any type of open aneurysm repair was detected (9% to 27%; P < .001). Among EVAR-c patients, no change in age or individual comorbidities was evident (mean age, 71 ± 9 years); however, the proportion of female patients (P = .01) and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification >3 declined (P = .05). There was no difference in prevalence (50% vs 43%; P = .6) or number (median, 1.5 [interquartile range (IQR), 0-5]) of preadmission EVAR reinterventions; however, time to reintervention decreased (median, 23 [IQR, 6-34] months vs 0 [IQR, 0-22] months; P = .005). In contrast, time to EVAR-c significantly increased (median, 16 [IQR, 9-39] months vs 48 [IQR, 20-83] months; P = .008). No difference in frequency of nonelective presentation (mean, 52%; P = .9] or indication was identified, but a trend toward increasing mycotic EVAR-c was observed (5% vs 15%; P = .09). Use of retroperitoneal exposure (14% vs 77%; P < .0001), suprarenal cross-clamp application (6286%; P = .04), and visceral-ischemia time (median, 0 [IQR, 0-11] minutes vs 5 [IQR, 0-20] minutes; P = .05) all increased. In contrast, estimated blood loss (P trend = .03) and procedure time (P = .008) decreased. The unadjusted elective 30-day mortality rate improved but did not reach statistical significance (elective, 10% vs 5%; P = .5) with no change for non-elective operations (18% vs 16%; P = .9). However, a significantly decreased risk of complications was evident (odds ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, .8-.9; P = .01). One- and 3-year survival was similar over time. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR-c is now a common indication for open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Patients frequently present nonelectively and at increasingly later intervals after their index EVAR. Despite increasing technical complexity, decreased complication risk and comparable survival can be anticipated when patients are managed at a high-volume aortic referral center.

The surgical treatment of type two diabetes mellitus.

Since the discovery that gastric bypass surgery leads to the rapid reversal of type 2 diabetes mellitus in morbidly obese patients, researchers have been searching for possible mechanisms to explain the result. The significance of bariatric surgery is twofold. It offers hope and successful therapy to the severely obese; those with T2DM, sleep apnea, or polycystic ovary disease; and others plagued by the comorbidities of the metabolic syndrome. This article examines four surgical procedures and their outcomes.