RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: One-year aneurysm sac changes have previously been found to be associated with mortality and may have the potential to guide personalized follow-up following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). In this study, we examined the association of these early sac changes with long-term reintervention and rupture. METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing first-time EVAR for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm between 2003 and 2018 in the Vascular Quality Initiative with linkage to Medicare claims for long-term outcomes. We included patients with an imaging study at 1 year postoperatively. Aneurysm sac behavior was defined as per the Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines: stable sac (<5 mm change), sac regression (≥5 mm), and sac expansion (≥5 mm). Outcomes included mortality, reintervention, and rupture within 8 years, which were assessed with Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariable Cox regression analysis. Secondarily, we utilized polynomial spline interpolation to demonstrate the continuous relationship of diameter change to 8-year hazard of reintervention, rupture, or mortality as a composite outcome. RESULTS: Of 31,185 EVAR patients, 16,102 (52%) had an imaging study at 1 year and were included in this study. At 1 year, 44% of sacs remained stable, 49% regressed, and 6.2% displayed expansion. Following risk adjustment, compared with a stable sac at 1 year, sac regression was associated with lower 8-year mortality (49% vs 53%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.99; P = .036), reintervention rate (8.9% vs 15%; HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.68; P < .001), and rupture rate (2.0% vs 4.0%; HR, 0.45; 95%CI, 0.29-0.69; P < .001). Conversely, compared with a stable sac, sac expansion was associated with higher 8-year mortality (64% vs 53%; HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.14-1.51; P < .001) and reintervention rate (27% vs 15%; HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.57-2.51; P < .001), but similar risk of rupture (7.2% vs 4.0%; HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.88-2.96; P = .12). Polynomial spline interpolation demonstrated that, compared with no diameter change at 1 year, increased sac regression was associated with an incrementally lower risk of late outcomes, whereas increased sac expansion was associated with an incrementally higher risk of late outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Following EVAR, compared with a stable sac at 1-year imaging, sac regression and expansion are associated with a lower and higher risk respectively of long-term mortality, reinterventions, and ruptures. Moreover, the amount of regression or expansion seems to be incrementally associated with these late outcomes, too. Future studies are needed to determine how to improve 1-year sac regression, and whether it is safe to extend follow-up intervals for patients with regressing sacs.
Asunto(s)
Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular , Procedimientos Endovasculares , Humanos , Anciano , Estados Unidos , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/diagnóstico por imagen , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/cirugía , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/complicaciones , Reparación Endovascular de Aneurismas , Resultado del Tratamiento , Medicare , Factores de Riesgo , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative and 5-year outcomes following endovascular (FEVAR) and open repair (OAR) of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (cAAA) in males and females separately, given the known sex related differences in perioperative outcomes. METHODS: We studied all elective cAAA repairs between 2014-2019 in the Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION) registry. We stratified patients based on sex. We calculated propensity scores for assignment to either OAR or FEVAR. Covariates including age, race, diameter, baseline comorbidities, proximal extent of repair, annual center volumes, and annual surgeon volumes were introduced into the model for estimating propensity scores. Within matched cohorts, perioperative outcomes and 5-year outcomes (mortality, reinterventions, and ruptures) were evaluated using multivariable logistic and Cox regression models. RESULTS: We identified 2,825 patients of whom 29% were female. Within both the sexes, OAR was more commonly performed (OAR vs FEVAR: males: 53% vs 47%; females: 63% vs 37%). After matching, among males (n=1326), FEVAR was associated with lower perioperative mortality (FEVAR vs OAR: 2.3% vs 5.1%; p<.001). However, FEVAR was associated with comparable 5-year mortality (38% vs 28%; hazard ratio (HR) 1.2 [0.92-1.4]; p=.22) and a higher hazard of 5-year reintervention (19% vs 3.7%; aHR: 4.5 [2.6-7.6], p<.001). Among females (n=456), FEVAR and OAR showed similar perioperative mortality (8.3% vs 7.0%; p=.73). At 5 years, FEVAR was associated with higher hazards of mortality (43% vs 32%; aHR: 1.5 [1.03-2.2], p=.034) and reintervention (20% vs 3.0%; aHR: 4.8 [2.1-11], p<.001) compared with OAR. CONCLUSIONS: Among males, FEVAR was associated with favorable perioperative outcomes compared with OAR, though these advantages attenuate over time. However, among females, FEVAR was associated with similar perioperative outcomes, eventually leading to higher reinterventions and possibly higher mortality within 5 years. Future efforts should focus on determining the factors associated with these sex disparities to improve outcomes following FEVAR in females. Based on current evidence, females undergoing elective cAAA repair should be selected with due caution, especially for endovascular repair.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Current literature reports conflicting findings regarding the effect of diabetes mellitus (DM) on outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. In this study we examined the effect of DM and its management on outcomes after open AAA repair (OAR) and endovascular AAA repair (EVAR). METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing OAR or EVAR for infrarenal AAA between 2003 and 2018 in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry data linked with Medicare claims. We excluded patients with missing DM status. Patients were stratified by their preoperative DM status, and then further stratified by DM management: dietary, noninsulin antidiabetic medications (NIMs), or insulin. Outcomes of interest included 1-year aneurysm sac dynamics, 8-year aneurysm rupture, reintervention, and all-cause mortality. These outcomes were analyzed with the χ2 test, Kaplan-Meier methods, and multivariable Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: We identified 34,021 EVAR patients and 4127 OAR patients, of whom 20% and 16% had DM, respectively. Of all DM patients, 22% were managed by dietary management, 59% by NIM, and 19% by insulin. After EVAR, DM patients were more likely to have stable sacs, whereas non-DM patients were more likely to have sac regression at 1 year. Compared with non-DM, DM was associated with a significantly lower risk for 8-year rupture in EVAR (EVAR hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.92). Compared with non-DM, NIM was associated with lower risk of rupture within 8-years for both EVAR and OAR (EVAR HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.94; OAR HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.41-0.80), whereas dietary control and insulin had a similar rupture risk compared with non-DM. However, compared with non-DM, DM was associated with a higher risk of 8-year all-cause mortality after EVAR and OAR (DM vs non-DM: EVAR HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.11-1.23; OAR HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.00-1.36). After further DM management substratification, compared with non-DM, management with NIM and insulin were associated with a higher 8-year mortality in EVAR and OAR (EVAR: NIM HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.05-1.20; insulin: HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.26-1.55; OAR: NIM HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.54; and insulin: HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.15-2.13). Finally, there was a similar risk of reintervention across the DM and non-DM populations for EVAR and OAR. CONCLUSIONS: DM was associated with a lower adjusted risk of rupture after EVAR as well as OAR in patients managed with NIM. Nevertheless, just as in patients without AAA, preoperative DM was associated with a higher adjusted risk of all-cause mortality. Further study is needed to evaluate for differences in aneurysm-related mortality between DM and non-DM patients, and studies are planned to evaluate the independent effect of NIM on aneurysm-related outcomes.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: For relatives of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) patients, guidelines recommend abdominal imaging aimed at early detection and management of AAA, and do not include screening for thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAA). We aimed to investigate if TAA occur in undiagnosed relatives of AAA patients without a known genetic susceptibility for aneurysms, similar to families with identified genetic susceptibilities for aneurysms like in Marfan and Loeys-Dietz syndrome, where both AAA and TAA occur. METHODS: Relatives of AAA patients were invited for non-contrast whole aorta CT screening. Systematic measurements of the CT scans were used to detect aneurysms and dilatations. Classification into familial and non-familial was based on reported family histories. In addition, aneurysm gene panel testing of AAA index cases was used for the classification of high vs unknown genetic risk (high genetic risk: familial aneurysm or a (likely) pathogenic variant (P/LP) in an aneurysm gene; unknown genetic risk: no family history or P/LP). RESULTS: Whole aorta imaging of 301 relatives of 115 abdominal aortic aneurysm index-patients with non-contrast CT scans showed a 28-fold increase in thoracic aortic aneurysms in relatives (1.7%, p<0.001 versus the age adjusted population) and a high frequency of thoracic dilatations in 18% of the relatives. Thoracic aneurysms and dilatations in relatives occurred even when index patients were unaware of familial aneurysms. AAA was increased in the relatives compared to the age adjusted population (8%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An increased risk for thoracic aneurysms and dilatations was detected by whole aorta imaging of relatives of AAA index patients, even when index patients were unaware of familial aneurysms. These results indicate -still unknown- shared genetic susceptibilities for thoracic and abdominal aneurysms. Therefore, imaging of the whole aorta of relatives of all abdominal aneurysm patients, will improve early detection of aortic aneurysms in relatives of all AAA patients.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Metformin, widely used for the treatment of diabetes mellitus (DM), has shown potential for inhibiting abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) growth by reducing extracellular matrix remodeling and inflammation. However, its influence on clinical outcomes and aneurysm sac dynamics after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remains uncertain. This retrospective study aims to explore the effects of metformin on long-term outcomes following EVAR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent elective standard EVAR for infrarenal AAA at a single academic Dutch hospital from 2000 to 2022 were included. We collected baseline patient demographics, comorbid conditions, anatomical and operative characteristics, and 30-day postoperative events. Metformin use was defined as using it preceding EVAR. The primary outcome, the postoperative aneurysm sac volume over time, was investigated using linear mixed-effects modeling. The secondary outcomes, 8-year all-cause mortality and freedom from graft-related events, were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: We analyzed 685 patients, including 634 (93%) non-metformin users and 51 (7%) metformin users. The median follow-up period was similar (4.0 years [IQR=1.5, 6.5] vs 5.0 years [IQR=2.0, 8.0]; p=0.091). Patients on metformin had a preoperative aneurysm sac volume of 153 cc (IQR=114, 195) compared with 178 cc (IQR=133, 240) for non-metformin patients (p=0.054). At 30 days post-EVAR, metformin patients had a comparable mean aneurysm sac volume compared with non-metformin patients (metformin: -19.4 cc [95% confidence interval [CI]: -47.4, 8.5]; p=0.173). The effect of metformin on aneurysm growth over time was not significant (-3.9 cc/year; [95% CI: -22.7, 14.9]; p=0.685). Following risk-adjusted analysis, metformin use was associated with similar rates of all-cause mortality (metformin vs no metformin: 50% vs 44%; hazard ratio [HR]=1.11, 95% CI: 0.66, 1.88; p=0.688) and freedom from graft-related events (metformin vs no metformin: 63% vs 66%; HR=1.82, 95% CI: 0.98, 3.38; p=0.059). CONCLUSION: Although metformin use may reduce preoperative AAA growth, it does not seem to influence overall/long-term post-EVAR AAA sac dynamics, all-cause mortality, or freedom from graft-related events. These findings suggest that the potential protective effect of metformin on AAA may not be sustained after EVAR. Further prospective studies are needed to investigate the mechanisms underlying the potential role of metformin in AAA management following EVAR. CLINICAL IMPACT: There is currently no approved pharmacological treatment available to slow the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) growth rate and reduce the related risk of rupture. In our retrospective analysis including 685 patients undergoing EVAR for infrarenal AAA, we found that metformin use was not associated with improved post-EVAR outcomes, such as a reduction of aneurysm sac volume over time, eight-year all-cause mortality, or freedom of graft-related events. These findings suggest that the potential protective effect of metformin on AAA may not be sustained after EVAR and underscore the need for ongoing research into this area.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is suboptimal due to limited compliance and relatively large variability in measurement methods of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sac size after treatment. Measuring volume offers a more sensitive early indicator of aneurysm sac growth or regression and stability, but is more time consuming and thus less practical than measuring maximum diameter. This study evaluated the accuracy and consistency of the artificial intelligence (AI) driven software PRAEVAorta 2 and compared it with an established semi-automated segmentation method. METHODS: Post-EVAR aneurysm sac volumes measured by AI were compared with a semi-automated segmentation method (3mensio software) in patients with an infrarenal AAA, focusing on absolute aneurysm volume and volume evolution over time. The clinical impact of both methods was evaluated by categorising patients as showing either AAA sac regression, stabilisation, or growth comparing the 30 day and one year post-EVAR computed tomography angiography (CTA) images. Inter- and intra-method agreement were assessed using Bland-Altman analysis, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Cohen's κ statistic. RESULTS: Forty nine patients (98 CTA images) were analysed, after excluding 15 patients due to segmentation errors by AI owing to low quality CT scans. Aneurysm sac volume measurements showed excellent correlation (ICC = 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88 - 0.99) with good to excellent correlation for volume evolution over time (ICC = 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 - 0.91). Categorisation of AAA sac evolution showed fair correlation (Cohen's κ = 0.33), with 12 discrepancies (24%) between methods. The intra-method agreement for the AI software demonstrated perfect consistency (bias = -0.01 cc), indicating that it is more reliable compared with the semi-automated method. CONCLUSION: Despite some differences in AAA sac volume measurements, the highly consistent AI driven software accurately measured AAA sac volume evolution. AAA sac evolution classification appears to be more reliable than existing methods and may therefore improve risk stratification post-EVAR, and could facilitate AI driven personalised surveillance programmes. While high quality CTA images are crucial, considering radiation exposure is important, validating the software with non-contrast CT scans might reduce the radiation burden.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the long term outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair using the Gore Excluder Low Permeability (LP) endoprosthesis across high volume Dutch hospitals. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients treated with the Excluder LP for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in four hospitals between 2004 and 2017. Primary outcomes were overall survival, freedom from re-interventions (overall, inside and outside instructions for use, IFU), and AAA sac dynamics: growth (> 5 mm), stabilisation, and regression (< 5 mm). Secondary outcomes were technical success (device deployment), procedural parameters, and re-interventions. Follow up visits were extracted from patient files, with imaging assessed for complications and AAA diameter. RESULTS: Five hundred and fourteen patients were enrolled, with a median (IQR) follow up of 5.0 (2.9, 6.9) years. Survival rates were 94.0% at one year, 73.0% at five years, and 37.0% at 10 years, with freedom from re-interventions of 89.0%, 79.0%, and 71.0%, respectively. 37.9% were treated outside IFU, leading to significantly more re-interventions over 10 years compared with those treated inside IFU (36.0% vs. 25.0%, respectively; p = .044). The aneurysm sac regressed by 53.5% at one year, 65.8% at five years, and 77.8% at 10 years, and grew by 9.8%, 14.3%, and 22.2%, respectively. Patients with one year sac growth had significantly worse survival (p = .047). Seven patients (1.4%) had a ruptured aneurysm during follow up. Over 15 years, type 1a endoleak occurred in 5.3%, type 1b in 3.1%, type 3 in 1.9%, type 4 in 0.2%, and type 2 in 35.6% of patients. CONCLUSION: This multicentre study of real world endovascular aneurysm repair data using the Gore Excluder LP endoprosthesis demonstrated robust long term survival and re-intervention rates, despite 37.9% of patients being treated outside IFU, with type 4 endoleak being rare. Treatment outside IFU significantly increased re-intervention rates and one year sac growth was associated with statistically significantly worse survival.
Asunto(s)
Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular , Prótesis Vascular , Procedimientos Endovasculares , Diseño de Prótesis , Humanos , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/cirugía , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/mortalidad , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/diagnóstico por imagen , Masculino , Femenino , Anciano , Estudios Retrospectivos , Procedimientos Endovasculares/instrumentación , Procedimientos Endovasculares/efectos adversos , Procedimientos Endovasculares/mortalidad , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular/instrumentación , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular/efectos adversos , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular/mortalidad , Resultado del Tratamiento , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Países Bajos/epidemiología , Factores de Tiempo , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Permeabilidad , Stents , Factores de Riesgo , Hospitales de Alto Volumen , Reoperación/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is a feasible option for aortic repair after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), due to improved peri-operative outcomes compared with open conversion. However, little is known regarding the durability of FEVAR as a treatment for failed EVAR. Since aneurysm sac evolution is an important marker for success after aneurysm repair, the aim of the study was to examine midterm outcomes and aneurysm sac dynamics of FEVAR after prior EVAR. METHODS: Patients undergoing FEVAR for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms from 2008 to 2021 at two hospitals in The Netherlands were included. Patients were categorised into primary FEVAR and FEVAR after EVAR. Outcomes included five year mortality rate, one year aneurysm sac dynamics (regression, stable, expansion), sac dynamics over time, and five year aortic related procedures. Analyses were done using Kaplan-Meier methods, multivariable Cox regression analysis, chi square tests, and linear mixed effect models. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-six patients with FEVAR were identified, of whom 27% (n = 53) had had a prior EVAR. Patients with prior EVAR were significantly older (78 ± 6.7 years vs. 73 ± 5.9 years, p < .001). There were no significant differences in mortality rate. FEVAR after EVAR was associated with a higher risk of aortic related procedures within five years (hazard ratio [HR] 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 - 6.5, p = .037). Sac dynamics were assessed in 154 patients with available imaging. Patients with a prior EVAR showed lower rates of sac regression and higher rates of sac expansion at one year compared with primary FEVAR (sac expansion 48%, n = 21/44, vs. 8%, n = 9/110, p < .001). Sac dynamics over time showed similar results, sac growth for FEVAR after EVAR, and sac shrinkage for primary FEVAR (p < .001). CONCLUSION: There were high rates of sac expansion and a need for more secondary procedures in FEVAR after EVAR than primary FEVAR patients, although this did not affect midterm survival. Future studies will have to assess whether FEVAR after EVAR is a valid intervention, and the underlying process that drives aneurysm sac growth following successful FEVAR after EVAR.
Asunto(s)
Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular , Procedimientos Endovasculares , Humanos , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/cirugía , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/mortalidad , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/diagnóstico por imagen , Procedimientos Endovasculares/efectos adversos , Procedimientos Endovasculares/instrumentación , Procedimientos Endovasculares/mortalidad , Anciano , Femenino , Masculino , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular/efectos adversos , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular/instrumentación , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular/mortalidad , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular/métodos , Países Bajos/epidemiología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Factores de Riesgo , Prótesis Vascular , Reoperación/estadística & datos numéricos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/mortalidad , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Diseño de Prótesis , Reparación Endovascular de AneurismasRESUMEN
This manuscript is intended to provide a comprehensive review of the current state of knowledge on endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). The management of these complex aneurysms requires an interdisciplinary and patient-specific approach in high-volume centers. An index case is used to discuss the diagnosis and treatment of a patient undergoing fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair for a TAAA.
Asunto(s)
Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal , Aneurisma de la Aorta Torácica , Aneurisma de la Aorta Toracoabdominal , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular , Procedimientos Endovasculares , Humanos , Prótesis Vascular , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/diagnóstico por imagen , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/cirugía , Aneurisma de la Aorta Torácica/diagnóstico por imagen , Aneurisma de la Aorta Torácica/cirugía , Resultado del Tratamiento , Factores de Riesgo , Diseño de Prótesis , Complicaciones PosoperatoriasRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS), using the Nellix endovascular aneurysm sealing system, has been associated with high reintervention and migration rates. However, prior reports have suggested that EVAS might be related to a lower all-cause mortality compared with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). In the present study, we examined the 5-year all-cause mortality trends after EVAS and EVAR. METHODS: We compared the 333 EVAS patients in the EVAS-1 Nellix U.S. investigational device exemption trial with 16,497 infrarenal EVAR controls from the Vascular Quality Initiative, treated between 2014 and 2016, after applying the exclusion criteria from the investigational device exemption trial (ie, hemodialysis, creatinine >2.0 mg/dL, rupture). As a secondary analysis, we stratified the patients by aneurysm diameter (<5.5 cm and ≥5.5 cm). We calculated propensity scores after adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and anatomic characteristics and applied inverse probability weighting to compare the risk-adjusted long-term mortality using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: After weighting, the EVAS group had experienced similar 5-year mortality compared with the controls from the Vascular Quality Initiative (EVAS vs EVAR, 18% vs 14%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.7; P = .70). The subgroup analysis demonstrated that for patients with an aneurysm diameter of <5.5 cm, EVAS was associated with higher 5-year mortality compared with EVAR (19% vs 11%; HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7-4.7; P = .013). In patients with an aneurysm diameter of ≥5.5 cm, EVAS was associated with lower mortality within the first 2 years (2-year mortality: HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.62; P = .002). However, compared with EVAR, EVAS was associated with higher mortality between 2 and 5 years (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0; P = .005), with no mortality difference at 5 years (18% vs 17%; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.4-1.4; P = .46). CONCLUSIONS: Within the overall population, EVAS was associated with similar 5-year mortality compared with EVAR. EVAS was associated with higher mortality for those with small aneurysms (<5.5 cm). For those with larger aneurysms (≥5.5 cm), EVAS was initially associated with lower mortality within the first 2 years, although this advantage was lost thereafter, with higher mortality after 2 years. Future studies are required to evaluate the specific causes of death and to elucidate the potential beneficial mechanism behind sac obliteration that leads to this potential initial survival benefit. This could help guide the development of future grafts with better proximal fixation and sealing that also incorporate sac obliteration.
Asunto(s)
Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular , Procedimientos Endovasculares , Humanos , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/cirugía , Prótesis Vascular , Reparación Endovascular de Aneurismas , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Stents , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: With increasing experience in fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) over time, devices designed to treat juxta-/pararenal aortic aneurysms have evolved in complexity to extend to more proximal landing zones and incorporate more target vessels. We assessed perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent juxta-/pararenal FEVAR with supraceliac vs infraceliac sealing in the Vascular Quality Initiative. METHODS: We identified all patients who underwent elective FEVAR (commercially available FEVAR and physician-modified endografts) for juxta-/pararenal aortic aneurysms in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2014 and 2021. Supraceliac sealing was defined as proximal sealing in aortic zone 5, or zone 6 with a celiac scallop/fenestration/branch or celiac occlusion. Primary outcomes were perioperative and 3-year mortality. Secondary outcomes included completion endoleaks, in-hospital complications, and factors associated with 3-year mortality. We calculated propensity scores and used inverse probability-weighted Cox regression and logistic regression modeling to assess outcomes. RESULTS: Among 1486 patients identified, 1246 patients (84%) underwent infraceliac sealing, and 240 patients (16%) underwent supraceliac sealing. Of the supraceliac patients, 74 (31%) had a celiac scallop, 144 (60%) had a celiac fenestration/branch, and 22 (9.2%) had a celiac occlusion (intentional or unintentional). After risk-adjusted analyses, there were no differences in perioperative mortality following supraceliac sealing compared with infraceliac sealing (2.3% vs 2.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-1.8; P = .42), or 3-year mortality (12% vs 15%; HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.53-1.5; P = .67). Compared with infraceliac sealing, supraceliac sealing was associated with lower odds of type-IA completion endoleaks (odds ratio [OR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.05-0.67), but higher odds of any complication (12% vs 6.9%; OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.01-2.5) including cardiac complications (5.5% vs 1.9%; OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.3-5.1), lower extremity ischemia (3.0% vs 0.9%; OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.02-9.5), and acute kidney injury (16% vs 11%; OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.05-2.3). Though non-significant, there was a trend towards higher risk of spinal cord ischemia following supraceliac sealing compared with infraceliac sealing (1.7% vs 0.8%; OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 0.70-6.4). There were no differences in bowel ischemia between groups (1.7% vs 1.5%; OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.24-1.23). A more proximal aneurysm disease extent was associated with higher 3-year mortality (HR zone 8 vs 9, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5), whereas procedural characteristics had no influence. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with sealing at an infraceliac level, supraceliac sealing was associated with lower risk of type IA endoleaks and similar mortality. However, clinicians should be aware that supraceliac sealing was associated with higher perioperative morbidity. Future studies with longer follow-up are needed to adequately assess durability differences to comprehensively weigh the risks and benefits of utilizing a higher sealing zone within the visceral aorta for juxta-/pararenal FEVAR.
Asunto(s)
Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular , Procedimientos Endovasculares , Humanos , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/diagnóstico por imagen , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/cirugía , Prótesis Vascular/efectos adversos , Endofuga/cirugía , Factores de Riesgo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/terapia , Factores de Tiempo , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Prior literature is conflicted regarding the effect of diabetes mellitus (DM) on outcomes after endovascular repair of aortic aneurysms. In this study, we aimed to examine the association between DM and outcomes after thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) for thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA). METHODS: We identified patients who underwent TEVAR for TAA of the descending thoracic aorta in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2014 and 2022. We created two cohorts, DM and nonDM, based on the patient's preoperative DM status, and secondarily substratified patients with DM by management strategy: dietary management, noninsulin medications, and insulin therapy cohorts. Outcomes included perioperative and 5-year mortality, in-hospital complications, indications for repair, and 1-year sac dynamics, which were analyzed with multivariable cox regression, multivariable logistic regression, and χ2 tests, respectively. RESULTS: We identified 2637 patients, of which 473 (18%) had DM preoperatively. Among patients with DM, 25% were diet controlled, 54% noninsulin medications, and 21% insulin therapy. Within patients who underwent TEVAR for TAA, the proportions of ruptured presentation were higher in the dietary-managed (11.1%) and insulin-managed (14.3%) cohorts relative to noninsulin therapy (6.6%) and those without DM (6.9%). After multivariable regression analysis, we found that DM was associated with similar perioperative mortality (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.81) and 5-year mortality compared with patients without DM (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.91-1.48). Furthermore, all in-hospital complications were comparable between patients with DM and patients without DM. Compared with patients without DM, dietary management of DM was significantly associated with higher adjusted perioperative mortality (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.03-4.19) and higher 5-year mortality (hazad ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.03-2.20), although this was not the case for other DM subgroups. All cohorts displayed similar 1-year sac dynamics, with sac regression occurring in 47% of patients without DM vs 46% of patients with DM (P = .27). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperatively, patients with DM who underwent TEVAR had a higher proportion of ruptured presentation when treated with diet or insulin medications than when treated with noninsulin medications. After TEVAR for descending TAA, DM was associated with a similar risk of perioperative and 5-year mortality as nonDM. In contrast, dietary therapy for DM was associated with significantly higher perioperative mortality and 5-year mortality.
Asunto(s)
Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal , Aneurisma de la Aorta Torácica , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular , Aneurisma de la Aorta Torácica Descendente , Diabetes Mellitus , Procedimientos Endovasculares , Insulinas , Humanos , Procedimientos Endovasculares/efectos adversos , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/cirugía , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular/efectos adversos , Aneurisma de la Aorta Torácica/complicaciones , Aneurisma de la Aorta Torácica/diagnóstico por imagen , Aneurisma de la Aorta Torácica/cirugía , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiología , Factores de Riesgo , Complicaciones Posoperatorias , Aorta Torácica/cirugíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Stenting of renal and mesenteric vessels may result in changes in velocity measurements due to arterial compliance, potentially giving rise to confusion about the presence of stenosis during follow-up. The aim of our study was to compare preoperative and postoperative changes in peak systolic velocity (PSV, cm/s) after placement of the celiac axis (CA), superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and renal artery (RAs) bridging stent grafts during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. METHODS: Patients were enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized single-center study to evaluate FB-EVAR for treatment of complex AAA and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms between 2013 and 2020. Duplex ultrasound examination of renal-mesenteric vessels were obtained prospectively preoperatively and at 6 to 8 weeks after the procedure. Duplex ultrasound examination was performed by a single vascular laboratory team using a predefined protocol including PSV measurements obtained with <60° angles. All renal-mesenteric vessels incorporated by bridging stent grafts using fenestrations or directional branches were analyzed. Target vessels with significant stenosis in the preoperative exam were excluded from the analysis. The end point was variations in PSV poststent placement at the origin, proximal, and mid segments of the target vessels for fenestrations and branches. RESULTS: There were 419 patients (292 male; mean age, 74 ± 8 years) treated by FB-EVAR with 1411 renal-mesenteric targeted vessels, including 260 CAs, 409 SMAs, and 742 RAs. No significant variances in the mean PSVs of all segments of the CA, SMA, and RAs at 6 to 8 weeks after surgery were found as compared with the preoperative values (CA, 135 cm/s vs 141 cm/s [P = .06]; SMA, 128 cm/s vs 125 cm/s [P = .62]; RAs, 90 cm/s vs 83 cm/s [P = .65]). Compared with baseline preoperative values, the PSV of the targeted vessels showed no significant differences in the origin and proximal segment of all vessels. However, the PSV increased significantly in the mid segment of all target vessels after stent placement. CONCLUSIONS: Stent placement in nonstenotic renal and mesenteric vessels during FB-EVAR is not associated with a significant increase in PSVs at the origin and proximal segments of the target vessels. Although there is a modest but significant increase in velocity measurements in the mid segment of the stented vessel, this difference is not clinically significant. Furthermore, PSVs in stented renal and mesenteric arteries were well below the threshold for significant stenosis in native vessels. These values provide a baseline or benchmark for expected PSVs after renal-mesenteric stenting during FB-EVAR.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to ascertain endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) suitability in relation to stent-graft-specific instructions for use (IFU) in patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the preoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA), the aortic morphology of patients undergoing surgical repair of a RAAA in 2 Dutch hospitals between January 2014 and December 2019 was retrospectively assessed. Three-dimensional and central luminal line reconstructions were used. Anatomical suitability was defined according to the IFU of the stent graft system used. RESULTS: Of 128 included patients, 112 (88%) were men and the mean age was 74.1 (SD=7.6) years. Anatomy within IFU for EVAR was present in 31 patients (24%). Overall, 94 patients (73%) were treated with open surgical repair (OSR) and 34 patients (27%) were treated with EVAR. Anatomy within IFU was present in 15 OSR patients (16%) and 16 EVAR patients (47%). In patients with anatomy outside of IFU, 90% (87/97) had unsuitable neck anatomy and 64% (62/97) had insufficient neck length. An unsuitable distal iliac landing zone was observed in 35 patients. Perioperative mortality was 27% (34/128), with no difference between OSR and EVAR (25/94 vs 9/34; p=0.989). CONCLUSION: Most RAAA patients in this series did not have aortic anatomy within IFU for EVAR, mainly due to insufficient neck length. However, whether anatomy outside of IFU equates to unsuitability for EVAR in an emergency setting remains a matter of debate and warrants further research. CLINICAL IMPACT: The treatment of a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm can consist of endovascular repair or open repair. Retrospective anatomical assessment shows that most patients do not have anatomy inside the instructions for use for endovascular aneurysm repair, mainly due to insufficient neck length. Whether anatomy outside the instructions for use equates unsuitability for endovascular aneurysm repair remains a matter of debate.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Octogenarians are known to have less-favorable outcomes following ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) repair compared with their younger counterparts. Accurate information regarding perioperative outcomes following rAAA-repair is important to evaluate current treatment practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate perioperative outcomes of octogenarians and to identify factors associated with mortality and major complications after open surgical repair (OSR) or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of a rAAA using nationwide, real-world, contemporary data. METHODS: All patients that underwent EVAR or OSR of an infrarenal or juxtarenal rAAA between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2018, were prospectively registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA) and included in this study. The primary outcome was the comparison of perioperative outcomes of octogenarians versus non-octogenarians, including adjustment for confounders. Secondary outcomes were the identification of factors associated with mortality and major complications in octogenarians. RESULTS: The study included 2879 patients, of which 1146 were treated by EVAR (382 octogenarians, 33%) and 1733 were treated by OSR (410 octogenarians, 24%). Perioperative mortality of octogenarians following EVAR was 37.2% versus 14.8% in non-octogenarians (adjusted OR=2.9, 95% CI=2.8-3.0) and 50.0% versus 29.4% following OSR (adjusted OR=2.2, 95% CI=2.2-2.3). Major complication rates of octogenarians were 55.4% versus 31.8% in non-octogenarians following EVAR (OR=2.7, 95% CI=2.1-3.4), and 68% versus 49% following OSR (OR=2.2, 95% CI=1.8-2.8). Following EVAR, 30.6% of the octogenarians had an uncomplicated perioperative course (UPC) versus 49.5% in non-octogenarians (OR=0.5, 95% CI=0.4-0.6), while following OSR, UPC rates were 20.7% in octogenarians versus 32.6% in non-octogenarians (OR=0.5, 95% CI=0.4-0.7). Cardiac or pulmonary comorbidity and loss of consciousness were associated with mortality and major complications in octogenarians. Interestingly, female octogenarians had lower mortality rates following EVAR than male octogenarians (adjusted OR=0.7, 95% CI=0.6-0.8). CONCLUSION: Based on this nationwide study with real-world registry data, mortality rates of octogenarians following ruptured AAA-repair were high, especially after OSR. However, a substantial proportion of these octogenarians following OSR and EVAR had an uneventful recovery. Known preoperative factors do influence perioperative outcomes and reflect current treatment practice.
Asunto(s)
Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal , Rotura de la Aorta , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular , Procedimientos Endovasculares , Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Factores de Riesgo , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/diagnóstico por imagen , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/cirugía , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/complicaciones , Procedimientos Endovasculares/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular/efectos adversos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Rotura de la Aorta/diagnóstico por imagen , Rotura de la Aorta/cirugía , Rotura de la Aorta/etiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiologíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Chronic mesenteric ischaemia (CMI) treatment focuses on symptom relief and prevention of disease progression. Endovascular repair represents the main treatment modality, while data on the associated antiplatelet regimen are scarce. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the early and midterm outcomes of endovascular repair in patients with CMI. DATA SOURCES: Randomised controlled trials and observational studies (1990 - 2022) reporting on early and midterm endovascular repair outcomes in patients with atherosclerotic CMI. REVIEW METHODS: The PRISMA guidelines and PICO model were followed. The protocol was registered to PROSPERO (CRD42023401685). Medline, Embase (via Ovid), and Cochrane databases were searched (end date 21 February 2023). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for risk of bias assessment, and GRADE for evidence quality assessment. Primary outcomes were technical success, 30 day mortality, and symptom relief, assessed using prevalence meta-analysis. The role of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) was investigated using meta-regression analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen retrospective studies (1 224 patients; mean age 69.8 ± 10.6 years; 60.3% female) reporting on 1 368 target vessels (57.8% superior mesenteric arteries) were included. Technical success was 95.0% (95% CI 93 - 97%, p = .28, I2 19%, low certainty), the 30 day mortality rate was 2.0% (95% CI 2 - 4%, p = .93, I2 36%, low certainty), and immediate symptom relief was 87.0% (95% CI 80 - 92%, p < .010, I2 85%, very low certainty). At mean follow up of 28 months, the mortality rate was 15.0% (95% CI 9 - 25%, p = .010, I2 86%, very low certainty), symptom recurrence 25.0% (95% CI 21 - 31%, p < .010, I2 68%, very low certainty) and re-intervention rate 26.0% (95% CI 17 - 37%, p < .010, I2 92%, very low certainty). Single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) and DAPT performed similarly in the investigated outcomes. CONCLUSION: Endovascular repair for CMI appears to be safe as first line treatment, with a low peri-operative mortality rate and acceptable immediate symptom relief. During midterm follow up, symptom recurrence and need for re-intervention are not uncommon. SAPT appears to be equal to DAPT in post-operative outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Aterosclerosis , Procedimientos Endovasculares , Isquemia Mesentérica , Humanos , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Masculino , Isquemia Mesentérica/diagnóstico por imagen , Isquemia Mesentérica/cirugía , Isquemia Mesentérica/etiología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Inhibidores de Agregación Plaquetaria/uso terapéutico , Aterosclerosis/complicaciones , Aterosclerosis/cirugía , Enfermedad Crónica , Procedimientos Endovasculares/efectos adversosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess aneurysm sac dynamics and its prognostic significance following fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR). METHODS: Patients undergoing F/BEVAR for degenerative complex aortic aneurysm from 2008 to 2020 at two large vascular centres with two imaging examinations (30 day and one year) were included. Patients were categorised as regression and non-regression, determined by the proportional volume change (> 5%) at one year compared with 30 days. All cause mortality and freedom from graft related events were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Factors associated with non-regression at one year and aneurysm sac volume over time were examined for FEVAR and BEVAR independently using multivariable logistic regression and linear mixed effects modelling. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-five patients were included: 122 FEVAR, of whom 34% did not regress at one year imaging (20% stable, 14% expansion); and 43 BEVAR, of whom 53% failed to regress (26% stable, 28% expansion). Following F/BEVAR, after risk adjusted analysis, non-regression was associated with higher risk of all cause mortality within five years (hazard ratio [HR] 2.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09 - 5.37; p = .032) and higher risk of graft related events within five years (HR 2.44, 95% CI 1.10 - 5.26; p = .029). Following multivariable logistic regression, previous aortic repair (odds ratio [OR] 2.56, 95% CI 1.11 - 5.96; p = .029) and larger baseline aneurysm diameter (OR/mm 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 - 1.09; p = .037) were associated with non-regression at one year, whereas smoking history was inversely associated with non-regression (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04 - 0.96; p = .045). Overall following FEVAR, aneurysm sac volume decreased significantly up to two years (baseline vs. two year, 267 [95% CI 250 - 285] cm3vs. 223 [95% CI 197 - 248] cm3), remaining unchanged thereafter. Overall following BEVAR, aneurysm sac volume remained stable over time. CONCLUSION: Like infrarenal EVAR, non-regression at one year imaging is associated with higher five year all cause mortality and graft related events risks after F/BEVAR. Following FEVAR for juxtarenal aortic aneurysm, aneurysm sacs generally displayed regression (66% at one year), whereas after BEVAR for thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm, aneurysm sacs displayed a concerning proportion of growth at one year (28%), potentially suggesting a persistent risk of rupture and consequently requiring intensified surveillance following BEVAR. Future studies will have to elucidate how to improve sac regression following complex EVAR, and whether the high expansion risk after BEVAR is due to advanced disease extent.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Acute type B aortic dissection (ATBD) is a rare yet serious cardiovascular event that potentially has an impact on health related quality of life (HRQoL). However, long term follow up data on this topic are scarce. This study aimed to review the long term HRQoL among patients treated for ATBD. METHODS: In this multicentre, cross sectional survey study, consecutive treated patients with ATBD between 2007 and 2017 in four referral centres in the Netherlands were retrospectively included and baseline data were collected. Between 2019 and 2021 the 36 Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) was sent to all surviving patients (n = 263) and was compared with validated SF-36 scores in the Dutch general population stratified by age and sex. RESULTS: In total, 144 of 263 surviving patients completed the SF-36 (response rate 55%). Median (IQR) age was 68 (61, 76) years at completion of the questionnaire, and 40% (n = 58) were female. Initial treatment was medical in 55% (n = 79), endovascular in 41% (n = 59), and surgical in 4% (n = 6) of ATBD patients. Median follow up time was 6.1 (range 1.7-13.9; IQR 4.0, 9.0) years. Compared with the general population, patients scored significantly worse on six of eight SF-36 subdomains, particularly physical domains. Apart from bodily pain, there were no substantial differences in HRQoL between male and female ATBD patients. Compared with sex matched normative data, females scored significantly worse on five of eight subdomains, whereas males scored significantly lower on six subdomains. Younger patients aged 41-60 years seemed more severely impaired in HRQoL compared with the age matched general population. Treatment strategy did not influence HRQoL outcomes. Follow up time was associated with better Physical and Mental Component Summary scores. CONCLUSION: Long term HRQoL was impaired in ATBD patients compared with the Dutch general population, especially regarding physical status. This warrants more attention for HRQoL during clinical follow up. Rehabilitation programmes including exercise and physical support might improve HRQoL and increase patients' health understanding.
Asunto(s)
Disección Aórtica , Calidad de Vida , Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Estudios Transversales , Estudios Retrospectivos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Disección Aórtica/cirugíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Proximal endograft failure (type Ia endoleak or migration) after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is associated with hostile aneurysm neck morphology. Neck scoring systems were developed to predict proximal endograft failure but were studied in retrospective studies, which, due to selection bias, may have led to an overestimation of bad outcomes after EVAR. To predict patients who benefit from open repair, preoperative neck morphology and occurrence of long-term proximal endograft failure were investigated in patients enrolled in the endovascular arm of the Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management (DREAM) trial who were suitable for open repair by definition and have long-term follow-up. METHODS: A post-hoc on-treatment analysis of patients after EVAR was performed in 171 patients. Aneurysm neck morphology was quantified using the aneurysm severity grading (ASG) neck score calculated on preoperative computed tomography angiography images. The ASG neck score was used to predict proximal endograft failure. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to calculate a threshold to divide favorable and unfavorable aneurysm necks (low and high risk); positive and negative likelihood-ratios were calculated accordingly. Freedom from proximal endograft failure was compared between groups using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 7.6 years, 20 patients suffered proximal endograft failure. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed an area under the curve of 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.90; P < .001), indicating acceptable prediction. The threshold was determined at ASG neck score ≥5; 30 patients had unfavorable neck morphology, of whom 11 developed proximal endograft failure. The positive likelihood-ratio was 4.4 (95% CI, 2.5-7.8), and the negative likelihood-ratio was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.3-0.8). Twelve years postoperatively, freedom from proximal endograft failure was 91.7% in the favorable group and 53.2% in the unfavorable group, a difference of 38.5% (95% CI, 13.9-63.1; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the ASG neck score predicted proximal endograft failure during the entire follow-up. This exhibits the persistent risk for proximal endograft failure long after EVAR and calls for ongoing surveillance especially in patients with unfavorable aneurysm necks.
Asunto(s)
Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular , Procedimientos Endovasculares , Migración de Cuerpo Extraño , Humanos , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/diagnóstico por imagen , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/cirugía , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/etiología , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular/efectos adversos , Prótesis Vascular , Procedimientos Endovasculares/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Migración de Cuerpo Extraño/etiología , Resultado del Tratamiento , Factores de Riesgo , Factores de TiempoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Several studies have demonstrated the advantages of a retroperitoneal (RP) vs a transperitoneal (TP) approach during open repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). We compared the outcomes after open repair of complex AAAs (cAAAs) using an RP vs a TP approach and evaluated the relative use of these approaches over time. METHODS: We identified all patients who had undergone open intact cAAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2003 to -2019 and created 1:1-propensity score-matched cohorts stratified by the operative approach (RP vs TP). The primary outcome was perioperative mortality. The secondary outcomes included perioperative complications and approach usage over time. To create 1:1 propensity score-matched cohorts, the patients were matched for demographics, comorbidities, and anatomic and/or intraoperative characteristics, including proximal clamp site and renal revascularization. The approach usage over time was determined by plotting the proportion of RP usage over time for the overall open cAAA cohort and subgroups of repairs using a supraceliac cross clamp, repair with concomitant renal revascularization, and repairs performed at high-volume centers (highest quintile, >11 cases annually). RESULTS: Of a total of 4613 patients, 2843 (62%) had undergone open cAAA repair using the TP approach and 1770 (38%) using the RP approach. Of the 1256 matched pairs, the RP approach was associated with lower risk of perioperative mortality compared with the TP approach (3.9% vs 6.8%; relative risk [RR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.80; P = .001). Furthermore, the RP approach was associated with a lower risk of cardiac complications (7.2% vs 9.6%; RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.98), bowel ischemia (3.1% vs 5.4%; RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.84), and postoperative dialysis (3.3% vs 5.5%; RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.87). Overall, the proportion of patients who had undergone repair via an RP approach became lower over time (-1.0%/y; 95% CI, -1.5 to -0.5; P < .001). A similar trend in the decrease was found for the patients who had undergone repair with a supraceliac clamp (-2.3%/y; 95% CI, -3.6 to -1.0; P < .001) and in the high-volume hospitals (-2.1%/y; 95% CI, -3.4 to -0.8; P = .001), although no statistically significant decrease in RP usage was found for the patients who had undergone concomitant renal revascularization (-0.9%/y; 95% CI, -2.6 to 0.8; P = .28). CONCLUSIONS: For open cAAA repair, an RP approach was associated with lower perioperative mortality and complications compared with a TP approach. However, the relative usage of the RP approach has been decreasing over time. An increased adoption of the RP approach, when appropriate, might lead to improved outcomes with open cAAA repair.