Contemporary indications for open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the endovascular era.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the emergence of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) as the most common approach to abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, open aneurysm repair (OAR) remains an important option. This study seeks to define the indications for OAR in the EVAR era and how these indicatioxns effect outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed of all OAR at a single institution from 2004 to 2019. Preoperative computed tomography scans and operative records were assessed to determine the indication for OAR. These reasons were categorized into anatomical contraindications, systemic factors (connective tissue disorders, contraindication to contrast dye), and patient or surgeon preference (patients who were candidates for both EVAR and OAR). Perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the groups. RESULTS: We included 370 patients in the analysis; 71.6% (265/370) had at least one anatomic contraindication to EVAR and 36% had two or more contraindications. The most common anatomic contraindications were short aortic neck length (51.6%), inadequate distal seal zone (19.2%), and inadequate access vessels (15.7%). The major perioperative complication rate was 18.1% and the 30-day mortality was 3.0%. No single anatomic factor was identified as a predictor of perioperative complications. Sixty-one patients (16.5%) underwent OAR based on patient or surgeon preference; these patients were younger, had lower incidences of coronary artery disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and were less likely to require suprarenal cross-clamping compared with patients who had anatomic and/or systemic contraindications to EVAR. The patient or surgeon preference group had a lower incidence of perioperative major complications (8.2% vs 20.1%; P = .034), shorter length of stay (6 days vs 8 days; P < .001) and no 30-day mortalities. The multivariable adjusted risk for 15-year mortality was lower for patient or surgeon preference patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.80; P = .007) compared with those anatomic or systemic contraindications. CONCLUSIONS: Within a population of patients who did not meet instruction for use criteria for EVAR, no single anatomic contraindication was a marker for worse outcomes with OAR. Patients who were candidates for both aortic repair approaches but elected to undergo OAR owing to patient or surgeon preference have very low 30-day mortality and morbidity, and superior long-term survival rates compared with those patients who underwent OAR owing to anatomic and/or systemic contraindications to EVAR.