TY - JOUR
T1 - Population-based long-term outcomes of open versus endovascular aortic repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms
AU - Salata, Konrad
AU - Hussain, Mohamad A.
AU - de Mestral, Charles
AU - Greco, Elisa
AU - Awartani, Hadeel
AU - Aljabri, Badr A.
AU - Mamdani, Muhammad
AU - Forbes, Thomas L.
AU - Bhatt, Deepak L.
AU - Verma, Subodh
AU - Al-Omran, Mohammed
N1 - Funding Information:
Jointly funded by the Physicians' Service Incorporated Resident Research Grant, the Division of Vascular Surgery at St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, and funds from the Department of Surgery, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. K.S. is supported in part by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Canada Graduate Scholarship Master's salary support award, and the Goerc and Toronto Academic Vascular Specialists Surgeon Scientist Training Program Scholarships, and the Ontario Graduate Scholarship. This study was supported by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC). The opinions, results and conclusions reported in this paper are those of the authors and are independent from the funding sources. No endorsement by ICES or the Ontario MOHLTC is intended or should be inferred. Parts of this material is based on data and/or information compiled and provided by CIHI. However, the analyses, conclusions, opinions and statements expressed in the material are those of the author(s), and not necessarily those of CIHI. The authors of this article would also like to thank Cindy Fong from ICES for provision of administrative support, and Alice Chong and Atul Sivaswamy for help with dataset definition and creation.Author conflict of interest: D.L.B. discloses the following relationships: Advisory Board: Cardax, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, Medscape Cardiology, and Regado Biosciences; Board of Directors: Boston VA Research Institute, and Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care; Chair: American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee; Data Monitoring Committees: Cleveland Clinic, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and Population Health Research Institute; Honoraria: American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; Vice-Chair, ACC Accreditation Committee), Belvoir Publications (Editor in Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees), Harvard Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committee), HMP Communications (Editor in Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest Editor; Associate Editor), Population Health Research Institute (clinical trial steering committee), Slack Publications (Chief Medical Editor, Cardiology Today's Intervention), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (Secretary/Treasurer), and WebMD (CME steering committees); Other: Clinical Cardiology (Deputy Editor), NCDR-ACTION Registry Steering Committee (Chair), VA CART Research and Publications Committee (Chair); Research Funding: Abbott, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Eisai, Ethicon, Forest Laboratories, Ironwood, Ischemix, Lilly, Medtronic, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and The Medicines Company; Royalties: Elsevier (Editor, Cardiovascular Intervention: A Companion to Braunwald's Heart Disease); Site Co-Investigator: Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and St. Jude Medical (now Abbott); Trustee: American College of Cardiology; and Unfunded Research: FlowCo, Merck, PLx Pharma, and Takeda. The remaining authors of this manuscript declare no competing interests.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery
PY - 2020/6
Y1 - 2020/6
N2 - Objective: Existing data regarding endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) are conflicting in their findings. The purpose of this paper was to determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR vs open surgical repair (OSR) for treatment of rAAA. Methods: A population-based retrospective cohort study of all patients 40 years or more that underwent OSR or EVAR of rAAA in Ontario, Canada, from 2003 to 2016 was conducted. Administrative data from the province of Ontario was used as the data source. The propensity for repair approach was calculated using a logistic regression model including all covariates and used for inverse probability of treatment weighting. Cox proportional hazards regression was conducted using the weighted cohort to determine the survival and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-free survival of EVAR relative to OSR for rAAA up to 10 years after repair. Results: A total of 2692 rAAA (261 EVAR [10%] and 2431 OSR [90%]) repairs were recorded from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2016. Mean follow-up for the entire cohort was 3.4 years (standard deviation [SD], 3.9 years), with a maximum follow-up of 14.0 years. OSR patients were followed for a mean of 3.5 years (SD, 4.0 years) and maximum of 14.0 years, and EVAR patients were followed for a mean of 2.7 years (SD, 2.7 years) and a maximum of 11.4 years. Median survival was 2.7 years overall, and 2.5 and 3.7 years for OSR and EVAR patients, respectively. There were no significant baseline differences between EVAR and OSR patients after inverse probability of treatment weighting. EVAR patients were at lower hazard for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.65; P <.01), and MACE (hazard ratio, 0.51, 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.66; P <.01) within 30 days of repair. There were no statistically significant differences between EVAR and OSR in the hazard for all-cause mortality or MACE from 30 days to 5 years, and 5 to 10 years. Despite this, the upfront mortality and MACE benefits of EVAR persisted for more than 4.5 years after repair. Conclusions: This population-based cohort study using administrative data from Ontario, Canada, demonstrated lower hazards for all-cause mortality and MACE within 30 days of operation in favor of EVAR, but no differences in the mid- or longer-term results. More work is needed to understand and improve the long-term outcomes of ruptured endovascular aortic aneurysm repair and ruptured open surgical repair.
AB - Objective: Existing data regarding endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) are conflicting in their findings. The purpose of this paper was to determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR vs open surgical repair (OSR) for treatment of rAAA. Methods: A population-based retrospective cohort study of all patients 40 years or more that underwent OSR or EVAR of rAAA in Ontario, Canada, from 2003 to 2016 was conducted. Administrative data from the province of Ontario was used as the data source. The propensity for repair approach was calculated using a logistic regression model including all covariates and used for inverse probability of treatment weighting. Cox proportional hazards regression was conducted using the weighted cohort to determine the survival and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-free survival of EVAR relative to OSR for rAAA up to 10 years after repair. Results: A total of 2692 rAAA (261 EVAR [10%] and 2431 OSR [90%]) repairs were recorded from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2016. Mean follow-up for the entire cohort was 3.4 years (standard deviation [SD], 3.9 years), with a maximum follow-up of 14.0 years. OSR patients were followed for a mean of 3.5 years (SD, 4.0 years) and maximum of 14.0 years, and EVAR patients were followed for a mean of 2.7 years (SD, 2.7 years) and a maximum of 11.4 years. Median survival was 2.7 years overall, and 2.5 and 3.7 years for OSR and EVAR patients, respectively. There were no significant baseline differences between EVAR and OSR patients after inverse probability of treatment weighting. EVAR patients were at lower hazard for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.65; P <.01), and MACE (hazard ratio, 0.51, 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.66; P <.01) within 30 days of repair. There were no statistically significant differences between EVAR and OSR in the hazard for all-cause mortality or MACE from 30 days to 5 years, and 5 to 10 years. Despite this, the upfront mortality and MACE benefits of EVAR persisted for more than 4.5 years after repair. Conclusions: This population-based cohort study using administrative data from Ontario, Canada, demonstrated lower hazards for all-cause mortality and MACE within 30 days of operation in favor of EVAR, but no differences in the mid- or longer-term results. More work is needed to understand and improve the long-term outcomes of ruptured endovascular aortic aneurysm repair and ruptured open surgical repair.
KW - Endovascular aortic repair
KW - Long-term outcomes
KW - Open surgical repair
KW - Population-based cohort
KW - Propensity score methods
KW - Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85079795896&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.06.212
DO - 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.06.212
M3 - Article
C2 - 32085959
AN - SCOPUS:85079795896
VL - 71
SP - 1867-1878.e8
JO - Journal of Vascular Surgery
JF - Journal of Vascular Surgery
SN - 0741-5214
IS - 6
ER -