Fenestrated repair improves perioperative outcomes but lacks a hospital volume association for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) have traditionally been treated with an open surgical repair (OSR). During the past decade, fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) has emerged as a viable option. Hospital procedural volume to outcome relationship for OSR of complex AAAs has been well established, but the impact of procedural volume on FEVAR outcomes remains undefined. This study investigated the outcomes of OSR and FEVAR for the treatment of complex AAAs and examined the hospital volume-outcome relationship for these procedures. METHODS: A retrospective review of a statewide vascular surgery registry was queried for all patients between 2012 and 2018 who underwent elective repair of a juxtarenal/pararenal AAA with FEVAR or OSR. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, and new dialysis. Secondary end points included postoperative pneumonia, renal dysfunction (creatine concentration increase of >2 mg/dL from preoperative baseline), major bleeding, early procedural complications, length of stay, and need for reintervention. To evaluate procedural volume-outcomes relationship, hospitals were stratified into low- and high-volume aortic centers based on a FEVAR annual procedural volume. To account for baseline differences, we calculated propensity scores and employed inverse probability of treatment weighting in comparing outcomes between treatment groups. RESULTS: A total of 589 patients underwent FEVAR (n = 186) or OSR (n = 403) for a complex AAA. After adjustment, OSR was associated with higher rates of 30-day mortality (10.7% vs 2.9%; P < .001) and need for dialysis (11.3% vs 1.8; P < .001). Postoperative pneumonia (6.8% vs 0.3%; P < .001) and need for transfusion (39.4% vs 10.4%; P < .001) were also significantly higher in the OSR cohort. The median length of stay for OSR and FEVAR was 9 days and 3 days, respectively. For those who underwent FEVAR, endoleaks were present in 12.1% of patients at 30 days and 6.1% of patients at 1 year, with the majority being type II. With a median follow-up period of 331 days (229-378 days), 1% of FEVAR patients required a secondary procedure, and there were no FEVAR conversions to an open aortic repair. Hospitals were divided into low- and high-volume aortic centers based on their annual FEVAR volume of complex AAAs. After adjustment, hospital FEVAR procedural volume was not associated with 30-day mortality or myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: FEVAR was associated with lower perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with OSR for the management of complex AAAs. Procedural FEVAR volume outcome analysis suggests limited differences in 30-day morbidity, although long-term durability warrants further research.

Duke Scholars

Author Dawn M Coleman Surgery, Vascular and Endovascular Surgery