Mid-term results of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in the young

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the mid-term outcome and secondary intervention rate following elective open and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients aged 65 years and younger.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients aged 65 years and younger who had elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (AAA) between 1994 and 2012.

Results: One hundred and sixty-five patients under the age of 65 years (mean age: 61 years ± 4; 8 women) had elective abdominal aneurysm repair (97 EVAR and 68 open). The overall 30-day mortality rate was 3.7% (2.1% EVAR and 5.9% open). Forty per cent of patients had died at a median follow up of 77 months (interquartile range, 36-140). Most deaths were not related to aneurysm. There was no difference in the long-term mortality between the EVAR and open groups (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-1.98, p = .43), but there was a trend of better outcomes with the use of commercially made endografts over open repair (HR = 2.9; 95% CI 0.9-10.0, p = .08) and custom-made endografts (HR = 3.1, 95% CI 0.9-10.3; p = .07). Eleven per cent of patients who had EVAR required a further procedure compared with 13% who had open repair. All but one of the re-interventions in the EVAR group was performed on patients who had custom-made endografts.

Conclusions: Young patients with AAA have significant comorbidities and do not necessarily have long lifespans. In the less fit younger patients with AAA, the results with EVAR are comparable with fit patients who had open AAA repair. The management of fitter young patients with AAA remains controversial, but improving results with EVAR over time may increase the role of EVAR in this group.

Keywords: Abdominal aortic aneurysm; Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair; Outcomes.