Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) outcomes of unibody and single/double docking limb endografts in Medicare beneficiaries between 2012 and 2018

ObjectiveThe evaluation of perioperative and long term outcomes for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) using anatomic (unibody) and proximal neck fixated (docking limbs) endografts across consecutive time cohorts.DesignThis study compares the outcomes of EVAR in Medicare patients stratified by mode of fixation.MethodsAll patients who underwent EVAR between 2012 and 2018 were identified in the Medicare database. Anatomic fixation (AF) and proximal fixation (PF) grafts were differentiated using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. The AF population was divided into three-time cohorts based on iterative changes in graft design: Cohort 1: (01/01/2012-20/07/2014); Cohort 2: (21/07/2014-09/05/2016); and Cohort 3: (10/05/2016-31/12/2017). The PF cohort was similarly divided into these three periods. Outcomes were evaluated through 31/12/2020 and included all-cause mortality, aortic rupture, and aortic-related reintervention.Results32,031 patients underwent EVAR during the study period; 4729 were AF and 27,302 were PF. There were more women (<i>p</i> < .001) and patients with peripheral vascular disease (PVD) (<i>p</i> < .001) in the AF group. There were no group differences in perioperative outcomes. In Cohort 1, there was a higher rate of reintervention (11.9% vs 7.6%; <i>p</i> < .001) and aortic rupture (5.3% vs 4.0%; <i>p</i> = .019) in the AF group compared to the PF group. In Cohort 2, reintervention, aortic rupture, and reintervention rates were similar between the two groups (p = NS). In Cohort 3, the reintervention and aortic rupture rates were similar between the two groups (p = NS).ConclusionThe higher rates of aortic rupture and reintervention seen in the AF group in Cohort 1 when compared with the PF group did not persist in Cohorts 2 and 3. This suggests that improvements in graft design may have led to durability which is similar to that of PF grafts. However, late aneurysm related complications are inherent risks after EVAR and long-term surveillance remains necessary.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Vascular
Published
2024-11-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/17085381241300131
Primary Topic
Aortic aneurysm repair treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) outcomes of unibody and single/double docking limb endografts in Medicare beneficiaries between 2012 and 2018

Sapna Prasad, Ami Sood, Mark F. Conrad, Alex O’Brien et al.
Vascular
Aortic aneurysm repair treatments
article

Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) outcomes of unibody and single/double docking limb endografts in Medicare beneficiaries between 2012 and 2018

Sapna Prasad, Ami Sood, Mark F. Conrad, Alex O’Brien, Matt Thompson, Erik Zendejas
article en

Abstract

ObjectiveThe evaluation of perioperative and long term outcomes for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) using anatomic (unibody) and proximal neck fixated (docking limbs) endografts across consecutive time cohorts.DesignThis study compares the outcomes of EVAR in Medicare patients stratified by mode of fixation.MethodsAll patients who underwent EVAR between 2012 and 2018 were identified in the Medicare database. Anatomic fixation (AF) and proximal fixation (PF) grafts were differentiated using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. The AF population was divided into three-time cohorts based on iterative changes in graft design: Cohort 1: (01/01/2012-20/07/2014); Cohort 2: (21/07/2014-09/05/2016); and Cohort 3: (10/05/2016-31/12/2017). The PF cohort was similarly divided into these three periods. Outcomes were evaluated through 31/12/2020 and included all-cause mortality, aortic rupture, and aortic-related reintervention.Results32,031 patients underwent EVAR during the study period; 4729 were AF and 27,302 were PF. There were more women (<i>p</i> < .001) and patients with peripheral vascular disease (PVD) (<i>p</i> < .001) in the AF group. There were no group differences in perioperative outcomes. In Cohort 1, there was a higher rate of reintervention (11.9% vs 7.6%; <i>p</i> < .001) and aortic rupture (5.3% vs 4.0%; <i>p</i> = .019) in the AF group compared to the PF group. In Cohort 2, reintervention, aortic rupture, and reintervention rates were similar between the two groups (p = NS). In Cohort 3, the reintervention and aortic rupture rates were similar between the two groups (p = NS).ConclusionThe higher rates of aortic rupture and reintervention seen in the AF group in Cohort 1 when compared with the PF group did not persist in Cohorts 2 and 3. This suggests that improvements in graft design may have led to durability which is similar to that of PF grafts. However, late aneurysm related complications are inherent risks after EVAR and long-term surveillance remains necessary.

VascularVol. 33(6)
Cleveland Clinic (US), St. Elizabeth's Medical Center (US), Endologix (United States) (US), Health Solutions (Sweden) (SE)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 62%
Aortic aneurysm repair treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.