Rate of Secondary Intervention After Open Versus Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

Background: Although long-term durability and improved perioperative outcome of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair has been demonstrated, some studies have suggested an increased rate of secondary interventions compared with open AAA repair. More recent data suggest that rates between the two modalities may be similar. We investigated the rate of secondary intervention in patients undergoing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) or open AAA repair for intact AAA and the effect of secondary intervention on long-term mortality in these two groups of patients.

Methods: A retrospective, single-institution review was conducted between January 2003 and December 2012. Secondary intervention was defined as any intervention within 30 d of the procedure or an AAA repair-related procedure after 30 d, which included repair of endoleaks and incisional hernia repair. Group differences in demographic and baseline characteristics were examined using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel and Wilcoxon rank sum tests for categorical and continuous variables, respectively.

Results: A total of 342 patients underwent operative repair of intact AAA. Two hundred seventy four patients underwent EVAR and 68 patients underwent open AAA repair. The mean age overall was 68.6 y and was not significantly different between the two repair groups. The overall rate of secondary intervention was significantly lower in the EVAR group compared with the open AAA repair group (11% versus 27%, P = 0.001). In the EVAR group, 30 patients underwent 37 secondary interventions. In the open repair group, 18 patients underwent 20 reinterventions. The most common secondary intervention was repair of type 2 endoleak (n = 13, 4.7% of patients) after EVAR and incisional hernia repair (n = 4, 5.9% of patients) after open AAA repair. Most secondary interventions (15/20) after open AAA repair occurred within 30 d, whereas most secondary intervention (33/37) after EVAR occurred after 30 d. Comparison of late (>30 d) reintervention between the two groups revealed a significantly lower rate of secondary intervention after open AAA repair (27.8% of all reinterventions after open versus 86.7% of all reinterventions after EVAR, P < 0.001). The overall 10-y mortality rate was 39.1%, and not statistically different between the two repair groups. Estimated survival analysis demonstrated no significant effect of secondary intervention on mortality after EVAR (logrank P = 0.45). Secondary intervention after open repair did not significantly affect long-term survival (logrank P = 0.05).

Conclusions: This study highlights the dramatic change in practice pattern in AAA repair over time. In this study, patients treated with EVAR had a significantly lower overall rate of secondary intervention compared with patients treated with open AAA repair. This was likely secondary to increased perioperative morbidity and mortality and a bias toward more complex patients in the open repair group. In the long term, however, there were significantly fewer reinterventions after open AAA repair. Secondary interventions did not affect long-term survival after EVAR.