Outcomes of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair with Adjunctive Stenting.

Background: Endovascular aneurysm repair is the standard of care for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, however data regarding adjunctive stenting at the time of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are limited. The study aims to evaluate outcomes of patients undergoing EVAR with and without adjunctive stenting.

Methods: Patients undergoing EVAR with stenting (EVAR-S) and without stenting (EVAR) (2008 - 2017) were selected from Cerner HealthFacts database using ICD-9 diagnosis and procedure codes. Chi-square analysis and multivariable logistic regression were used to evaluate the association of patient characteristics with medical and vascular outcomes.

Results: 4,957 patients undergoing EVAR procedures were identified (3,816 EVAR and 1,141 EVAR-S). Demographic analysis revealed that patients who underwent EVAR-S had higher Charlson comorbidity scores (2.35 vs. 2.13, P = 0.0001). EVAR-S was associated with a greater frequency of vascular complications such as thrombolysis/percutaneous thrombectomy (0.9% vs. 0.2%; P < 0.0004). There were no differences seen in access complications between EVAR and EVAR-S. Multivariable analysis revealed that EVAR-S was associated with prolonged length of stay (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.03-1.82), readmission < 30 days (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.11-1.68), major adverse cardiac events (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09-2.32), respiratory complications (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.16-1.88) and renal failure (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.16-2.11).

Conclusion: Endovascular aneurysm repair with adjunctive stenting (EVAR-S) was associated with vascular complications requiring reintervention, although the overall rate was very low. As well, readmission within 30 days, cardiac complications, respiratory problems and renal failure were more likely when compared to standard EVAR. The need for adjunctive stenting acts as a marker for an overall sicker and more complex population, not just in terms of vascular complications but across all medical complications as well. Staging the procedure may be helpful in terms of spreading out the operative risk into smaller portions. Furthermore, consideration of a non-operative strategy should be discussed with the patient if the risk of the procedure outweighs the risk of aneurysm rupture in high-risk groups.