Open Conversion with Explantation of Stent Grafts After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.

Background: Although endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is widely used worldwide, the fact that it is associated with increased rates of reintervention has been considered a problem. This study aimed to analyze the outcomes of primary open AAA repair and open conversion with explantation of stent grafts after EVAR.

Methods: In this retrospective study, we enrolled 1,120 patients (open repair, n = 664; EVAR, n = 456) who underwent AAA repair at Kobe University from 1999 to 2019. Of the 664 patients who underwent open repair, 121 (patients who underwent primary open repair (POR) as a concomitant procedure and patients with ruptured AAA) were excluded from the study. The outcomes of POR were compared with those of open conversion with explantation of stent grafts.

Results: Of the 543 patients who underwent open repair, 513 underwent POR and 30 underwent open conversion with explantation of stent grafts. The operation time for POR was significantly less than that for open conversion with explantation. During surgery, patients who underwent open conversion with explantation required significantly more transfusions of red cell concentrate, fresh frozen plasma, and platelet concentrate than those who underwent POR. Overall, 30 patients who underwent open conversion with explantation required a total of 48 reinterventions before surgery. Hospital mortality rates were 0.7% and 0% in the POR and open conversion with explantation groups, respectively (P = 0.62). Although overall survival at 5 years in the POR group was significantly better than that in the open conversion with explantation group (89.3 ± 1.7% vs. 79.5 ± 9.6%; P = 0.01), there were no significant differences between the 2 groups regarding the freedom from aortic event (hospital death, reintervention, and aortic death). According to the multivariate analysis, open conversion with explantation was not an independent risk factor for late death. There were 20 patients who were hesitant to undergo OCE, although we recommended OCE. In a subgroup analysis, the overall mean cost borne by patients who underwent EVAR was approximately 2.3 times higher compared with that borne by patients who underwent POR.

Conclusions: Although demanding, both early and long-term outcomes of OCE have been favorable in our present study. OCE is highly recommended in patients with persistent sac enlargement after EVAR.