Journal of Vascular Surgery
Volume 50, Issue 6 , Page 1279, December 2009

Invited commentary

St Louis, Mo

Article Outline

 

Predictive assessment of mortality and morbidity remains an important component of preoperative evaluation of any surgical procedure. Most preoperative risk assessment models have been developed for open surgical procedures with variable predictability.1, 2 The introduction and widespread use of less invasive surgical procedures, either by laparoscopic or endovascular techniques has heightened the need for developing new risk models that could predict postoperative mortality and morbidity.

Treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm has undergone dramatic changes in the last two decades. Despite the many advances in anesthetic management, preoperative risk factor modifications, and postoperative care, the 30-day mortality has remained between 3% and 5% with higher mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients.3 Despite the significant threefold reduction in mortality in single centers, statewide databases and randomized trials, compared with conventional open repair, no analysis of criteria has been performed that can objectively identify those risk factors that increase 30-day mortality in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The EVAR 2 trial used a series of medical risk factors and “pragmatic” approaches to deem a patient unsuitable for AAA repair.4 Our group reported much lower 30-day mortality (2.9% vs 9%) for high-risk patients compared with EVAR 2 trial based on medical comorbidities.5 Both reports were based on risk factors commonly used to predict mortality in open repair not specific to EVAR.

In this issue, Drs Egorova, Giacovelli, and collaborators describe an extensive analysis of the Inpatient Medicare database of patients with elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair from 2000 to 2006 and develop a risk model of preoperative 30-day mortality in over 66,000 patients treated by EVAR. Although some of the preoperative comorbidities that predict higher 30-day mortality are similar to those described for open repair, some factors are different and other similar factors have a different predictor effect on 30-day outcomes. This preoperative score, as a predictor of 30-day mortality, provides for the first time, an objective indicator of the mortality risk specific for EVAR in high-risk patients. Another important observation of this report is the identification of a very small number of EVAR candidates that are truly very high-risk even for this less invasive procedure. This preoperative predictive score will be of great utility to interventionalists who frequently perform EVAR.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Forbes TL, Steiner SH, Lawlor DK, DeRose G, Harris KA. Risk adjusted analysis of outcomes following elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg. 2003;19:142–148
  2. Huber TS, Wang JG, Derrow AE, Dame DA, Ozaki CK, Zelenock GB, et al. Experience in the United States with intact abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2004;33:304–311
  3. Dardik A, Lin JW, Gordon JA, Williams M, Perler BA. Results of elective abdominal aneurysm repair in 1990s: a population-based analysis of 2335 cases. J Vasc Surg. 1999;30:985–995
  4. EVAR Trial Participants. Endovascular aneurysm repair and outcome in patients unfit for open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR Trial 2): Randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:2187–2192
  5. Sicard GA, Zwolak RM, Sidawy AN, White RA, Siami FS Society for Vascular Surgery Outcomes Committee. Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: long-term outcome measure in patient at high-risk for open surgery. J Vasc Surg. 2006;44:229–236

PII: S0741-5214(09)01474-8

doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2009.07.064

Refers to article:

  • Defining high-risk patients for endovascular aneurysm repair , 27 September 2009

    Natalia Egorova, Jeannine K. Giacovelli, Annetine Gelijns, Giampaolo Greco, Alan Moskowitz, James McKinsey, K. Craig Kent
    Journal of Vascular Surgery December 2009 (Vol. 50, Issue 6, Pages 1271-1279.e1)

Journal of Vascular Surgery
Volume 50, Issue 6 , Page 1279, December 2009