Renal complications after EVAR with suprarenal versus infrarenal fixation among all users and routine users

Publication date: Available online 2 August 2017
Source:European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery
Author(s): S.L. Zettervall, S.E. Deery, P.A. Soden, K. Shean, J.J. Siracuse, M. Alef, V.I. Patel, M.L. Schermerhorn
BackgroundPrevious studies comparing endografts with suprarenal and infrarenal fixation for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) have found conflicting results and did not account for differences in patient selection. This study aims to evaluate the differences in outcomes among surgeons who routinely use either suprarenal or infrarenal fixation, as well as all surgeons in the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE).MethodsAll patients undergoing EVAR in the VSGNE from 2003 to 2014 were identified. All ruptured aneurysms, repairs with concomitant procedures, and infrequently used stent grafts (<50) were excluded. Suprarenal endografts included Talent, Zenith, and Endurant; infrarenal endografts included AneuRx and Excluder. Grafts were compared among surgeons who used only one type of endograft (suprarenal or infrarenal) for >80% of cases, as well as all surgeons. Multivariate regression and Cox hazard models were utilised to account for patient demographics, comorbidities, operative differences, and procedure year.ResultsThis study identified 2574 patients (suprarenal, 1264; infrarenal, 1310) with 888 endografts placed by routine users (suprarenal, 409; infrarenal, 479). There were no differences in baseline comorbidities, including the estimated glomerular filtration rate, between suprarenal and infrarenal fixation, or between patients with endografts placed by routine and non-routine users. Patients treated with suprarenal endografts received more contrast than all users (102 mL vs. 100 mL, p = .01) and routine users (110 mL vs. 88 mL, p < .01), but other vascular and operative details were similar. Among all users, patients treated with suprarenal grafts had higher rates of creatinine increase >.5 mg/dL (3.7% vs. 2.0%, p = .01), length of stay >2 days (27% vs. 19%, p < .01), and discharge to a skilled nursing facility (9.2% vs. 6.7%, p = .02). There were no differences in 30 day or 1 year mortality. Following adjustment, suprarenal stent grafts remained associated with an increased risk of renal deterioration (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.2–3.4) and prolonged length of stay (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.4–2.2). Among routine users, suprarenal fixation was also associated with higher rates of renal dysfunction (3.7% vs. 1.3%, p = .02; OR 2.9; 95% CI 1.1–7.8).ConclusionDespite potential differences in patient selection, endografts with suprarenal fixation among all users and routine users were associated with higher rates of renal deterioration and longer length of hospital stay. Longer-term data are needed to determine the duration and severity of renal function decline and to identify potential benefits of decreased migration or endoleak.



http://ift.tt/2uGmwGy