Single-Center Experience of Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) in Patients Not Participating in the U.K. EVAR Trials

The objective was to evaluate outcomes of a high-risk patient cohort following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) treatment not entered into the U.K. endovascular stent-graft aortic aneurysm repair trials (EVAR-1 or -2) because of equipoise absence but where EVAR was judged to be the most appropriate intervention option on compassionate grounds. A single-center retrospective analysis was performed involving all patients undergoing compassionate EVAR treatment during the EVAR-1 and -2 trial period. Over an 8-year period, 34 patients underwent compassionate EVAR procedure. The mean (SD) age was 76 (79) years. The mean (SD) preoperative physiology score (P-POSSUM) was 25 (8.3) with a mean (SD) predicted early mortality of 9.9% (16%). The actual early mortality in our study was 2.9% and morbidity was 35%. There were 8 cases of endoleak: type I (n = 2), type II (n = 5), and type IV (n = 1). Aneurysm-related mortality and all-cause mortality after 8 years were 5.8% and 23.5% respectively. Satisfactory outcome with low mortality (2.9%) and morbidity can be achieved in patients with compassionate indications, where clinicians judge EVAR to be an advantage over open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Based on our study, the early mortality (2.9%) in our compassionate EVAR group is comparable to EVAR-1 outcomes (1.7%) and better than EVAR-2 mortality results (9%). EVAR should therefore not be denied to a significant number of high-risk abdominal aortic aneurysm patients who fall between the EVAR-1 and EVAR-2 criteria.

[1]  Stefan H Steiner,et al.  Risk-adjusted analysis of early mortality after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. , 2005, Journal of vascular surgery.

[2]  L. Ayiku,et al.  Systematic review of recent evidence for the safety and efficacy of elective endovascular repair in the management of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm , 2005, The British journal of surgery.

[3]  S. Thomas,et al.  Cost‐effectiveness of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair , 2005, The British journal of surgery.

[4]  Evar Trial Participants Endovascular aneurysm repair and outcome in patients unfit for open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 2): randomised controlled trial , 2005, The Lancet.

[5]  EVAR trial participants,et al.  Endovascular aneurysm repair versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1): randomised controlled trial , 2005, The Lancet.

[6]  D. Prytherch,et al.  Comparison of POSSUM scoring and the Hardman Index in selection of patients for repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm , 2003, The British journal of surgery.

[7]  J. Shuhaiber,et al.  Comparison of POSSUM with P-POSSUM for Prediction of Mortality in Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair , 2002, Annals of vascular surgery.

[8]  J. Byrne,et al.  Prognosis of patients turned down for conventional abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the endovascular and sonographic era: Szilagyi revisited? , 2001, Journal of vascular surgery.

[9]  C. Irvine,et al.  A comparison of the mortality rate after elective repair of aortic aneurysms detected either by screening or incidentally. , 2000, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[10]  A. Jones,et al.  Outcome in patients with a large abdominal aortic aneurysm considered unfit for surgery , 1998, The British journal of surgery.

[11]  P. C. Weaver,et al.  POSSUM and Portsmouth POSSUM for predicting mortality , 1998 .