Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Results from a Series of Young Patients

Abstract EN

Objectives.

To compare durability and survival after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open repair (OR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in young patients.

Material and Methods.

A retrospective study was conducted between 2005 and 2014 on all consecutive patients of 60 years of age or younger.

Measures considered for analysis were reintervention related to AAA, laparotomy and access vessel injury during EVAR, and all-cause mortality during hospitalization and follow-up.

Results.

Seventy out of 119 patients were treated by OR (58.8%) and 49 (41.2%) by EVAR, 9 in off-label fashion (18.3%).

Technical success was achieved in all cases.

No AAA-related death was recorded.

Overall in-hospital mortality was zero and the reintervention rate was 2.5% (3/119: 1/70 OR, 2/49 EVAR, p = 0.36 ).

There is no death at 30-day or 1-year follow-up.

Thirty-day reintervention rate was 1.6% (2/119; 0/70 OR, 2/49 EVAR, p = 0.16 ), while the 1-year rate was 2.5% (3/119; 1/70 OR, 2/49 EVAR, p = 0.36 ).

At the mean follow-up of 56.8 ± 42.7 months, mortality and reintervention rates were 5.8% (7/119; 3/70 OR, 4/49 EVAR, p = 0.38 ) and 10% (12/119; 8/70 OR, 4/49 EVAR, p = 0.39 ), respectively.

The overall reintervention rate, mortality, and freedom from adverse events did not differ between the two groups.

No differences in outcome were recorded between patients treated by EVAR in on-label versus off-label fashion.

Conclusion.

Our (albeit limited) experience suggests that, in an unselected young patient population undergoing elective AAA repair, OR or EVAR can be performed safely with similar immediate and long term outcomes.