4.7 Article

Prognostic model for survival of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms treated with endovascular aneurysm repair

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-24060-5

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A retrospective observational cohort study found that endovascular aneurysm repair may be beneficial for patients with asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm, especially those at low risk. Older age, lower eGFR, and COPD were identified as independent predictors for impaired survival.
The role of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) who are unfit for open surgical repair has been questioned. The impending risk of aneurysm rupture, the risk of elective repair, and the life expectancy must be balanced when considering elective AAA repair. This retrospective observational cohort study included all consecutive patients treated with standard EVAR for AAA at a referral centre between 2001 and 2020. A previously published predictive model for survival after EVAR in patients treated between 2001 and 2012 was temporally validated using patients treated at the same institution between 2013 and 2020 and updated using the overall cohort. 558 patients (91.2% males, mean age 74.9 years) were included. Older age, lower eGFR, and COPD were independent predictors for impaired survival. A risk score showed good discrimination between four risk groups (Harrel's C = 0.70). The 5-years survival probabilities were only 40% in high-risk patients, 68% in moderate-to-high-risk patients, 83% in low-to-moderate-risk, and 89% in low-risk patients. Low-risk patients with a favourable life expectancy are likely to benefit from EVAR, while high-risk patients with a short life expectancy may not benefit from EVAR at the current diameter threshold.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available