What Did Endovascular Aortic Repair Bring for the Treatment Strategy of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm?

Objective: We examined the effects of the introduction of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) on treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Subjects: We compared patients in the following three periods: period I (January 2002–December 2006, 105 patients), period II (January 2007–December 2011, 242 patients, duration of 5 years after the introduction of EVAR), and period III (January 2012–December 2016, 237 patients, duration of 5 years after period II). We used the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification for risk assessment. Results: In the Open repair (OR) group, the incidences of ASA class 2 increased and classes 3 and 4 decreased significantly in periods II and III compared with period I. In all periods, there were no in-hospital deaths. Suprarenal aortic cross-clamping was required in 18 patients (19.1%) in period III and 5 patients (6.3) in period I, and the difference was significant (P<0.05). In the EVAR group, no differences in age, sex, or ASA classification class were observed between periods II and III. In period II, one patient died due to aneurysm rupture during surgery. Significant differences were observed when comparing both groups in periods II and III: patients in the EVAR group were older (P<0.01) and the OR group had a higher proportion of ASA class 2 patients and the EVAR group had a higher proportion of ASA class 3 or 4 patients (P<0.01). Among all AAA surgeries, rupture occurred in 25 patients (23.8%) in period I, 18 patients (7.4) in period II, and 16 patients (6.8) in period III. The number of ruptures was significantly lower in periods II and III than in period I (P<0.01). Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that EVAR should be indicated for high-risk patients and had the good outcome of AAA treatment. (This is a translation of Jpn J Vasc Surg 2018; 27: 27–32.)