Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Vasc Surg. 2014 Sep;60(3):631-8.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2014.03.257. Epub 2014 Apr 24.

Outcomes of endovascular and contemporary open surgical repairs of popliteal artery aneurysm.

Author information

1
Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
2
Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. Electronic address: gloviczki.peter@mayo.edu.
3
Department of Health Science Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes after endovascular repair (ER) and contemporary open repair (OR) of popliteal artery aneurysms (PAAs).

METHODS:

Clinical data of PAA patients treated between 2005 and 2012 were reviewed. Primary end points were major adverse events (MAEs) including mortality, major amputation, patency, complications, and reinterventions.

RESULTS:

A total of 149 PAAs were treated in 120 patients (mean age, 74 ± 10 years). ER was performed in 42 limbs of 35 men (mean age, 81 ± 6.5 years), in 32 electively and in 10 emergently. Technical success was 98%. The 30-day MAEs were more frequent after emergent repair (50% vs 9%; odds ratio [OR], 9.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.74-54; P = .01); mortality and amputation rate was 0% after elective repair, 20% after emergent repair. Mean follow-up was 2.6 years (1 month-6.5 years); 3-year freedom from MAEs was lower after emergent repair than after elective repair (40% vs 66%; hazard ratio [HR], 3.13; 95% CI, 1.10-8.85; P = .03). OR was performed in 107 limbs of 91 patients (90 men; mean age, 71 ± 9.6 years), in 93 electively and in 14 emergently. The 30-day MAEs were more frequent after emergent repair (43% vs 5%; OR, 13; 95% CI, 3.29-53; P < .001); mortality was 1% after elective repair, 0% after emergent cases. Amputation rate was 0% for both elective and emergent repairs. Mean follow-up was 3.8 years (1 month-8.4 years); 3-year freedom from MAEs was lower after emergent repair (50% vs 80%; HR, 3.78; 95% CI, 1.55-9.20; P = .003). The 30-day MAE rates were equivalent between ER and OR independent of urgency of repair (elective: OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 0.41-8.09; P = .43; emergent: OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.26-6.81; P = .73). In elective interventions, ER had a trend to decreased freedom from MAEs (66% vs 80% at 3 years; HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 0.92-4.07; P = .08); freedom from reintervention was lower after ER (72% vs 88%; HR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.02-5.70; P = .046). In emergent interventions, 1-year freedom from MAEs was similar (40% vs 50%; HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.49-3.74; P = .55). Emergent ER and poor runoff predicted MAEs.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our study failed to prove the superiority of ER over OR. If anatomy is suitable, ER of PAA in the elderly and high-risk patients is justified. For emergent PAA repairs, MAEs are frequent after both ER and OR; ER has not changed the severe prognosis of acute limb ischemia from PAA. A multicenter randomized controlled trial of PAA patients with acute presentation is warranted.

PMID:
24768361
DOI:
10.1016/j.jvs.2014.03.257
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center