Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Aug;66(2):343-352.e1.
doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.01.026. Epub 2017 Mar 30.

The impact of endovascular repair on management and outcome of ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysms

Klaas H J Ultee  1 , Sara L Zettervall  2 , Peter A Soden  2 , Dominique B Buck  2 , Sarah E Deery  2 , Katie E Shean  2 , Hence J M Verhagen  3 , Marc L Schermerhorn  4
Affiliations

The impact of endovascular repair on management and outcome of ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysms

Klaas H J Ultee et al. J Vasc Surg. 2017 Aug.

Abstract

Background: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become an alternative to open repair for the treatment of ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysms (rTAAs). The aim of this study was to assess national trends in the use of TEVAR for the treatment of rTAA and to determine its impact on perioperative outcomes.

Methods: Patients admitted with an rTAA between 1993 and 2012 were identified from the National Inpatient Sample. Patients were grouped in accordance with their treatment: TEVAR, open repair, or nonoperative treatment. The primary outcomes were treatment trends over time and in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications and length of stay. Trend analyses were performed using the Cochran-Armitage test for trend, and adjusted mortality risks were established using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

Results: A total of 12,399 patients were included, with 1622 (13%) undergoing TEVAR, 2808 (23%) undergoing open repair, and 7969 (64%) not undergoing surgical treatment. TEVAR has been increasingly used from 2% of total admissions in 2003-2004 to 43% in 2011-2012 (P < .001). Concurrently, there was a decline in the proportion of patients undergoing open repair (29% to 12%; P < .001) and nonoperative treatment (69% to 45%; P < .001). The proportion of patients undergoing surgical repair has increased for all age groups since 1993-1994 (P < .001 for all) but was most pronounced among those aged 80 years with a 7.5-fold increase. After TEVAR was introduced, procedural mortality decreased from 36% in 2003-2004 to 27% in 2011-2012 (P < .001); mortality among those undergoing nonoperative treatment remained stable between 63% and 60% (P = .167). Overall mortality after rTAA admission decreased from 55% to 42% (P < .001). Since 2005, mortality for open repair was 33% and 22% for TEVAR (P < .001). In adjusted analysis, open repair was associated with a twofold higher mortality than TEVAR (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-2.5).

Conclusions: TEVAR has replaced open repair as primary surgical treatment for rTAA. The introduction of endovascular treatment appears to have broadened the eligibility of patients for surgical treatment, particularly among the elderly. Mortality after rTAA admission has declined since the introduction of TEVAR, which is the result of improved operative mortality as well as the increased proportion of patients undergoing surgical repair.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure I
Figure I
Annual proportions of the treatment strategies for the treatment of rTAA
Figure IIA
Figure IIA
Annual changes in rates of surgical repair by age (index volume: 1993–1994)
Figure IIB
Figure IIB
Annual proportions of TEVAR vs. open repair stratified by age group
Figure III
Figure III
Population-adjusted trends in rTAA admission rates, death rates, and surgical repair utilization (per million)
Figure IV
Figure IV
Trends in in-hospital mortality following rTAA admission
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

  • Invited commentary.
    Patterson RB. Patterson RB. J Vasc Surg. 2017 Aug;66(2):352-353. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.01.027. J Vasc Surg. 2017. PMID: 28735946 No abstract available.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Johansson G, Markstrom U, Swedenborg J. Ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysms: a study of incidence and mortality rates. J Vasc Surg. 1995;21(6):985–8. - PubMed
    1. Schermerhorn ML, Giles KA, Hamdan AD, Dalhberg SE, Hagberg R, Pomposelli F. Population-based outcomes of open descending thoracic aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2008;48(4):821–7. - PubMed
    1. Crawford ES, Hess KR, Cohen ES, Coselli JS, Safi HJ. Ruptured aneurysm of the descending thoracic and thoracoabdominal aorta. Analysis according to size and treatment. Ann Surg. 1991;213(5):417–25. discussion 25–6. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jonker FH, Verhagen HJ, Lin PH, Heijmen RH, Trimarchi S, Lee WA, et al. Open surgery versus endovascular repair of ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2011;53(5):1210–6. - PubMed
    1. Girardi LN, Krieger KH, Altorki NK, Mack CA, Lee LY, Isom OW. Ruptured descending and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;74(4):1066–70. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms