Analysis of Outcome after using High-risk Criteria Selection to Surgery Versus Endovascular Repair in the Modern Era of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Treatment

Citations of this article
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.


Introduction: The concept of high-risk patients suggests that such patients will experience a higher rate of postoperative complications and worse short- and long-term outcomes, and should therefore benefit from the use of endovascular techniques for aortic abdominal aneurysm (AAA) repair. The primary goal of this study was to assess the relevance of the different high-risk criteria, defined by the French health agency Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits de Santé (AFSSAPS) in a single-centre continuous series. Secondary goals were to retrospectively compare the incidence of postoperative complications and short- and long-term survival in three groups of patients. Materials and methods: Between January 1999 and December 2006, details of all the patients undergoing elective surgery for AAA in our hospital were recorded into a prospective registry (n = 626). Three groups were considered according to the level of risk and type of repair defined by the AFSSAPS: endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) high-risk (HR) (at least one high-risk factor and EVAR, n = 138), open HR (at least one high-risk factor and open repair, n = 134) and open low-risk (LR) (no high-risk factors and open repair, n = 344). None of the low-risk patients were treated using an endovascular approach. The demographics, preoperative risk factors, intra-, postoperative data and short- and long-term survival were compared between the groups. Interrelations among the set of high-risk criteria for mortality were calculated using multiple correspondence analysis (MCA). Results: The distribution of high-risk criteria was similar in both high-risk groups, except for age, heart failure and hostile abdomen, which were significantly more frequent in EVAR HR. Operation time, blood loss and length of stay in an intensive care unit and hospital were significantly lower in the EVAR HR group. The 30-day mortality and survival rates at 5 years were 5.4 and 59.4% for EVAR HR, 3.7 and 70.4% for open HR and 2.3 and 83.7% for open LR, respectively, with no significant difference between the three groups for the mortality, but a significant higher survival at 5 years for the open LR versus both high-risk groups. Conclusion: The high-risk AFSSAPS criteria were not predictive of postoperative mortality and should not be used to determine the choice of treatment technique. Other criteria therefore need to be established to determine whether open or EVAR repair should be used. © 2009 European Society for Vascular Surgery.




Steinmetz, E., Abello, N., Kretz, B., Gauthier, E., Bouchot, O., & Brenot, R. (2010). Analysis of Outcome after using High-risk Criteria Selection to Surgery Versus Endovascular Repair in the Modern Era of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Treatment. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, 39(4), 403–409.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free