TY - JOUR
T1 - Endovascular versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm
T2 - a claims-based data analysis in Japan
AU - Kimura, Yuki
AU - Ohtsu, Hiroshi
AU - Yonemoto, Naohiro
AU - Azuma, Nobuyoshi
AU - Sase, Kazuhiro
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022.
PY - 2022/7/29
Y1 - 2022/7/29
N2 - Objectives Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) evolved through competition with open aortic repair (OAR) as a safe and effective treatment option for appropriately selected patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Although endoleaks are the most common reason for post-EVAR reintervention, compliance with lifelong regular follow-up imaging remains a challenge. Design Retrospective data analysis. Setting The Japan Medical Data Center (JMDC), a claims database with anonymous data linkage across hospitals, consists of corporate employees and their families of ≤75 years of age. Participants The analysis included participants in the JMDC who underwent EVAR or OAR for intact (iAAA) or ruptured (rAAA) AAA. Patients with less than 6 months of records before the aortic repair were excluded. Main outcome measures Overall survival and reintervention rates. Results We identified 986 cases (837 iAAA and 149 rAAA) from JMDC with first aortic repairs between January 2015 and December 2020. The number of patients, median age (years (IQR)), follow-up (months) and post-procedure CT scan (times per year) were as follows: iAAA (OAR: n=593, 62.0 (57.0-67.0), 26.0, 1.6, EVAR: n=244, 65.0 (31.0-69.0), 17.0, 2.2), rAAA (OAR: n=110, 59.0 (53.0-59.0), 16.0, 2.1, EVAR: n=39, 62.0 (31.0-67.0), 18.0, 2.4). Reintervention rate was significantly higher among EVAR than OAR in rAAA (15.4% vs 8.2%, p=0.04). In iAAA, there were no group difference after 5 years (7.8% vs 11.0%, p=0.28), even though EVAR had initial advantage. There were no differences in mortality rate between EVAR and OAR for either rAAA or iAAA. Conclusions Claims-based analysis in Japan showed no statistically significant difference in 5-year survival rates of the OAR and EVAR groups. However, the reintervention rate of EVAR in rAAA was significantly higher, suggesting the need for regular post-EVAR follow-up with imaging. Therefore, international collaborations for long-term outcome studies with real-world data are warranted.
AB - Objectives Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) evolved through competition with open aortic repair (OAR) as a safe and effective treatment option for appropriately selected patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Although endoleaks are the most common reason for post-EVAR reintervention, compliance with lifelong regular follow-up imaging remains a challenge. Design Retrospective data analysis. Setting The Japan Medical Data Center (JMDC), a claims database with anonymous data linkage across hospitals, consists of corporate employees and their families of ≤75 years of age. Participants The analysis included participants in the JMDC who underwent EVAR or OAR for intact (iAAA) or ruptured (rAAA) AAA. Patients with less than 6 months of records before the aortic repair were excluded. Main outcome measures Overall survival and reintervention rates. Results We identified 986 cases (837 iAAA and 149 rAAA) from JMDC with first aortic repairs between January 2015 and December 2020. The number of patients, median age (years (IQR)), follow-up (months) and post-procedure CT scan (times per year) were as follows: iAAA (OAR: n=593, 62.0 (57.0-67.0), 26.0, 1.6, EVAR: n=244, 65.0 (31.0-69.0), 17.0, 2.2), rAAA (OAR: n=110, 59.0 (53.0-59.0), 16.0, 2.1, EVAR: n=39, 62.0 (31.0-67.0), 18.0, 2.4). Reintervention rate was significantly higher among EVAR than OAR in rAAA (15.4% vs 8.2%, p=0.04). In iAAA, there were no group difference after 5 years (7.8% vs 11.0%, p=0.28), even though EVAR had initial advantage. There were no differences in mortality rate between EVAR and OAR for either rAAA or iAAA. Conclusions Claims-based analysis in Japan showed no statistically significant difference in 5-year survival rates of the OAR and EVAR groups. However, the reintervention rate of EVAR in rAAA was significantly higher, suggesting the need for regular post-EVAR follow-up with imaging. Therefore, international collaborations for long-term outcome studies with real-world data are warranted.
KW - device safety
KW - real world evidence
KW - vascular devices
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85135906039&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjsit-2022-000131
DO - 10.1136/bmjsit-2022-000131
M3 - 学術論文
AN - SCOPUS:85135906039
SN - 2631-4940
VL - 4
JO - BMJ Surgery, Interventions, and Health Technologies
JF - BMJ Surgery, Interventions, and Health Technologies
IS - 1
M1 - e000131
ER -