Key result
Maximal aortic diameter was the only independent predictor of anatomic suitability for EVAR (OR 1.67; 95% CI 1.17-2.38; p=0.005), with smaller AAAs having higher suitability.
Why the study?
Are small abdominal aortic aneurysms more anatomically suitable for endovascular aneurysm repair than large aneurysms?
Observational (n=191)
No
Are small abdominal aortic aneurysms more anatomically suitable for endovascular aneurysm repair than large aneurysms?
Odds Ratio: 1.67 (95% CI 1.17–2.38)
p-value: p=0.005
Small abdominal aortic aneurysms have less complex anatomy and are significantly more suitable for endovascular repair compared to large aneurysms.
Smaller AAAs may offer higher EVAR suitability; hypothesis-generating for size-based criteria and requires prospective validation.
Recent reports have documented poor long-term results following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of large abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). EVAR of small AAAs may result in improved long-term results compared to large AAAs. It is not known whether the frequency of anatomic suitability for EVAR is increased for small compared to large AAAs. This study compared the anatomic suitability of large and small AAAs for EVAR in an unselected patient population. Radiology reports for all computed tomography (CT) scans in a single hospital over a recent 3-year period were reviewed. AAAs diagnosed by contrasted CT scans with cuts >7 mm were excluded. Suitability for EVAR was determined by neck diameter, length, and angulation. In addition, iliac diameters and common iliac distal landing zone lengths were determined. Computerized 3-dimensional (3D) reconstruction was used to measure neck angulation and total aortic tortuosity. One hundred ninety-one patients were found to have AAAs with adequate CT scans for evaluation. Suitability for EVAR was highest in patients with AAA diameters of 3-4 cm and declined with increasing size of the AAA. Dividing AAAs into sizes greater than or less than 5.5 cm revealed that small AAAs had significantly longer necks, less neck angulation, longer common iliac landing zones, and less total aortic tortuosity. Multivariable analysis revealed that maximal aortic diameter was the only independent predictor of suitability for EVAR (p = 0.005, odds ratio 1.67, CI 95% = 1.17 to 2.38). The odds ratio predicts that with each 1 cm increase in size, the likelihood of suitability decreased by 5.3-fold. Small AAAs have less complex anatomy with longer aortic necks, less neck angulation, and less tortuosity. The poor outcomes following the treatment of large AAAs is thought to be due to complex anatomy. EVAR of less anatomically challenging small AAAs may improve long-term outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Welborn et al. (2005) conducted an observational in Abdominal aortic aneurysms (n=191). Small abdominal aortic aneurysms vs. Large abdominal aortic aneurysms was evaluated on Anatomic suitability for EVAR (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.17-2.38, p=0.005). Maximal aortic diameter was the only independent predictor of anatomic suitability for EVAR (OR 1.67; 95% CI 1.17-2.38; p=0.005), with smaller AAAs having higher suitability.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: