Key result
Simultaneous endovascular aortic repair and percutaneous coronary intervention demonstrated comparable 12-month primary endpoint rates (6.3%) to staged PCI-first (9.6%) and EVAR-first (8.3%) approaches (p=0.795).
Why the study?
The safety and efficacy profiles associated with varying procedural sequences of EVAR and PCI in clinical practice required systematic assessment.
Does simultaneous EVAR and PCI reduce adverse events, hospital stay, or costs in patients with aortic aneurysm and concomitant CAD compared to staged procedures?
Cohort (n=374)
No
Does simultaneous EVAR and PCI reduce adverse events, hospital stay, or costs in patients with aortic aneurysm and concomitant CAD compared to staged procedures?
p-value: p=0.795
Simultaneous EVAR and PCI appears safe and feasible for patients with concomitant aortic aneurysm and CAD, significantly reducing hospital length of stay and costs without compromising 12-month clinical outcomes compared to staged interventions.
Comparable primary endpoint rates support safety of simultaneous EVAR+PCI; leaves open optimal sequencing versus staged approaches in aortic aneurysm with CAD.
Objective: This study is designed to systematically assess the safety and efficacy profiles associated with varying procedural sequences of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in clinical practice. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis encompassing patients diagnosed with aortic aneurysm and concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent EVAR at Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, between January 2010 and December 2022, with planned staged (preoperative or postoperative) or simultaneous PCI. The cohort was stratified into three groups: PCI followed by EVAR, EVAR followed by PCI, and simultaneous EVAR and PCI. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events, and aortic-related complications within 12 months post-intervention. Secondary endpoints included duration of hospital stay, total hospitalization costs, and incidence of in-hospital adverse events. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was employed to identify independent predictors of the primary endpoint. Results: The study cohort comprised 374 patients, with 209 (55.9%) undergoing PCI followed by EVAR, 133 (35.6%) receiving EVAR followed by PCI, and 32 (8.5%) undergoing simultaneous EVAR and PCI. Comparative analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in the incidence of in-hospital adverse events (p = 0.867) or the risk of primary endpoint events (p = 0.645) across the three treatment groups. Notably, the simultaneous treatment group demonstrated a significantly reduced total hospital stay (10.6 days) compared to the PCI followed by EVAR group (16.0 days) and the EVAR followed by PCI group (17.2 days) (p < 0.001), accompanied by lower hospitalization costs (p = 0.002). Conclusions: For patients with aortic aneurysm complicated by CAD requiring both EVAR and PCI, simultaneous intervention appears to be a safe and feasible therapeutic option. This approach significantly reduces hospital stay duration and associated costs without increasing the risk of in-hospital adverse events or compromising 12-month postoperative outcomes. However, this exploratory finding requires validation in large-scale randomized controlled trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lei et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Aortic aneurysm and concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) (n=374). Simultaneous EVAR and PCI vs. Staged procedures (PCI followed by EVAR, or EVAR followed by PCI) was evaluated on Composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and aortic-related adverse events within 12 months (p=0.795). Simultaneous endovascular aortic repair and percutaneous coronary intervention demonstrated comparable 12-month primary endpoint rates (6.3%) to staged PCI-first (9.6%) and EVAR-first (8.3%) approaches (p=0.795).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: