Patients with familial abdominal aortic aneurysms are at increased risk for endoleak and secondary intervention following elective endovascular aneurysm repair

Abstract

Objective: A recent investigation has documented an increased risk of aneurysm-related complications after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of familial abdominal aortic aneurysms (fAAAs). We hypothesized that fAAA patients are not at increased risk for complications following open AAA repair or EVAR when compared with sporadic abdominal aortic aneurysm (spAAA) patients. To this end, we performed a single institution retrospective review.

Methods: Epidemiologic data were collected through the electronic medical record. Family history data were obtained from a questionnaire administered at the initial vascular surgery consultation. Major adverse events were defined as myocardial infarction, respiratory failure, renal failure, bowel ischemia, limb ischemia, multisystem organ failure, intracranial hemorrhage, paraplegia, hemorrhage, or death. Endoleaks were classified in accordance with the standardized reporting practices of the Society for Vascular Surgery. AAA-related complications were defined as the need for a secondary intervention due to endoleak, limb ischemia, or postimplantation rupture.

Results: A total of 392 patients with complete clinical data underwent elective AAA repair from 2004 to 2014. Of these 392 patients, 89 (23%) were classified as fAAA patients and 303 (77%) were classified as spAAA patients. With the exception of increased rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = .0009) and pack-years smoked (P = .03) in spAAA patients, demographics did not differ. Sixty-two percent (n = 55) of fAAA patients and 68% (n = 205) of spAAA patients underwent EVAR (P = .30). fAAA patients did not incur any significant difference in major adverse events following open AAA repair (fAAA, 9% vs spAAA, 11%; P = .75). Additionally, fAAA patients did not incur any significant difference in major adverse events following EVAR (fAAA, 4% vs spAAA, 5%; P = .70). Patients with fAAA did have a significantly increased rate of endoleak (fAAA, 24% vs spAAA, 12%; P = .03) and secondary intervention following EVAR (fAAA, 21% vs spAAA, 12%; P = .04).

Conclusions: The current study shows that patients with fAAA do not have increased perioperative morbidity following open or endovascular AAA repair. However, patients with fAAA do have an increased risk of endoleak and secondary intervention following EVAR. These findings suggest that EVAR and open AAA repair are both safe and effective for fAAA patients. The increased rate of endoleak and secondary intervention in patients with fAAA suggests that this subpopulation may benefit from closer post-EVAR surveillance or open surgical repair in good risk patients.