Midterm outcome of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in octogenarians: A single institution's experience

M. Biebl, L. L. Lau, A. G. Hakaim, W. A. Oldenburg, J. Klocker, B. Neuhauser, J. M. McKinney, R. Paz-Fumagalli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

48 Scopus citations


Objectives We analyzed midterm durability of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in octogenarians compared with younger patients. Methods Data for 182 consecutive patients who underwent elective EVAR between 1999 and 2003 were retrospectively reviewed. Forty-nine patients (27%) were 80 years or older (study group [SG]; mean age, 84 years; range, 80-89 years), and 133 patients (73%) were younger (control group [CG]; mean age, 72 years; range, 53-79 years). χ2 analysis, Fisher exact test, Student t test, and Mann-Whitney U test were used as appropriate to test for intergroup differences. Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and multivariate Cox models were used for time-to-event analysis, with P ≤ .05 considered significant. Results Mean follow-up was 16 months (range, 1-43 months). Body weight was higher (P < .001), and elevated plasma lipid levels (59% vs 43%; P = .042) and use of nicotine (47% vs 29%; P = .015) more frequent in the octogenarians. Baseline aneurysm size, procedure-related data, and hospital stay were comparable between groups. Aneurysm-related mortality was 0% in the study group and 0.7% in the control group (P = .740). Systemic complications occurred in 22% (SG) versus 11% (CG) (P = .035), owing to a rise in serum creatinine concentration greater than 30% of baseline in 14% in the octogenarian group (vs 5% in the CG; P = .048). Groin lymphoceles developed in 12% (SG) versus 2% (CG; P = .013). Technical success was 96% (SG) versus 98% (CG; P = .408), and clinical success was 86% versus 90% (P = .269). No aneurysm rupture occurred during follow-up, and aneurysm-related adverse events were comparable between groups. The estimated risk for any type of endoleak (2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-4.2; P = .023) or type II endoleak (2.1; 95% CI, 1.0-4.3; P = 0.51) was higher in the study group versus the control group; however, this did not affect secondary procedure rates (SG 16% vs CG 12%; estimated risk, SG vs CG,: 1.5; 95% CI, 0.6-3.6; P = 0.420) or aneurysm remodeling (97.2% combined aneurysm sac stabilization or decrease in both groups; P = .592). Aneurysm enlargement occurred in 2.8% (SG 1 vs CG 4; P = .592). Conclusion Elective EVAR in octogenarians appears safe and effective over midterm follow-up, with a temporary decrease in renal function (14%) and postoperative lymphoceles (12%) being the most common postoperative adverse events. Advanced chronologic age is not associated with diminished procedural outcome, clinical success, or postoperative survival, compared with younger age. Because of low perioperative mortality and high procedural success, EVAR may be the preferred approach to abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment in selected elderly patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)435-442
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of vascular surgery
Issue number3
StatePublished - Sep 2004

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Midterm outcome of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in octogenarians: A single institution's experience'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this