Endovascular versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm: a claims-based data analysis in Japan

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.

Retrospective data analysis.

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.

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.

Overall survival and reintervention rates.

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.

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.