Accepted Manuscript Laparoscopy Versus Evar for the Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in the Octogenarian Raphaël Coscas , Marc Dennery , Isabelle Javerliat , Isabelle Di Centa , Tristan Cudennec , Laurent Teillet , Olivier Goëau-Brissonniere , Marc Coggia PII:
S0890-5096(14)00299-4
DOI:
10.1016/j.avsg.2014.04.018
Reference:
AVSG 2022
To appear in:
Annals of Vascular Surgery
Received Date: 3 October 2013 Revised Date:
16 March 2014
Accepted Date: 20 April 2014
Please cite this article as: Coscas R, Dennery M, Javerliat I, Di Centa I, Cudennec T, Teillet L, GoËauBrissonniere O, Coggia M, Laparoscopy Versus Evar for the Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in the Octogenarian, Annals of Vascular Surgery (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2014.04.018. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
LAPAROSCOPY VERSUS EVAR FOR THE TREATMENT OF ABDOMINAL
2
AORTIC ANEURYSMS IN THE OCTOGENARIAN
3 Raphaël COSCAS*, Marc DENNERY*, Isabelle JAVERLIAT*, Isabelle DI CENTA°, Tristan
5
CUDENNEC§, Laurent TEILLET§, Olivier GOËAU-BRISSONNIERE*, Marc COGGIA*,
6
Boulogne-Billancourt and Suresnes, France.
RI PT
4
7
*Department of Vascular Surgery, Ambroise Paré University Hospital, AP-HP, Boulogne-
9
Billancourt, and Simone Veil Health Sciences Faculty, University of Versailles Saint-Quentin en
SC
8
Yvelines, Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France.
11
°Vascular Surgery Unit, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France.
12
§Department of Geriatrics, Ambroise Paré University Hospital, AP-HP, Boulogne-Billancourt,
13
and Simone Veil Health Sciences Faculty, University of Versailles Saint-Quentin en Yvelines,
14
Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France.
TE D
M AN U
10
15
Correspondance: Marc Coggia, MD, Service de Chirurgie Vasculaire, Hôpital Ambroise Paré, 9
17
avenue Charles de Gaulle, 92104 Boulogne Cedex, France ; E-mail: [email protected]
19 20
AC C
18
EP
16
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ABSTRACT
2
Objectives: Octogenarians are considered at high surgical risk for the treatment of abdominal
3
aortic aneurysms (AAA). The laparoscopic aortic surgery (LAS) and the endovascular treatment
4
(EVAR) are two mini-invasive techniques whose objective is to limit the operative traumatism.
5
The objective of this study was to compare our results with short and medium term results with
6
these two techniques in the octogenarians.
7
Methods: Between January 2002 and December 2012, the data of 674 operated consecutive
8
AAA (315 LAS, 172 EVAR and 187 open surgeries) were collected prospectively. Eighty-seven
9
patients ≥80 years presenting a favorable anatomy were treated by LAS or EVAR. Twenty-five
10
patients ≥85 years with a favorable anatomy were excluded because we generally did not propose
11
LAS to them. Statistical analysis compared the demographic data and the results of the two
12
groups. The principal criterion judgment (PCJ) was the combined rate of mortality and severe
13
systemic complications (MSSC) at 30 days. A uni/multivariate model was used to determine the
14
factors associated with the occurred of the PCJ. The data were expressed as means and standard
15
deviations. A p value ≤0.05 was considered significant.
16
Results: Sixty-two patients (90% men, age 81.8±1.4 years) were included. There were 31 EVAR
17
and 31 LAS. The two groups were comparable concerning the demographic data, the
18
comorbidities and the aneurysmal anatomies. There was a non-significant tendency to higher
19
rates of mortality (9.7 vs. 3.2%, p=0.3) and MSSC at 30 days (16.1 vs. 3.2%, p=0.09) in the LAS
20
group. During the operation, LAS was associated with a longer operative time (289±85 vs.
21
152±57 min, p 300 min was associated with the
18
combined rate of MSSC at 30 days. EVAR seems to be the technique of choice in the
19
octogenarian, but LAS remains a possible technique in the octogenarians with a good surgical risk
20
when a durable repair appears desirable.
22 23
EP
AC C
21
TE D
13
24 25 26
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
REFERENCES
2
[1] Savji N, Rockman CB, Skolnick AH, Guo Y, Adelman MA, Riles T, Berger JS. Association
3
between advanced age and vascular disease in different arterial territories: a population database
4
of over 3.6 million subjects. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:1736-43.
5
[2] Raval MV, Eskandari MK. Outcomes of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair among the
6
elderly: endovascular versus open repair. Surgery 2012;151:245-60.
7
[3] Évaluation des endoprothèses aortiques utilisées pour le traitement endovasculaire des
8
anévrismes de l’aorte abdominale sous-rénale. Saint- Denis; Haute autorité de santé; 2009.
9
[4] Biancari F, Catania A, D'Andrea V. Elective endovascular vs. open repair for abdominal aortic
10
aneurysm in patients aged 80 years and older: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Vasc
11
Endovasc Surg 2011;42:571-6.
12
[5] de Donato G, Setacci C, Chisci E, et al. Abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in octogenarians:
13
myth or reality? J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2007;48:697-703.
14
[6] Sicard GA, Rubin BG, Sanchez LA, et al. Endoluminal graft repair for abdominal aortic
15
aneurysms in high-risk patients and octogenarians: is it better than open repair? Ann Surg
16
2001;234:427-35.
17
[7] Paolini D, Chahwan S, Wojnarowski D, Pigott JP, LaPorte F, Comerota AJ. Elective
18
endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in octogenarians. J Vasc Surg
19
2008;47:924-7.
20
[8] Giles KA, Landon BE, Cotterill P, O'Malley AJ, Pomposelli FB, Schermerhorn ML. Thirty-
21
day mortality and late survival with reinterventions and readmissions after open and endovascular
22
aortic aneurysm repair in Medicare beneficiaries. J Vasc Surg 2011;53:6-12,13.e1.
23
[9] Cochennec F, Javerliat I, Di Centa I, Goëau-Brissonnière O, Coggia M. A comparison of total
24
laparoscopic and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 2012;55:1549-53.
25
[10] Coggia M, Javerliat I, Di Centa I, et al. Total laparoscopic versus conventional abdominal
26
aortic aneurysm repair: a case-control study. J Vasc Surg 2005;42:906-10.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
1
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
[11] Di Centa I, Coggia M, Cochennec F, Alfonsi P, Javerliat I, Goëau-Brissonnière O.
2
Laparoscopic abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in octogenarians. J Vasc Surg 2009;49:1135-9.
3
[12] Chaikof EL, Blankensteijn JD, Harris PL, et al; Ad Hoc Committee for Standardized
4
Reporting Practices in Vascular Surgery of The Society for Vascular Surgery/American
5
Association for Vascular Surgery. Reporting standards for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J
6
Vasc Surg 2002;35:1048-60.
7
[13] Coscas R, Maumias T, Capdevila C, Javerliat I, Goëau-Brissonnière O, Coggia M. Mini-
8
invasive treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms: current roles of endovascular, laparoscopic,
9
and open techniques. Ann Vasc Surg 2014;28:123-31.
SC
RI PT
1
[14] Tanquilut EM, Veith FJ, Ohki T, et al. Nonoperative management with selective delayed
11
surgery for large abdominal aortic aneurysms in patients at high risk. J Vasc Surg 2002;36:41-6.
12
[15] Dimick JB, Stanley JC, Axelrod DA, et al. Variation in death rate after abdominal aortic
13
aneurysmectomy in the United States: impact of hospital volume, gender, and age. Ann Surg
14
2002;235:579-85.
15
[16] United Kingdom EVAR Trial Investigators, Greenhalgh RM, Brown LC, Powell JT,
16
Thompson SG, Epstein D, Sculpher MJ. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic
17
aneurysm. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1863-71.
18
[17] De Bruin JL, Baas AF, Buth J; DREAM Study Group. Long-term outcome of open or
19
endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1881-9.
20
[18] Lederle FA, Freischlag JA, Kyriakides TC, et al; Open Versus Endovascular Repair (OVER)
21
Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group. Outcomes following endovascular vs open repair of
22
abdominal aortic aneurysm: a randomized trial. JAMA 2009;302:1535-42.
23
[19] Becquemin JP, Pillet JC, Lescalie F, et al; ACE trialists. A randomized controlled trial of
24
endovascular aneurysm repair versus open surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysms in low- to
25
moderate-risk patients. J Vasc Surg 2011;53:1167-1173.e1.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
10
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
[20] Tassiopoulos AK, Kwon SS, Labropoulos N, et al. Predictors of early discharge following
2
open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg 2004;18:218-22.
3
[21] Becquemin JP, Majewski M, Fermani N, et al. Colon ischemia following abdominal aortic
4
aneurysm repair in the era of endovascular abdominal aortic repair. J Vasc Surg 2008;47:258-63.
RI PT
1
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
5
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
LAS (N, % et mean ± SD)
EVAR (N, % and mean ± SD)
p
81.6±1.4
82.1±1.4
0.15
Male
29 (94)
27 (87)
0.39
Tobacco
19 (61)
24 (77)
0.17
Dyslipidemia
18 (58)
21 (68)
0.43
Hypertension
24 (77)
24 (77)
1
Diabetes
3 (10)
5 (16)
0.45
Obesity
6 (19)
11 (35)
0.15
Ischemic Cardiopathy
11 (35)
12 (39)
0.79
COBP
5 (16)
8 (26)
0.35
Clearance of creatinine (mL/min)
58.7±15.6
63.8±19.5
0.26
ASA ¾ score Diameter of the AAA (mm) Length of the proximal neck collet proximal (mm)
SC
10 (32)
14 (45)
0.3
19 (61)
20 (65)
0.79
53.8±11.9
53.2±7.8
0.81
26.4±12.1
25.7±9.9
0.81
3 (10)
6 (19)
0.28
TE D
Associated occlusive lesions
M AN U
Previous abdominal surgery
RI PT
Age (years)
Table I. Demographic data, preoperative comorbidities and anatomy of the patients of the study
EP
according to the technique used. The results are expressed as N (%) for the binary variables and average ± standard deviation for the continuous variables. The results of the two groups were
AC C
compared by using the Chi2 test and the Student’s t test. A value of p ≤ 0.05 was regarded as a significant difference between the two techniques on the studied parameter. LAS : Laparoscopic aortic surgery ; EVAR : Endovascular repair of aortic aneurysm; COBP : Chronic obstructive broncho-pneumopathy ; AAA : Aneurysm of the abdominal aorta ; ASA : American Society of Anesthesiologists.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
EVAR (mean ± SD)
Observe d t value
P value
Duration of surgery (min)
288 ± 84
152 ± 57
7.374
1000 mL Perioperative transfusions
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table IV. Univariate analysis measuring the association of the variables studied with the occurrence of PCJ at 30 days. The Pearson’s test was used to compare the percentages. The variables with a p value 300 min
2.98 ± 1.54
3.74
0.05*
19.66 [0.96-401.62]
Blood loss > 1000 mL
1.02 ± 1.29
0.63
0.43
Necessity of transfusions
1.74 ± 1.48
1.37
0.24
Constant
-5.19 ± 1.94
7.16
0.007
RI PT
Odds ratio [CI 95%]]
2.77 [0.22-34.66]
5.67 [0.31-103.82]
SC
-
M AN U
Table V. Multivariate analysis measuring the association of the variables studied with the occurrence of the PCJ at 30 days. Associations of the linear model are presented as coefficients and values of p. The variables whose p value was ≤ 0.05 were regarded as significant. CI: confidence interval.
AC C
EP
TE D
*: Statistically significant difference between the two techniques.
S0890-5096(14)00299-4
DOI:
10.1016/j.avsg.2014.04.018
Reference:
AVSG 2022
To appear in:
Annals of Vascular Surgery
Received Date: 3 October 2013 Revised Date:
16 March 2014
Accepted Date: 20 April 2014
Please cite this article as: Coscas R, Dennery M, Javerliat I, Di Centa I, Cudennec T, Teillet L, GoËauBrissonniere O, Coggia M, Laparoscopy Versus Evar for the Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in the Octogenarian, Annals of Vascular Surgery (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2014.04.018. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
LAPAROSCOPY VERSUS EVAR FOR THE TREATMENT OF ABDOMINAL
2
AORTIC ANEURYSMS IN THE OCTOGENARIAN
3 Raphaël COSCAS*, Marc DENNERY*, Isabelle JAVERLIAT*, Isabelle DI CENTA°, Tristan
5
CUDENNEC§, Laurent TEILLET§, Olivier GOËAU-BRISSONNIERE*, Marc COGGIA*,
6
Boulogne-Billancourt and Suresnes, France.
RI PT
4
7
*Department of Vascular Surgery, Ambroise Paré University Hospital, AP-HP, Boulogne-
9
Billancourt, and Simone Veil Health Sciences Faculty, University of Versailles Saint-Quentin en
SC
8
Yvelines, Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France.
11
°Vascular Surgery Unit, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France.
12
§Department of Geriatrics, Ambroise Paré University Hospital, AP-HP, Boulogne-Billancourt,
13
and Simone Veil Health Sciences Faculty, University of Versailles Saint-Quentin en Yvelines,
14
Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France.
TE D
M AN U
10
15
Correspondance: Marc Coggia, MD, Service de Chirurgie Vasculaire, Hôpital Ambroise Paré, 9
17
avenue Charles de Gaulle, 92104 Boulogne Cedex, France ; E-mail: [email protected]
19 20
AC C
18
EP
16
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ABSTRACT
2
Objectives: Octogenarians are considered at high surgical risk for the treatment of abdominal
3
aortic aneurysms (AAA). The laparoscopic aortic surgery (LAS) and the endovascular treatment
4
(EVAR) are two mini-invasive techniques whose objective is to limit the operative traumatism.
5
The objective of this study was to compare our results with short and medium term results with
6
these two techniques in the octogenarians.
7
Methods: Between January 2002 and December 2012, the data of 674 operated consecutive
8
AAA (315 LAS, 172 EVAR and 187 open surgeries) were collected prospectively. Eighty-seven
9
patients ≥80 years presenting a favorable anatomy were treated by LAS or EVAR. Twenty-five
10
patients ≥85 years with a favorable anatomy were excluded because we generally did not propose
11
LAS to them. Statistical analysis compared the demographic data and the results of the two
12
groups. The principal criterion judgment (PCJ) was the combined rate of mortality and severe
13
systemic complications (MSSC) at 30 days. A uni/multivariate model was used to determine the
14
factors associated with the occurred of the PCJ. The data were expressed as means and standard
15
deviations. A p value ≤0.05 was considered significant.
16
Results: Sixty-two patients (90% men, age 81.8±1.4 years) were included. There were 31 EVAR
17
and 31 LAS. The two groups were comparable concerning the demographic data, the
18
comorbidities and the aneurysmal anatomies. There was a non-significant tendency to higher
19
rates of mortality (9.7 vs. 3.2%, p=0.3) and MSSC at 30 days (16.1 vs. 3.2%, p=0.09) in the LAS
20
group. During the operation, LAS was associated with a longer operative time (289±85 vs.
21
152±57 min, p 300 min was associated with the
18
combined rate of MSSC at 30 days. EVAR seems to be the technique of choice in the
19
octogenarian, but LAS remains a possible technique in the octogenarians with a good surgical risk
20
when a durable repair appears desirable.
22 23
EP
AC C
21
TE D
13
24 25 26
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
REFERENCES
2
[1] Savji N, Rockman CB, Skolnick AH, Guo Y, Adelman MA, Riles T, Berger JS. Association
3
between advanced age and vascular disease in different arterial territories: a population database
4
of over 3.6 million subjects. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:1736-43.
5
[2] Raval MV, Eskandari MK. Outcomes of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair among the
6
elderly: endovascular versus open repair. Surgery 2012;151:245-60.
7
[3] Évaluation des endoprothèses aortiques utilisées pour le traitement endovasculaire des
8
anévrismes de l’aorte abdominale sous-rénale. Saint- Denis; Haute autorité de santé; 2009.
9
[4] Biancari F, Catania A, D'Andrea V. Elective endovascular vs. open repair for abdominal aortic
10
aneurysm in patients aged 80 years and older: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Vasc
11
Endovasc Surg 2011;42:571-6.
12
[5] de Donato G, Setacci C, Chisci E, et al. Abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in octogenarians:
13
myth or reality? J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2007;48:697-703.
14
[6] Sicard GA, Rubin BG, Sanchez LA, et al. Endoluminal graft repair for abdominal aortic
15
aneurysms in high-risk patients and octogenarians: is it better than open repair? Ann Surg
16
2001;234:427-35.
17
[7] Paolini D, Chahwan S, Wojnarowski D, Pigott JP, LaPorte F, Comerota AJ. Elective
18
endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in octogenarians. J Vasc Surg
19
2008;47:924-7.
20
[8] Giles KA, Landon BE, Cotterill P, O'Malley AJ, Pomposelli FB, Schermerhorn ML. Thirty-
21
day mortality and late survival with reinterventions and readmissions after open and endovascular
22
aortic aneurysm repair in Medicare beneficiaries. J Vasc Surg 2011;53:6-12,13.e1.
23
[9] Cochennec F, Javerliat I, Di Centa I, Goëau-Brissonnière O, Coggia M. A comparison of total
24
laparoscopic and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 2012;55:1549-53.
25
[10] Coggia M, Javerliat I, Di Centa I, et al. Total laparoscopic versus conventional abdominal
26
aortic aneurysm repair: a case-control study. J Vasc Surg 2005;42:906-10.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
1
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
[11] Di Centa I, Coggia M, Cochennec F, Alfonsi P, Javerliat I, Goëau-Brissonnière O.
2
Laparoscopic abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in octogenarians. J Vasc Surg 2009;49:1135-9.
3
[12] Chaikof EL, Blankensteijn JD, Harris PL, et al; Ad Hoc Committee for Standardized
4
Reporting Practices in Vascular Surgery of The Society for Vascular Surgery/American
5
Association for Vascular Surgery. Reporting standards for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J
6
Vasc Surg 2002;35:1048-60.
7
[13] Coscas R, Maumias T, Capdevila C, Javerliat I, Goëau-Brissonnière O, Coggia M. Mini-
8
invasive treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms: current roles of endovascular, laparoscopic,
9
and open techniques. Ann Vasc Surg 2014;28:123-31.
SC
RI PT
1
[14] Tanquilut EM, Veith FJ, Ohki T, et al. Nonoperative management with selective delayed
11
surgery for large abdominal aortic aneurysms in patients at high risk. J Vasc Surg 2002;36:41-6.
12
[15] Dimick JB, Stanley JC, Axelrod DA, et al. Variation in death rate after abdominal aortic
13
aneurysmectomy in the United States: impact of hospital volume, gender, and age. Ann Surg
14
2002;235:579-85.
15
[16] United Kingdom EVAR Trial Investigators, Greenhalgh RM, Brown LC, Powell JT,
16
Thompson SG, Epstein D, Sculpher MJ. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic
17
aneurysm. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1863-71.
18
[17] De Bruin JL, Baas AF, Buth J; DREAM Study Group. Long-term outcome of open or
19
endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1881-9.
20
[18] Lederle FA, Freischlag JA, Kyriakides TC, et al; Open Versus Endovascular Repair (OVER)
21
Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group. Outcomes following endovascular vs open repair of
22
abdominal aortic aneurysm: a randomized trial. JAMA 2009;302:1535-42.
23
[19] Becquemin JP, Pillet JC, Lescalie F, et al; ACE trialists. A randomized controlled trial of
24
endovascular aneurysm repair versus open surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysms in low- to
25
moderate-risk patients. J Vasc Surg 2011;53:1167-1173.e1.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
10
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
[20] Tassiopoulos AK, Kwon SS, Labropoulos N, et al. Predictors of early discharge following
2
open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg 2004;18:218-22.
3
[21] Becquemin JP, Majewski M, Fermani N, et al. Colon ischemia following abdominal aortic
4
aneurysm repair in the era of endovascular abdominal aortic repair. J Vasc Surg 2008;47:258-63.
RI PT
1
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
5
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
LAS (N, % et mean ± SD)
EVAR (N, % and mean ± SD)
p
81.6±1.4
82.1±1.4
0.15
Male
29 (94)
27 (87)
0.39
Tobacco
19 (61)
24 (77)
0.17
Dyslipidemia
18 (58)
21 (68)
0.43
Hypertension
24 (77)
24 (77)
1
Diabetes
3 (10)
5 (16)
0.45
Obesity
6 (19)
11 (35)
0.15
Ischemic Cardiopathy
11 (35)
12 (39)
0.79
COBP
5 (16)
8 (26)
0.35
Clearance of creatinine (mL/min)
58.7±15.6
63.8±19.5
0.26
ASA ¾ score Diameter of the AAA (mm) Length of the proximal neck collet proximal (mm)
SC
10 (32)
14 (45)
0.3
19 (61)
20 (65)
0.79
53.8±11.9
53.2±7.8
0.81
26.4±12.1
25.7±9.9
0.81
3 (10)
6 (19)
0.28
TE D
Associated occlusive lesions
M AN U
Previous abdominal surgery
RI PT
Age (years)
Table I. Demographic data, preoperative comorbidities and anatomy of the patients of the study
EP
according to the technique used. The results are expressed as N (%) for the binary variables and average ± standard deviation for the continuous variables. The results of the two groups were
AC C
compared by using the Chi2 test and the Student’s t test. A value of p ≤ 0.05 was regarded as a significant difference between the two techniques on the studied parameter. LAS : Laparoscopic aortic surgery ; EVAR : Endovascular repair of aortic aneurysm; COBP : Chronic obstructive broncho-pneumopathy ; AAA : Aneurysm of the abdominal aorta ; ASA : American Society of Anesthesiologists.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
EVAR (mean ± SD)
Observe d t value
P value
Duration of surgery (min)
288 ± 84
152 ± 57
7.374
1000 mL Perioperative transfusions
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table IV. Univariate analysis measuring the association of the variables studied with the occurrence of PCJ at 30 days. The Pearson’s test was used to compare the percentages. The variables with a p value 300 min
2.98 ± 1.54
3.74
0.05*
19.66 [0.96-401.62]
Blood loss > 1000 mL
1.02 ± 1.29
0.63
0.43
Necessity of transfusions
1.74 ± 1.48
1.37
0.24
Constant
-5.19 ± 1.94
7.16
0.007
RI PT
Odds ratio [CI 95%]]
2.77 [0.22-34.66]
5.67 [0.31-103.82]
SC
-
M AN U
Table V. Multivariate analysis measuring the association of the variables studied with the occurrence of the PCJ at 30 days. Associations of the linear model are presented as coefficients and values of p. The variables whose p value was ≤ 0.05 were regarded as significant. CI: confidence interval.
AC C
EP
TE D
*: Statistically significant difference between the two techniques.
