Introduction Only little is known about endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) performed as an outpatient procedure. We report here a two-center (Middelares Hospital, Antwerp (Deurne), Belgium and University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland) experience in 104 EVAR patients of which a group of 52 patients have been treated on an outpatient (out-EVAR) basis and compared to a matched group of 52 patients that have been treated as inpatients (in-EVAR). Methods Selection criterions for out-EVAR were: informed consent, travel time to the hospital if readmission was required of <30-60 minutes, and technically uncomplicated EVAR. Most out-EVAR has been treated percutaneous. In-EVAR patients consisted in a matched population treated during the same time period.Results 80% (52/65) of the patients considered appropriate for out-EVAR accepted to be treated ambulatory. EVAR was successful in all but one in-EVAR patient requiring conversion to open AAA repair. There was no 30-day mortality in both groups. All patients left the hospital within 12 hours after admission, but two out-EVAR patients (4%) that had to stay over the night due to percutaneous access problems. There was no outcome difference between both centers. Conclusions This two-center experience shows that outpatient EVAR, can be a safe alternative to inpatient EVAR, which further support the superiority of EVAR over open AAA repair.

Rodriguez-Carvajal, R., Rancic, Z., Puippe, G., Michael, G., Guillet, C., Schmidt, C., et al. (2013). EVAR IN OUT CLINIC PATIENTS: IS IT FEASIBLE AND SAFE?. In Controversies and Update in Vascular Surgery 2013 (pp. 117-121). Marseille : Edition Divine.

EVAR IN OUT CLINIC PATIENTS: IS IT FEASIBLE AND SAFE?

PECORARO, Felice;
2013-01-01

Abstract

Introduction Only little is known about endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) performed as an outpatient procedure. We report here a two-center (Middelares Hospital, Antwerp (Deurne), Belgium and University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland) experience in 104 EVAR patients of which a group of 52 patients have been treated on an outpatient (out-EVAR) basis and compared to a matched group of 52 patients that have been treated as inpatients (in-EVAR). Methods Selection criterions for out-EVAR were: informed consent, travel time to the hospital if readmission was required of <30-60 minutes, and technically uncomplicated EVAR. Most out-EVAR has been treated percutaneous. In-EVAR patients consisted in a matched population treated during the same time period.Results 80% (52/65) of the patients considered appropriate for out-EVAR accepted to be treated ambulatory. EVAR was successful in all but one in-EVAR patient requiring conversion to open AAA repair. There was no 30-day mortality in both groups. All patients left the hospital within 12 hours after admission, but two out-EVAR patients (4%) that had to stay over the night due to percutaneous access problems. There was no outcome difference between both centers. Conclusions This two-center experience shows that outpatient EVAR, can be a safe alternative to inpatient EVAR, which further support the superiority of EVAR over open AAA repair.
2013
Settore MED/22 - Chirurgia Vascolare
Rodriguez-Carvajal, R., Rancic, Z., Puippe, G., Michael, G., Guillet, C., Schmidt, C., et al. (2013). EVAR IN OUT CLINIC PATIENTS: IS IT FEASIBLE AND SAFE?. In Controversies and Update in Vascular Surgery 2013 (pp. 117-121). Marseille : Edition Divine.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
54_2013_cacvs_EVAR in outclinic.pdf

Solo gestori archvio

Dimensione 479.42 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
479.42 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10447/146754
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact