Fast-Track Management of Concurrent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients Scheduled for Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the safety and efficacy of fast-track management of concurrent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm scheduled for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Materials and Methods: Eligible patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm who received EVAR from January 2011 to December 2019 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Propensity score (PS)–matched analysis was used to balance the baseline between the fast-track and standard control (EVAR without significant coronary artery disease) groups. Effects of fast-track management on short-term and midterm outcomes were evaluated via Cox proportional hazard regression and logistic regression analyses with corresponding hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), respectively. Results: The study included 669 patients (73 fast-track and 596 standard control). Compared with the standard control group, no significant difference was found regarding major adverse cardiac events (HR 0.78, 95% CI [0.36, 1.68], p=0.519), overall mortality (HR 0.63, 95% CI [0.25, 1.55], p=0.315), and 30-day major hemorrhage events (OR 1.01, 95% CI [0.99, 1.03], p=0.514). The results were consistent in the PS-matched cohorts regarding major adverse cardiac events (HR 0.57, 95% CI [0.25, 1.29], p=0.176), overall mortality (HR 0.43, 95% CI [0.17, 1.11], p=0.820), and 30-day major hemorrhage events (OR 1.00, 95% CI [0.05, 10.61], p=0.999). Similar results were found in the subgroup analyses concerning fast-track management of 2-week intervals and patients with high age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index. Conclusions: Under appropriate perioperative care, shortening the time interval between PCI and EVAR to 1 month, or even 2 weeks, seemed to be safe and effective. Short-term and midterm cardiovascular and survival outcomes were comparable with patients who underwent standard EVAR without significant coronary artery disease.