Recent developments and current controversies in short-stay endovascular aneurysm repair

INTRODUCTION: Short stay endovascular aneurysm repair pathways (SS-EVAR) provide potential advantages to both healthcare providers and patients. However, these benefits must be carefully balanced against the inherent risks to patient safety and tariff penalties associated with unplanned readmissions. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A literature review was performed using the databases MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library up until March 2019. Search terms used included "endovascular aneurysm repair," "aneurysm repair," "EVAR," "abdominal aortic aneurysm," "day case," "short stay," "fast track," and "ambulatory. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Nine relevant articles (including one prior review on the topic) were identified. This early data suggests that SS-EVAR is associated with good patient satisfaction and modest cost savings for healthcare providers. Patient selection, preoperative preparation and supported discharge with early follow-up are essential components of a SS-EVAR pathway. Increasingly, SS-EVAR tends to be delivered via bilateral percutaneous access and loco-regional anesthesia. Over 70% of patients enrolled onto SS-EVAR pathways successfully complete them. Long procedures with excessive blood loss are associated with pathway non-completion. All serious complications occur within 6 hours of the procedure and the mortality (0-1%), morbidity (8-58%) and readmission rates (0-6%) associated with SS-EVAR remains acceptably low. SS-EVAR pathways can be safely and effectively implemented in both teaching and non-teaching hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Short-stay EVAR pathways are safe and acceptable to patients. With appropriate selection of motivated patients, successful expedited discharge can be achieved with limited readmissions, thus facilitating increased resource efficiency and cost savings for healthcare providers.