Any Postoperative Surveillance Improves Survival after Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Proximity and prior medical engagement influence follow-up after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

Post-repair surveillance of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) is critical for detecting potential complications. Substantial loss to follow-up has been reported in populations undergoing elective endovascular aortic repair (EVAR); however, there is limited data on follow-up rate among patients presenting with rupture. Thus, we investigated follow-up trends and factors influencing retention at a major academic referral center with a wide service area.

METHODS

We included patients with rAAAs from 2002 through 2023 in this retrospective study. Loss to follow-up was defined as absence of vascular surgeon evaluation for 2 years (EVAR) or 5 years (open repair) prior to death or present day. Multivariate regression and survival models assessed the influence of potential factors on follow-up and survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 455 patients who presented with rAAAs, 60% who underwent EVAR and 39% who underwent open repair were lost to follow-up. Twenty percent of patients who underwent EVAR were lost after initial admission, and 40% of patients were lost after the 1-month postoperative follow-up visit. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics. Patients lost to follow-up less commonly had stage 4 chronic kidney disease (7.2% vs 24.3%; P = .02) and prior EVAR (10.0% vs 29.2%; P = .01) at time of rupture. Secondary interventions were less common in patients lost to follow-up (14.5% vs 39.0%; P = .01). In multivariate analysis of patients who underwent an EVAR, residing more than 10 miles from hospital was associated with loss to follow-up (odds ratio [OR], 4.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-21.29). Prior endograft at time of rupture (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.06-0.89), and estimated glomular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73m2 (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.93) were associated with complete follow-up in patients who underwent EVAR. Patients who were lost to follow-up trended towards worse survival (hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 0.67-6.26), whereas prior endograft was associated with significantly worse survival after EVAR (hazard ratio, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.20-8.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Although most patients with rAAAs attend their 1-month postoperative visit, the majority are subsequently lost to follow-up. Geographic proximity to the hospital and higher baseline medical engagement, as indicated by prior endograft and chronic kidney disease, appeared to be protective against such loss. Targeted counseling and engagement at the 1-month postoperative visit, particularly in patients with less comorbid conditions, may enhance retention to long-term follow-up.

Identifying barriers and facilitators to follow-up after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR): Qualitative study design and protocol

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is now first line therapy for most patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) as it reduces perioperative morbidity and mortality compared to open surgery. However, up to 40 % of patients do not undergo recommended follow-up, increasing risk of subsequent rupture. Risk factors for loss to follow-up have been studied retrospectively, however, qualitative studies assessing perceived barriers and facilitators to follow-up have not been performed and there are few qualitative protocols within the vascular surgery literature. This article presents a qualitative descriptive study protocol aimed at understanding and improving post-operative follow-up adherence after EVAR developed through an iterative process based on the Theoretical Domains Framework of behavior change. Steps include:•Selection of target behavior and study design•Development of study materials, sampling/recruitment strategy, and data collection•Qualitative data analysis and reporting findingsWe demonstrate the feasibility of this study by pilot testing of the semi-structured interview guides on a small group of patients, healthcare providers, and key personnel. This protocol aims to describe key stakeholder experiences within the healthcare system that will ultimately serve as the basis for future multi-institutional research piloting intervention strategies to improve EVAR follow-up.

The association between frailty and outcomes following ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is a less invasive method than the more physiologically stressful open surgical repair (OSR) for patients with anatomically appropriate abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Early postoperative outcomes are associated with both patients; physiologic reserve and the physiologic stresses of the surgical intervention. Among frail patients with reduced physiologic reserve, the stress of an aortic rupture in combination with the stress of an operative repair are less well tolerated, raising the risk of complications and mortality. This study aims to evaluate the difference in association between frailty and outcomes among patients undergoing minimally invasive EVAR and the physiologically more stressful OSR for ruptured AAAs (rAAAs).

METHODS

Our retrospective cohort study included adults undergoing rAAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2010 to 2022. The validated Risk Analysis Index (RAI) (robust, ≤20; normal, 21-29; frail, 30-39; very frail, ≥40) quantified frailty. The association between the primary outcome of 1-year mortality and frailty status as well as repair type were compared using multivariable Cox models generating adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Interaction terms evaluated the association's moderation.

RESULTS

We identified 5806 patients (age, 72 ± 9 years; 77% male; EVAR, 65%; robust, 6%; normal, 48%; frail, 36%; very, frail 10%) with a 53% observed 1-year mortality rate following rAAA repair. OSR (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.19-1.73) was associated with increased 1-year mortality when compared with EVAR. Increasing frailty status (frail aHR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.00-1.59; very frail aHR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.26-2.13) was associated with increased 1-year mortality, which was moderated by repair type (P-interaction < .05). OSR was associated with increased 1-year mortality in normal (aHR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.20-1.87) and frail (aHR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.20-1.89), but not among robust (aHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.59-1.32) and very frail (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.97-1.72) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Frailty and OSR were associated with increased adjusted risk of 1-year mortality following rAAA repair. Among normal and frail patients, OSR was associated with an increased adjusted risk of 1-year mortality when compared with EVAR. However, there was no difference between OSR and EVAR among robust patients who can well tolerate the stress of OSR and among very frail patients who are unable to withstand the surgical stress from rAAA regardless of repair type.

Social Determinants of Health Factors and Loss-To-Follow-Up in the Field of Vascular Surgery

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that 22-57% of vascular patients are lost to follow-up (LTF) which is of concern as the Society of Vascular Surgery recommends annual patient follow-up. The purpose of this report was to identify social determinants of health factors (SDoH) and their relationship to LTF in vascular patients.

METHODS

The methods employed were a systematic literature review of 29 empirical articles and a retrospective quality improvement report with 27 endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) patients at the University of Chicago.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review resulted in 2,931 articles which were reduced to 29 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Demographic variables were more frequently cited than SDoH factors, but the most common were smoking, transportation, and socioeconomic status/insurance. Additionally, 176 EVAR and TEVAR patients were called resulting in 27 patients who completed a SDoH questionnaire. Twenty-six percent indicated they had missed at least 1 appointment with the top reasons being work or family responsibilities. Due to limited patient size no statistical analyses were performed, but frequencies of responses to SDoH questions were reported to augment the existing limited literature and guide future research into variables such as one's ability to pay for basics like food or mortgage.

CONCLUSIONS

SDoH factors are important yet understudied aspects of endovascular repairs that require more research to understand their impact on vascular surgery follow-up rates and outcomes. Additional research is needed as lack of consideration of such factors may impact the generalizability of existing research and such knowledge may help in informing clinician treatment plans.

[Late Open Semi-conversion with Endograft Preservation for (Type II) Endoleaks with Late Aneurysm Sac Enlargement after EVAR - Indications, Method and Results in Our Own Patient Collective]

EVAR (endovascular aortic repair) is the most common method for treating an abdominal aortic aneurysm, but according to the latest findings it carries the risk of subsequent complications. These can be caused by (late) aneurysm sac growth. If conservative and surgical therapies fail to treat the aneurysm sac growth, open conversion is necessary to prevent aneurysm rupture. There are several options for open conversion, in which the EVAR prosthesis can be completely preserved or is (partially) removed. Late open semi-conversion with complete in-situ preservation of the EVAR-prosthesis and gathering of the aneurysm sac are a less invasive method than complete conversion and may be performed instead for selected patients. The aim of the present work is to present the surgical method, including indications and technical information, as well as the presentation of the results in our recent patient collective.All patients semi-converted in our department of vascular surgery and phlebology due to (type II) endoleak were included. All data are presented as n (%) or median (range).Between 6/2019 and 3/2023, 13 patients underwent semi-conversion 6 (2-12) years (median, range) after the initial EVAR. The aneurysm sac diameter at the time of semi-conversion was 69 mm (58-95 mm), the operating time was 114 min (97-147 min), the blood loss was 100 ml (100-1500 ml). Five (38%) patients received blood transfusion intraoperatively and 2 (15%) postoperatively. The stay in the intensive care unit lasted 1 (1-5) days, the hospitalisation time was 8 (6-11) days. Postoperative complications were intestinal atony (3 [23%], 1 [8%] with nausea/emesis and gastric tube insertion), anaemia (2 [15%]), hyponatraemia (2 [15%]), delirium (1 [8%]), COVID-19 infection (1 [8%]) and 1 [8%] intra-abdominal postoperative bleeding with the indication for surgical revision and the transfusion of 8 erythrocyte concentrates.Semi-conversion is a safe and practicable surgical method with few severe complications for a selected group of patients, which should be considered as an alternative to more invasive methods with (partial) removal of the EVAR-prosthesis. Further long-term studies comparing semi-conversion to full conversion are needed to demonstrate its benefits.

Editor's Choice - Meta-Analysis of Compliance with Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Surveillance: The EVAR Surveillance Paradox

OBJECTIVE

To compare the survival of patients who attended surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with those who were non-compliant.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and Embase were searched using the Ovid interface.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review was conducted complying with the PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies compared survival in EVAR surveillance compliant patients with non-compliant patients. Non-compliance was defined as failure to attend at least one post-EVAR follow up. The risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were survival and aneurysm related death. Effect measures were the hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) calculated using the inverse variance or Mantel-Haenszel statistical method and random effects models.

RESULTS

Thirteen cohort studies with a total of 22 762 patients were included. Eight studies were deemed high risk of bias. The pooled proportion of patients who were non-compliant with EVAR surveillance was 43% (95% CI 36 - 51). No statistically significant difference was found in the hazard of all cause mortality (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 - 1.77), aneurysm related mortality (HR 1.80, 95% CI 0.85-3.80), or secondary intervention (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.31 - 1.41) between patients who had incomplete and complete follow up after EVAR. The odds of aneurysm rupture were lower in non-compliant patients (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39 - 1.01). The certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes. Subgroup analysis for patients who had no surveillance vs. those with complete surveillance showed no significant difference in all cause mortality (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.43 - 2.80).

CONCLUSION

Patients who were non-compliant with EVAR surveillance had similar survival to those who were compliant. These findings question the value of intense surveillance in all patients post-EVAR and highlight the need for further research on individualised or risk adjusted surveillance.