Quality of Life After Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Long Term Quality of Life, Health Status, and Residential Destination after Emergency Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective, multicentre, observational cohort study aimed to assess the long term quality of life, health status, and residential destination after successful treatment of a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) treated by endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) or open surgical repair (OSR).

METHODS

Consecutive patients from five large teaching hospitals with a computed tomography confirmed rAAA from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2018 were included. Mortality, morbidity, discharge destination, and residential destination through follow up were registered. Quality of life (QoL) was measured with the World Health Organization Quality of Life BREF questionnaire, and health status with the 5 Level EuroQoL 5 Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire. Subgroup analyses were performed between OSR and EVAR, and age < 80 years and ≥ 80 years (octogenarians).

RESULTS

A total of 349 patients were enrolled: 168 (48.1%) were treated by EVAR. The overall 30 day, one year, and five year survival rates were 74.2% 66.0%, and 45.0%, respectively. At follow up (59.5 ± 2.1 months), the residential destination was home for 46.7% of patients. Of the patients, 48% were treated by EVAR and 49.6% by OSR (p = .48). More patients aged < 80 years (55.9%) were living at home (p < .001) at follow up. The mean QoL subscore for environment was 16.4 ± 2.1, physical health 14.5 ± 3.0, psychological health 15.5 ± 2.3, and social relationships 15.0 ± 2.6. Analyses of treatment modalities showed no statistically significant differences. Patients aged < 80 years had a higher mean physical health subscore (14.8 ± 2.8; p = .015). The mean health score on the EQ-5D-5L was 72.3 ± 19.2. No difference was found between treatments. Daily activities favoured the younger cohort (p = .019).

CONCLUSION

There was no difference regarding QoL and last residential destination in both treatment arms over the long term. Both EVAR and OSR are justified in treating rAAA. Age alone should not be a decisive argument, but elderly patients have a lower likelihood of returning to their home situation. Patients should be informed that if they survive the peri-operative period, the chances are that they will experience life comparable with the general elderly population living at home.

Evaluation of national institute for health and care excellence guidance for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms by emulating a hypothetical target trial

Objective

This retrospective study evaluates the performance of UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guidelines on management of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms in a "real world setting" by emulating a hypothetical target trial with data from two European Aortic Centers.

Methods

Clinical data was retrospectively collected for all patients who had undergone ruptured endovascular aneurysm repair (rEVAR) and ruptured open surgical repair (rOSR). Survival analysis was performed comparing NICE compliance to usual care strategy. NICE compliers were defined as: female patients undergoing rEVAR; male patients >70 years old undergoing rEVAR; and male patients ≤70 years old undergoing rOSR. Hemodynamic instability was considered additionally.

Results

This multicenter study included 298 patients treated for rAAA. The majority of patients were treated with rOSR (186 rOSR vs. 112 rEVAR). Overall, 184 deaths (68 [37%] with rEVAR and 116 [63%] with rOSR) were observed during the study period. Overall survival under usual care was 69.2% at 30 days, 56.5% at one year, and 42.4% at 5 years. NICE compliance gave survival outcomes of 73.1% at 30 days, 60.2% at 1 year and 42.9% at 5 years. The risk ratios at these time points, comparing NICE-compliance to usual care, were 0.88, 0.92 and 0.99, respectively.

Conclusions

We support NICE recommendations to manage men below the age of 71 years and hemodynamic stability with rOSR. There was a slight survival advantage for NICE compliers overall, in men >70 years and women of all ages.

Survival and Living Situation After Ruptured Abdominal Aneurysm Repair in Octogenarians

OBJECTIVE

To determine the 30 day and one year mortality and post-operative living situation in octogenarians treated for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA).

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed at four centres in the Netherlands. All consecutive patients aged ≥80 years, presenting with a rAAA between January 2013 and October 2018, were included. The primary outcomes were post-operative living situation and one year mortality.

RESULTS

In total, 157 patients were included. Forty-seven received palliative care and 110 patients had surgery. After endovascular or open repair, the one year mortality rate was 50.0%. The 30 day mortality rate was 40.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 27-55) and 31.7% (95% CI 20-44), for endovascular and open repair, respectively (p = .32). Sixty-five per cent of survivors were discharged home, while 34.8% went to a nursing home for rehabilitation. Of the surviving patients, 82.6% went back to living in their pre-rupture home situation. Of the investigated variables, only a high body mass index proved a significant predictor of death at 30 days and one year. Compared with operated patients, patients turned down for surgery were older (mean age 87.5 ± 3.8 vs. 84.0 ± 3.5; p < .001), lived significantly more often in a nursing home (odds ratio 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.03; p < .001), were more often dependent (odds ratio 3.69, 95% CI 2.31-5.88; p < .001) and had a lower Glasgow Coma Scale score on arrival (odds ratio 0.42, 95% CI 0.25-0.69; p = .002). All palliative patients died within three days.

CONCLUSION

Overall treatment outcomes showed that octogenarians should not be denied surgery based on age alone, as half of the octogenarians that undergo surgical treatment are still alive one year after rAAA repair. In addition, > 80% returned to their own home after rehabilitation.

Inverse probability of treatment analysis of open vs endovascular repair in ruptured infrarenal aortic aneurysm - Cohort study

BACKGROUND

To compare open repair (OR) with EVAR for the management of ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAA) in a cohort study over a time period of 15 years with inverse probability of treatment weights.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From 2000/01 through 2015/12 136 patients were treated for RAAA, 98 (72.1%) underwent OR, 38 (27.9%) were treated with EVAR. Thirty-day and long-term mortality (survival) were analyzed in this IRB-approved retrospective cohort study. Treatment modalities were compared using inverse probability of treatment weights to adjust for imbalances in demographic data and risk factors.

RESULTS

EVAR patients were older (75.11 ± 7.17 vs 69.79 ± 10.24; p=0.001). There was no statistical difference in gender, hypertension, COPD, CAD, or diabetes. GFR was significantly higher in OR patients (71.4 ± 31.09 vs. 53.68 ± 25.73). Postoperative dialysis was required more frequently in EVAR patients: 11% vs. 2% (p = 0.099). In the OR group, adjusted cumulative survival was 70.4% (61.1, 81.1) at 30 days, 47.0% (37.1, 59.6) at one year and 38.3% (28.6, 51.3) at 5 years. In the EVAR group the corresponding numbers were 77.0% (67.7, 87.5), 67.5% (57.0, 80.0) and 41.7% (30.4, 57.4), respectively.

CONCLUSION

There is evidence for EVAR patients exhibiting a benefit in one-year survival, while patients treated with OR may have more favorable long-term survival given they survive for at least one year. Herein we provide a statistically rigorous comparison of OR and EVAR in short and long-term outcomes with up to 15 years of follow-up.

Endovascular treatment for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) (pathological enlargement of the aorta) is a condition that can occur as a person ages. It is most commonly seen in men older than 65 years of age. Progressive aneurysm enlargement can lead to rupture and massive internal bleeding, which is fatal unless timely repair can be achieved. Despite improvements in perioperative care, mortality remains high (approximately 50%) after conventional open surgical repair. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), a minimally invasive technique, has been shown to reduce early morbidity and mortality as compared to conventional open surgery for planned AAA repair. More recently emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) has been used successfully to treat ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA), proving that it is feasible in select patients; however, it is unclear if eEVAR will lead to significant improvements in outcomes for these patients or if indeed it can replace conventional open repair as the preferred treatment for this lethal condition. This is an update of the review first published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the advantages and disadvantages of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) in comparison with conventional open surgical repair for the treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA). This will be determined by comparing the effects of eEVAR and conventional open surgical repair on short-term mortality, major complication rates, aneurysm exclusion (specifically endoleaks in the eEVAR treatment group), and late complications.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (last searched June 2016), CENTRAL (2016, Issue 5), and trials registries. We also checked reference lists of relevant publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which participants with a clinically or radiologically diagnosed RAAA were randomly allocated to eEVAR or conventional open surgical repair.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies identified for potential inclusion for eligibility. Two review authors also independently completed data extraction and quality assessment. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. We performed meta-analysis using fixed-effect models with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data and mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four randomised controlled trials in this review. A total of 868 participants with a clinical or radiological diagnosis of RAAA were randomised to receive either eEVAR or open surgical repair. Overall risk of bias was low, but we considered one study that performed randomisation in blocks by week and performed no allocation concealment and no blinding to be at high risk of selection bias. Another study did not adequately report random sequence generation, putting it at risk of selection bias, and two studies were underpowered. There was no clear evidence to support a difference between the two interventions for 30-day (or in-hospital) mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.16; moderate-quality evidence). There were a total of 44 endoleak events in 128 participants from three studies (low-quality evidence). Thirty-day complication outcomes (myocardial infarction, stroke, composite cardiac complications, renal complications, severe bowel ischaemia, spinal cord ischaemia, reoperation, amputation, and respiratory failure) were reported in between one and three studies, therefore we were unable to draw a robust conclusion. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for myocardial infarction, renal complications, and respiratory failure due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias. Odds ratios for complications outcomes were OR 2.38 (95% CI 0.34 to 16.53; 139 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence) for myocardial infarction; OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.21 to 5.42; 255 participants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence) for renal complications; and OR 3.62 (95% CI 0.14 to 95.78; 32 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence) for respiratory failure. There was low-quality evidence of a reduction in bowel ischaemia in the eEVAR treatment group, but very few events were reported (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.94), and we downgraded the evidence due to imprecision and risk of bias. Six-month and one-year outcomes were evaluated in three studies, but only results from a single study could be used for each outcome, which showed no clear evidence of a difference between the interventions. We rated six-month mortality evidence as of moderate quality due to imprecision (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.98; 116 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of this review are currently limited by the paucity of data. We found from the data available moderate-quality evidence suggesting there is no difference in 30-day mortality between eEVAR and open repair. Not enough information was provided for complications for us to make a well-informed conclusion, although it is possible that eEVAR is associated with a reduction in bowel ischaemia. Long-term data were lacking for both survival and late complications. More high-quality randomised controlled trials comparing eEVAR and open repair for the treatment of RAAA are needed to better understand if one method is superior to the other, or if there is no difference between the methods on relevant outcomes.

Intravenous heparin during ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysmal repair

BACKGROUND

There have been enormous advances in the screening, diagnosis, intervention and overall prognosis of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in the last decade, but despite these, ruptured AAAs (rAAAs) still cause around 3500 to 6000 deaths in England and Wales each year. Open repair remains standard treatment for rAAA in most centres but increasingly endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is being adopted. This has a 30-day postoperative mortality of 40%. This has remained static despite surgical, anaesthetic and critical care advances.One significant change to current practice for elective repairs of AAAs, as opposed to emergency repairs of rAAAs, has been the introduction of intravenous heparin. This provides a protective effect against cardiac and thrombotic disease in the postoperative period. This practice has not gained widespread acceptance for emergency repairs of rAAA even though a reduction in mortality and morbidity has been demonstrated in elective repairs.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to assess the effect of intravenous heparin on all-cause mortality in ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) management in people undergoing an emergency repair.The secondary objectives were to assess the effect of intravenous heparin in rAAA management on the incidence of general arterial disease, for example, cardiovascular, cerebral, pulmonary and renal pathologies, in people undergoing emergency repair.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (December 2015). In addition the CIS searched CENTRAL;2015, Issue 11). The CIS searched clinical trials registries for details of ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of intravenous heparin in rAAA repairs (including parallel designs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies identified for potential inclusion in the review. We used standard methodological procedures in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no RCTs or CCTs that satisfied the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified no RCTs or CCTs of intravenous heparin in rAAA repairs (including parallel designs). Therefore, we were unable to assess the effect of intravenous heparin on all-cause mortality and incidence of general arterial disease, for example, cardiovascular, cerebral, pulmonary and renal pathologies in rAAA management in people undergoing an emergency repair. It is clear that an RCT is needed to address this question in rAAA management as there is no high quality evidence.

Endovascular repair or open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: a Cochrane systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) may improve outcomes for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA). The study aim was to compare the outcomes for eEVAR with conventional open surgical repair for the treatment of RAAA.

SETTING

A systematic review of relevant publications was performed. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing eEVAR with open surgical repair for RAAA were included.

PARTICIPANTS

3 RCTs were included, with a total of 761 patients with RAAA.

INTERVENTIONS

Meta-analysis was performed with fixed-effects models with ORs and 95% CIs for dichotomous data and mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous data.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was short-term mortality. Secondary outcome measures included aneurysm-specific and general complication rates, quality of life and economic analysis.

RESULTS

Overall risk of bias was low. There was no difference between the 2 interventions on 30-day (or in-hospital) mortality, OR 0.91 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.22; p=0.52). 30-day complications included myocardial infarction, stroke, composite cardiac complications, renal complications, severe bowel ischaemia, spinal cord ischaemia, reoperation, amputation and respiratory failure. Reporting was incomplete, and no robust conclusion was drawn. For complication outcomes that did include at least 2 studies in the meta-analysis, there was no clear evidence to support a difference between eEVAR and open repair. Longer term outcomes and cost per patient were evaluated in only a single study, thus precluding definite conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes between eEVAR and open repair, specifically 30-day mortality, are similar. However, further high-quality trials are required, as the paucity of data currently limits the conclusions.

Patient-reported outcome measures in vascular surgery

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after vascular surgery are becoming increasingly important in the current era of health care reform. Although a number of general quality of life instruments exist, vascular disease-specific instruments may provide more targeted data on how patients feel after specific interventions. Here we provide a review of both generic and disease-specific instruments focused on arterial conditions, including peripheral arterial disease, carotid arterial disease, and aortic disease, which have been described in the literature. While many different tools currently exist, there is a paucity of well-validated, specific instruments that accurately reflect functional and objective measures of patients' arterial disease burden. A full understanding of the existing tools available to assess patients' perceived lifestyle impact of their disease and its treatments is essential for both research and clinical purposes, and to highlight the need for additional work on this topic.

Endovascular treatment for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) (pathological enlargement of the aorta) can develop in both men and women as they grow older. It is most commonly seen in men over the age of 65 years. Progressive aneurysm enlargement can lead to rupture and massive internal bleeding, a fatal event unless timely repair can be achieved. Despite improvements in perioperative care, mortality remains high (approximately 50%) after conventional open surgical repair. A newer minimally invasive technique, endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), has been shown to reduce early morbidity and mortality as compared to conventional open surgery for planned AAA repair. Emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) has been used successfully to treat ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA), proving that it is feasible in selected patients. However, it is not yet known if eEVAR will lead to significant improvements in outcomes for these patients or indeed if it can replace conventional open repair as the preferred treatment for this lethal condition.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the advantages and disadvantages of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) in comparison with conventional open surgical repair for the treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA). This will be determined by the effect on short-term mortality, major complication rates, aneurysm exclusion, and late complications when compared with the effects in patients who have had conventional open repair of RAAA.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched February 2014) and CENTRAL (2014, Issue 2). Reference lists of relevant publications were also checked.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which patients with a clinically or radiologically diagnosed RAAA were randomly allocated to eEVAR or conventional open surgical repair.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies identified for potential inclusion were independently assessed for eligibility by at least two review authors. Data extraction and quality assessment were also completed independently by two review authors. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. Meta-analysis was performed using fixed-effect models with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data and mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Three randomised controlled trials were included in this review. A total of 761 patients with a clinical or radiological diagnosis of RAAA were randomised to receive either eEVAR or open surgical repair. Overall risk of bias was low but one study did not adequately report random sequence generation, putting it at risk of selection bias, two studies did not report on outcomes identified in their protocol, indicating reporting bias, and one study was underpowered. There was no clear evidence to support a difference between the two interventions on 30-day (or in-hospital) mortality, OR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.22; P = 0.52). The 30-day complications included myocardial infarction, stroke, composite cardiac complications, renal complications, severe bowel ischaemia, spinal cord ischaemia, re-operation, amputation, and respiratory failure. Individual complication outcomes were reported in only one or two studies and therefore no robust conclusion can currently be drawn. For complication outcomes that did include at least two studies in the meta-analysis there was no clear evidence to support a difference between eEVAR and open repair. Six-month outcomes were evaluated in only a single study, which included mortality and re-operation, with no clear evidence of a difference between the interventions and no overall association. Cost per patient was only evaluated in a single study and therefore no overall associations can currently be derived.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of this review are currently limited by the paucity of data. From the data available there is no difference in the outcomes evaluated in this review between eEVAR and open repair, specifically 30-day mortality. Not enough information was provided for complications in order to make a well informed conclusion at this time. Long-term data are lacking for both survival and late complications. More high quality, randomised controlled trials comparing eEVAR and open repair for the treatment of RAAA are needed in order to better understand if one method is superior to the other, or if there is no difference between the methods on relevant outcomes.

Mid-term cost-effectiveness analysis of open and endovascular repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Emergency endovascular repair (EVAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) may have lower operative mortality rates than open surgical repair. Concerns remain that the early survival benefit after EVAR for rAAA may be offset by late reinterventions. The aim of this study was to compare reintervention rates and cost-effectiveness of EVAR and open repair for rAAA.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was undertaken of patients with rAAA undergoing EVAR or open repair over 6 years. A health economic model developed for the cost-effectiveness of elective EVAR was used in the emergency setting.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients (mean age 77·9 years) underwent EVAR and 85 (mean age 75·9 years) had open repair of rAAA. Median follow-up was 42 and 39 months respectively. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality rates after EVAR and open repair (18 and 26 per cent respectively; P = 0·243). Reintervention rates were also similar (32 and 31 per cent; P = 0·701). The mean cost per patient was €26,725 for EVAR and €30,297 for open repair, and the cost per life-year gained was €7906 and €9933 respectively (P = 0·561). Open repair had greater initial costs: longer procedural times (217 versus 178·5 min; P < 0·001) and intensive care stay (5·0 versus 1·0 days; P = 0·015). Conversely, EVAR had greater reintervention (€156,939 versus €35,335; P = 0·001) and surveillance (P < 0·001) costs.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in reintervention rates after EVAR or open repair for rAAA. EVAR was as cost-effective at mid-term follow-up. The increased procedural costs of open repair are not outweighed by greater surveillance and reintervention costs after EVAR.

Cost effectiveness of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening and rescreening in men in a modern context: evaluation of a hypothetical cohort using a decision analytical model

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost effectiveness of different screening strategies for abdominal aortic aneurysm in men, from the perspective of a national health service.

SETTING

Screening units at regional hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Hypothetical cohort of 65 year old men from the general population.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Costs (£ in 2010) and effect on health outcomes (quality adjusted life years (QALYs)).

RESULTS

Screening seems to be highly cost effective compared with not screening. The model estimated a 92% probability that some form of screening would be cost effective at a threshold of £20,000 (€24,790; $31,460). If men with an aortic diameter of 25-29 mm at the initial screening were rescreened once after five years, 452 men per 100,000 initially screened would benefit from early detection, whereas lifetime rescreening every five years would detect 794 men per 100,000. We estimated the associated incremental cost effectiveness ratios for rescreening once and lifetime rescreening to be £10,013 and £29,680 per QALY, respectively. The individual probability of being the most cost effective strategy was higher for each rescreening strategy than for the screening once strategy (in view of the £20,000 threshold).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the cost effectiveness of screening versus no screening and lends further support to considerations of rescreening men at least once for abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Evaluation of quality of life related to nutritional status

The way in which the quality of life related to health (HRQoL) is affected by the nutritional status of the patient is a subject of constant interest and permanent debate. The purpose of the present paper is to review those studies that relate HRQoL to nutritional status and examine the tools (questionnaires) that they use to investigate this relationship. A critical review of published studies was carried out via an investigation of the following databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed); EMBASE; The Cochrane Library; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS); Spanish Health Sciences Bibliographic Index (IBECS). The search was carried out from the earliest date possible until July 2007.The medical subject heading terms used were ‘quality of life’, ‘nutritional status’ and ‘questionnaires’. The articles had to contain at least one questionnaire that evaluated quality of life. Twenty-eight documents fulfilling the inclusion criteria were accepted, although none of them used a specific questionnaire to evaluate HRQoL related to nutritional status. However, some of them used a combination of generic questionnaires with the intention of evaluating the same. Only three studies selectively addressed the relationship between nutritional status and quality of life, this evaluation being performed not by means of specific questionnaires but by statistical analysis of data obtained via validated questionnaires.

Endovascular treatment for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) (the pathological enlargement of the aorta) can develop in both men and women as they grow older. It is most commonly seen in men over the age of 65 years. Progressive aneurysm enlargement can lead to rupture and massive internal bleeding, a fatal event unless timely repair can be achieved. Despite improvements in perioperative care, mortality remains high (approximately 50%) after conventional open surgical repair. A newer minimally invasive technique, endovascular repair, has been shown to reduce early morbidity and mortality, as compared to conventional open surgery, for planned AAA repair. Emergency endovascular repair (eEVAR) has been used successfully to treat ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA), proving that it is feasible in selected patients. However, it is not yet known if eEVAR will lead to significant improvements in outcomes for these patients or indeed if it can replace conventional open repair as the preferred treatment for this lethal condition.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the advantages and disadvantages of eEVAR in comparison with conventional open surgical repair for the treatment of RAAA.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched their trials register (last searched October 2006) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database (last searched Issue 4, 2006). We searched a number of electronic databases and handsearched relevant journals until March 2006 to identify studies for inclusion.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which patients with a confirmed ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm were randomly allocated to eEVAR, or conventional open surgical repair.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies identified for potential inclusion were independently assessed for eligibility by at least two reviewers, with excluded studies further checked by the agreed arbitrators. As no randomised controlled trials were identified at present no tests of heterogeneity or sensitivity analysis were performed.

MAIN RESULTS

There were no randomised controlled trials identified at present comparing eEVAR with conventional open surgical repair for the treatment of RAAA.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no high quality evidence to support the use of eEVAR in the treatment of RAAA. However, evidence from prospective controlled studies without randomisation, prospective studies, and retrospective case series suggest that eEVAR is feasible in selected patients, with outcomes comparable to best conventional open surgical repair for the treatment of RAAA . Furthermore, endovascular repair in selected patients may be associated with a trend towards reductions in blood loss, duration of intensive care treatment, and mortality.

Cost-effectiveness of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Background

The rapid introduction of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has considerable implications for the management of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). This study was undertaken to determine an optimal strategy for the use of EVAR based on the best currently available evidence.

Methods

Economic modelling and probabilistic sensitivity analysis considered reference cases representing a fit 70-year-old with a 5·5-cm diameter AAA (RC1) and an 80-year-old with a 6·5-cm AAA unfit for open surgery (RC2). Results were assessed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) compared with open repair (RC1) or conservative management (RC2).

Results

In RC1 EVAR produced a gain of 0·10 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for an estimated cost of £11 449, giving an ICER of £110 000 per QALY. EVAR consistently had an ICER above £30 000 per QALY over a range of sensitivity analyses and alternative scenarios. In RC2 EVAR produced an estimated benefit of 1·64 QALYs for an incremental cost of £14 077 giving an incremental cost per QALY of £8579.

Conclusion

It is unlikely that EVAR for fit patients suitable for open repair is within the commonly accepted range of cost-effectiveness for a new technology. For those unfit for conventional open repair it is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to non-operative management. Sensitivity analysis suggests that research efforts should concentrate on determining accurate rates for late complications and reintervention, particularly in patients with high operative risks.

Functional outcome after open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Outcome after operative repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has traditionally been assessed in terms of survival. This study examines the functional outcome of patients who survive operation.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who survived open repair over an 18-month period were entered into a prospective case-control study. Age- and sex-matched controls were identified from patients undergoing elective AAA repair. The Short Form-36 health survey was administered to both groups of patients at 6 months after operation. Results were compared with the expected scores for an age- and sex-matched normal UK population.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients underwent open repair of a ruptured AAA, and 30 survived; no patient was lost to follow-up. There were no significant differences in quality of life between patients who had an emergency repair and those who had an elective repair. Both of these groups had poorer health-related quality of life outcomes than the matched normal population. Surprisingly, compared with the normal population, patients after elective repair had poorer outcomes in more health domains than patients who survived emergency operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Survivors of ruptured AAA repair have a good functional outcome within 6 months of operation.