Survival Following Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Before and During the IMPROVE Trial: A Single-centre Series

A Pilot Study of Endovascular Repair for Ruptured Aortic Aneurysms With the Use of Carbon Dioxide Angiography Alone

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) has become a common approach. Hemorrhagic shock associated with the use of iodinated contrast medium (ICM) increases the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). Theoretically, eliminating ICM from EVAR can decrease that risk. The aim of this pilot study was to analyze the feasibility and safety of emergent EVAR performed with the exclusive use of carbon dioxide (CO2) for a rAAA.

METHODS

Since 2021, all consecutive rAAAs with hemorrhagic shock and suitable anatomical criteria for a standard endograft have been treated by EVAR with the exclusive use of CO2 using an automated CO2 injector (Angiodroid SpA, San Lazzaro di Savena, Italy).

RESULTS

Eight percutaneous EVARs were performed under local anesthesia. Median age was 78 (interquartile range [IQR]=6) years, 5 patients were male. The technical success was 100%, the 30-day mortality was 25% (n=2), the median amount of administered CO2 was 400 (IQR=60) ml. The median change in serum creatinine level between admission, post-operative and 30-day values was an increase of 0.14 mg/dL and a decrease of 0.11 mg/dL, respectively. Post-operative AKI occurred in the two patients who died. All 6 surviving patients showed sac shrinkage >5 mm, and no reinterventions at a median follow-up of 10 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular repair of rAAA with the exclusive use of CO2 as contrast agent is technically feasible and safe. Further studies are needed to determine whether CO2 increases survival rate and limits the progression of renal dysfunction after endovascular repair of rAAA.Clinical ImpactThe recorded rate of post-operative AKI after endovascular repair of rAAA performed with the use of CO2 found in this pilot study was significantly lower than the one reported in the literature with the use of ICM. Our hyphotesis is that the use of CO2 during rEVAR might increase survival rate and limits the progression of renal dysfunction.

A Comparison of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair and Open Repair for Ruptured Aortic Abdominal Aneurysms

Management modalities of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) include ruptured open aneurysm repair (rOAR) and ruptured endovascular aneurysm repair (rEVAR). In this study, we aim to systematically review all the previously published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared rOAR and rEVAR. A systematic search was performed in the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Clinical trials, and others with all the potentially relevant keywords that were adjusted to meet the search strategy for each database to collect all the relevant studies that were published up to January 2021. A total of 11 studies were identified through our comprehensive search. Among these studies, seven represented the IMPROVE trial, two represented the AJAX trial, and two represented the Nottingham and ECAR trials, each, while the remaining four studies were not RCTs; however, these were included in the discussion as they obtained data from the IMPROVE trial. The IMPROVE trials preferred EVAR use due to the potential survival benefit and improved quality of life, although the EVAR and OAR had similar mortality rates. In the AJAX and ECAR, the mortality rates favored EVAR over OAR with no significance while the opposite was noticed in the Nottingham trial with no significance also. Similar rates of re-interventions and complications were also noticed and some studies reported that EVAR is cost-effective. Overall evidence slightly favors EVAR over OAR and further studies are needed.

Outcomes and predictors of mortality in a Belgian population of patients admitted with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm and treated by open repair in the contemporary era

BACKGROUND

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture is a serious condition that results in extremely high mortality rates. Some improvements in outcome have been reported during the last 2 decades. The objective of the present study was to determine the overall and operative (by open repair) mortality related to ruptured AAA in the contemporary era and to identify preoperative, intraoperative, and early postoperative parameters associated with poor outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of all consecutive patients admitted to our single institution with a diagnosis of ruptured AAA between 2004 and 2013. A total of 103 parameters, including demographic characteristics, medical history, clinical and biological parameters, cardiovascular risk factors, emergency level, diagnostic modalities, time from symptoms to diagnosis and treatment, type of operative procedure and postoperative complications, were analyzed. The primary endpoint considered in this study was the cumulative incidence rate of mortality. The secondary endpoint was the identification, by logistic regression methods, of risk factors for overall mortality as well as for operative, and postoperative mortality.

RESULTS

Within our study period, 104 patients were admitted for a ruptured AAA. The majority of patients (84.6%) were male, and the AAA was known in 34.6% of the patients. Rupture occurred for a maximal diameter lower than 55 mm in 25% of the female population, compared to 5.7% of the male population (P = 0.030). The proportions of admitted patients who died before (preoperative mortality), during (intraoperative mortality) or after (postoperative hospital mortality) surgery was 17.3%, 16.3%, and 18.3%, respectively, yielding a cumulative in-hospital mortality of 51.9%. In the multivariate analysis, age ≥ 80 (P = 0.001), myocardial ischemia on the admission ECG (P = 0.046), and management by the physician response unit (P = 0.002) were the only preoperative parameters associated with a higher risk of hospital mortality. Four risk factors were found to be associated with a higher risk of postoperative mortality in the multivariate analysis, and all patients presenting with 3 or more of these risk factors (n = 5) died.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall mortality of ruptured AAA in a contemporary cohort of patients who underwent open repair remains high and does not seem to have decreased during recent decades. Ruptures occur at smaller diameters in women than in men, supporting a lower threshold for intervention in women with known AAA. We developed risk scores to predict the mortality of patients with rAAA at different times of their hospital course. The validity of these scores should be assessed in prospective clinical studies.

Long-term Outcomes Following Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Purpose: To investigate the long-term outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) from a single center over an 11-year period. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of 121 patients (median age 78 years; 100 men) with rAAA who underwent emergency EVAR at a single tertiary vascular center from January 2006 to December 2016. The study included only ruptures confirmed by evidence of hematoma on preoperative computed tomography; both iliac and aortic aneurysm ruptures were eligible. The primary outcome measures included mortality and reintervention rates. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival and freedom from reintervention are reported with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: In-hospital and 30-day mortality rates for emergency EVAR were 16.5%; 90-day mortality was 24.0%. The mortality estimates were 27.3% (95% CI 20% to 36%) at 1 year and 61.7% (95% CI 51% to 72%) at 5 years. In the observation period to 2017, 63 reinterventions were performed on 37 patients (30.6%). Median time to the first reintervention was 3.2 years. Freedom from reintervention in surviving patients at 1 year was 86% (95% CI 72% to 94%) and 51% (95% CI 26% to 71%) at 5 years. Four patients (3.3%) had a secondary sac rupture over the study period. Conclusion: Emergency EVAR for ruptured AAA can be performed with acceptable short-term outcomes; however, long-term surveillance is necessary, and reintervention is common.

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.

Transition from Open Surgery to Endovascular Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Rupture

BACKGROUND

To review the outcome before and after the implementation of protocol-based strategy for endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture (rAAA).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from a tertiary center during the period 2006-2011. Demographics, comorbidities, blood examinations, perioperative patients' status, and mortality rates were recorded. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to assess the association of the type of the procedure with various factors.

RESULTS

A total of 58 (46 open surgical repair [OSR] and 12 EVAR) patients with mean age of 74 ± 17 years (91% males) were treated for rAAA. However, 39 (11 EVAR and 28 OSR) were operated with protocol-based strategy available. Total mortality rate was 52.6% (10 of 19) initially and 38.5% (15 of 39) after the implementation of a protocol-based strategy. During protocol-based treatment, the survival rate did not differ between the 2 procedures (7 of 11 EVAR and 17 of 28 OSR; P, ns). A 30-day mortality rate was associated with preoperative number of platelets (unadjusted P values, P = 0.013), age (odds ratio [OR] 0.796; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.685-0.925; P = 0.003), and diastolic blood pressure (OR, 1.053; 95% CI, 1.016-1.093; P = 0.005). After mean follow-up of 48 ± 11 months, EVAR patients presented better outcome regarding mortality rate (36% OSR vs. 0% EVAR; P = 0.0464).

CONCLUSIONS

After the adoption of an available rEVAR protocol-based strategy, EVAR and OSR were equally effective during postoperative 30 days. The role of hypotension and age is important on poor outcomes during this period. However, after midterm follow-up, EVAR demonstrates better survival rates than OSR.

Incidence and Outcomes of Severe Renal Impairment Following Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

INTRODUCTION

Acute kidney injury (AKI) following ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) repair is common and multifactorial. A standard definition of AKI after endovascular repair (EVAR), the Aneurysm Renal Injury Score (ARISe), has been proposed to facilitate standardised reporting and thus improve understanding of this issue.

METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively on AKI in a prospectively maintained database of all patients treated for rAAA in a single tertiary referral centre since the availability of routine out of hours emergency EVAR. The ARISe score was used to describe the degree of AKI and factors which correlated with poor renal outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and five patients were treated between January 2006 and April 2014. Of these, 125 were treated with open repair (OSR) and 80 were treated with EVAR. Severe AKI (defined as ARISe score ≥3) occurred in 36% of patients. After correction for confounders, patients treated with OSR were significantly more likely to develop severe AKI (43% vs. 26%, p = .02). There was no significant difference in preoperative serum creatinine between groups, but increased preoperative serum creatinine was strongly associated with severe AKI postoperatively (p < .001). Age, sex, endograft type, and preoperative CT scanning were not associated with differences in renal outcomes. Clamp position above renal arteries was predictive of severe AKI in patients treated with OSR (p < .01). Patients suffering severe AKI had significantly higher mortality at 30 days and 12 months (28% vs. 5% and 44% vs. 13%, p < .001 for both comparisons).

CONCLUSION

Severe AKI is common following successful repair of rAAA. In this large case series of high-risk patients, OSR was associated with significantly higher rates of severe AKI compared with EVAR, despite the increased dose of contrast involved in EVAR and the older age of these patients. In turn, severe AKI was associated with higher mortality rates.