Midterm Re-interventions and Survival After Endovascular Versus Open Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Using the Endurant™ Endograft

Background: Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) represents a valid treatment modality for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs). This study aimed to present rAAA outcomes treated by EVAR using the Endurant endograft. Methods: A single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive patients treated with standard EVAR (sEVAR) or parallel graft (PG)-EVAR for infra- or juxta/para-renal rAAA using the Endurant endograft (1 January 2008-31 December 2023) was undertaken. The primary outcomes were technical success, mortality, and reintervention. Follow-up outcomes, including survival and freedom from reintervention, were assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Results: Eighty-eight patients were included (87.5% sEVAR and 12.5% PG-EVAR). The mean aneurysm diameter was 73.3 ± 19.3 mm (71.4 ± 22.2 mm sEVAR and 81.7 ± 33.0 mm PG-EVAR). Among 77 patients receiving sEVAR, 26 (33.8%) received an aorto-uni-iliac device. All PG-EVAR patients were managed with bifurcated devices, one receiving a single PG, seven double PGS, and three triple PGs. Technical success was 98.8% (100.0% sEVAR and 90.9% PG-EVAR). The 30-day mortality was 47.2% (50.7% sEVAR and 27.3% PG-EVAR), with nine (10.2%) deaths recorded on the table. The mean time of follow-up was 13 ± 9 months. After excluding 30-day deaths, the estimated survival was 75.5% (standard error (SE) 6.9%) at 24 months. The estimated freedom from reintervention was 89.7% (SE 5.7%) at 24 months. Only one endoleak type Ia event was recorded during follow-up. Conclusions: Endurant showed high technical success rates and low rates of endoleak type Ia events and reinterventions, despite the emergent setting of repair. rAAA is still a highly fatal condition within 30 days, with an acceptable mid-term survival of 30-day survivors at 75.5%.

Editor's Choice -- European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2024 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-Iliac Artery Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries in succession to the 2011 and 2019 versions, with the aim of assisting physicians and patients in selecting the best management strategy.

METHODS

The guideline is based on scientific evidence completed with expert opinion on the matter. By summarising and evaluating the best available evidence, recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients have been formulated. The recommendations are graded according to a modified European Society of Cardiology grading system, where the strength (class) of each recommendation is graded from I to III and the letters A to C mark the level of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 160 recommendations have been issued on the following topics: Service standards, including surgical volume and training; Epidemiology, diagnosis, and screening; Management of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), including surveillance, cardiovascular risk reduction, and indication for repair; Elective AAA repair, including operative risk assessment, open and endovascular repair, and early complications; Ruptured and symptomatic AAA, including peri-operative management, such as permissive hypotension and use of aortic occlusion balloon, open and endovascular repair, and early complications, such as abdominal compartment syndrome and colonic ischaemia; Long term outcome and follow up after AAA repair, including graft infection, endoleaks and follow up routines; Management of complex AAA, including open and endovascular repair; Management of iliac artery aneurysm, including indication for repair and open and endovascular repair; and Miscellaneous aortic problems, including mycotic, inflammatory, and saccular aortic aneurysm. In addition, Shared decision making is being addressed, with supporting information for patients, and Unresolved issues are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines provide the most comprehensive, up to date, and unbiased advice to clinicians and patients on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms.

Treatment of Aortocaval Fistula Secondary to Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Aortocaval fistula (ACF) secondary to an abdominal aortic aneurysm is a rare complication, inadvertently caused by a rupture into the inferior vena cava. Different treatment modalities have been applied toward the repair of such lesions, including open surgical and endovascular repair. The aim of this study was to report on ACF treatment and to analyze its early and mid-term outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic search of the English medical literature published between 2000 and 2022 was undertaken, using PubMed, SCOPUS, and CENTRAL databases as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis 2020 guidelines. A study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022329058). Studies reporting on primary ACF outcomes following open surgical or endovascular repair were included. The ROBINS-I tool was applied for risk of bias assessment. Outcomes included technical success, 30-day and mid-term survival, endoleak following endovascular repair, and reintervention rates.

RESULTS

In total, 110 case studies, incorporating 196 patients (mean age; 66.2 years, males 96%) were included. Open surgical repair was applied in 78% (153/196). From the available data, technical success rate for each modality was 99% (152/153) and 100% (43/43), respectively. Open and endovascular repair demonstrated 87.5% (126/144) and 97.6% (42/43) 30-day survival, respectively, while mid-term survival was 86% (74/86) and 95.2% (20/21), respectively (medial follow-up: 14 months [1-54 months]). Endoleaks were reported in 19 endovascular cases (39.5%). Type II endoleak was the most frequent with a rate at 32.5% (14/43). Reintervention rates were 2.5% (4/151) and 35.7% (15/42) for open and endovascular repair, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Only few case studies were published on the treatment of this rare condition, while almost all invasive procedures were performed in males. Management of ACF repair with both open and endovascular approach was associated with excellent technical success rate and acceptable early and mid-term survival outcomes. Reintervention remained an issue for patients who were managed endovascularly.

Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of 10-Year Follow-Up after Endovascular and Open Repair for Ruptured Abdominal AorticAneurysms

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has conferred an early survival advantage compared to an open surgical repair (OSR) in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA). However, the long-term survival benefit after EVAR was not displayed among randomized controlled trials (RCTs), whereas many non-RCTs have provided conflicting results. We conducted a time-to-event individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis on long-term rAAA data.

METHODS

All studies comparing mortality after EVAR versus OSR for rAAA were included. We used restricted mean survival times (RMSTs) as a measure of life expectancy for EVAR and OSR.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies, including 12,187 patients (4952 EVAR and 7235 OSR) were finally deemed eligible. A secondary IPD analysis included 725 (372 EVAR and 353 OSR) patients only from the 3 RCTs (Immediate Management of the Patient With Rupture : Open Versus Endovascular Repair, Endovasculaire ou Chirurgie dans les Anévrysmes aorto-iliaques Rompus and Amsterdam Acute Aneurysm Trial trials). Among all studies, the median survival was 4.20 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.70-4.58) years for EVAR and 1.91 (95% CI: 1.57-2.39) years for OSR. Although EVAR presented with increased hazard risk from 4 to 7 years, which peaked at 6 years after the operation, the RMST difference was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.35-0.73; P < 0.001) years gained with EVAR at the end of the 10-year follow-up. IPD meta-analysis of RCTs did not demonstrate significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

At 10-years follow-up, EVAR was associated with a 6.5 month increase in life expectancy when compared to OSR after analyzing all eligible studies. Evidence from our study suggests that a strict follow-up program would be desirable, especially for patients with long-life expectancy.

The Ratio of the Size of the Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm to That of the Unchanged Aorta as a Risk Factor for Its Rupture

Background: A ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm is a severe condition associated with high mortality. Currently, the most important criterion used to estimate the risk of its rupture is the size of the aneurysm, but due to patients’ anatomical variability, many aneurysms have a high risk of rupture with a small aneurysm size. We asked ourselves whether individual differences in anatomy could be taken into account when assessing the risk of rupture. Methods: Based on the CT scan image, aneurysm and normal aorta diameters were collected from 186 individuals and compared in patients with ruptured and unruptured aneurysms. To take into account anatomical differences between patients, diameter ratios were calculated by dividing the aneurysm diameter by the diameter of the normal aorta at various heights, and then further comparisons were made. Results: It was found that the calculated ratios differ between patients with ruptured and unruptured aneurysms. This observation is also present in patients with small aneurysms, with its maximal size below the level that indicates the need for surgical treatment. For small aneurysms, the ratios help us to estimate the risk of rupture better than the maximum sac size (AUC: 0.783 vs. 0.650). Conclusions: The calculated ratios appear to be a valuable feature to indicate which of the small aneurysms have a high risk of rupture. The obtained results suggest the need for further confirmation of their usefulness in subsequent groups of patients.

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.

Aortic Neck IFU Violations During EVAR for Ruptured Infrarenal Aortic Aneurysms are Associated with Increased In-Hospital Mortality

OBJECTIVE

Vascular surgeons treating patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm must make rapid treatment decisions and sometimes lack immediate access to endovascular devices meeting the anatomic specifications of the patient at hand. We hypothesized that endovascular treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rEVAR) outside manufacturer instructions-for-use (IFU) guidelines would have similar in-hospital mortality compared to patients treated on-IFU or with an infrarenal clamp during open repair (ruptured open aortic aneurysm repair [rOAR]).

METHODS

Vascular Quality Initiative datasets for endovascular and open aortic repair were queried for patients presenting with ruptured infrarenal AAA between 2013-2018. Graft-specific IFU criteria were correlated with case-specific proximal neck dimension data to classify rEVAR cases as on- or off-IFU. Univariate comparisons between the on- and off-IFU groups were performed for demographic, operative and in-hospital outcome variables. To investigate mortality differences between rEVAR and rOAR approaches, coarsened exact matching was used to match patients receiving off-IFU rEVAR with those receiving complex rEVAR (requiring at least one visceral stent or scallop) or rOAR with infrarenal, suprarenal or supraceliac clamps. A multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

621 patients were treated with rEVAR, with 65% classified as on-IFU and 35% off-IFU. The off-IFU group was more frequently female (25% vs. 18%, P = 0.05) and had larger aneurysms (76 vs. 72 mm, P= 0.01) but otherwise was not statistically different from the on-IFU cohort. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in patients treated off-IFU vs. on-IFU (22% vs. 14%, P= 0.02). Off-IFU rEVAR was associated with longer operative times (135 min vs. 120 min, P= 0.004) and increased intraoperative blood product utilization (2 units vs. 1 unit, P= 0.002). When off-IFU patients were matched to complex rEVAR and rOAR patients, no baseline differences were found between the groups. Overall in-hospital complications associated with off-IFU were reduced compared to more complex strategies (43% vs. 60-81%, P< 0.001) and in-hospital mortality was significantly lower for off-IFU rEVAR patients compared to the supraceliac clamp group (18% vs. 38%, P= 0.006). However, there was no significantly increased mortality associated with complex rEVAR, infrarenal rOAR or suprarenal rOAR compared to off-IFU rEVAR (all P> 0.05). This finding persisted in a multivariate logistic regression.

CONCLUSIONS

Off-IFU rEVAR yields inferior in-hospital survival compared to on-IFU rEVAR but remains associated with reduced in-hospital complications when compared with more complex repair strategies. When compared with matched patients undergoing rOAR with an infrarenal or suprarenal clamp, survival was no different from off-IFU rEVAR. Taken together with the growing available evidence suggesting reduced long-term durability of off-IFU EVAR, these data suggest that a patient's comorbidity burden should be key in making the decision to pursue off-IFU rEVAR over a more complex repair when proximal neck violations are anticipated preoperatively.

Time-to-event data meta-analysis of late outcomes of endovascular versus open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

We investigated whether the well-documented perioperative survival advantage of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair would be sustained during follow-up.

METHODS

A systematic review conforming to the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) statement standards was conducted to identify studies that had reported the follow-up outcomes of endovascular vs open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Electronic bibliographic sources (MEDLINE [medical literature analysis and retrieval system online], Embase [Excerpta Medica database], CINAHL [cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature], and CENTRAL [Cochrane central register of controlled trials]) were interrogated using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, United Kingdom). A time-to-event data meta-analysis was performed using the inverse variance method, and the results were reported as summary hazard ratios (HRs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Mixed effects regression was applied to investigate the outcome changes over time. The quality of the body of evidence was appraised using the GRADE (grades of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation) system.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials and 22 observational studies reporting a total of 31,383 patients were included in the quantitative synthesis. The mean follow-up duration across the studies ranged from 232 days to 4.9 years. The overall all-cause mortality was significantly lower after EVAR than after open repair (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.86). However, the postdischarge all-cause mortality was not significantly different (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.85-1.43). The aneurysm-related mortality, which was reported by one randomized controlled trial, was not significantly different between EVAR and open repair (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.15). Meta-regression showed the mortality difference in favor of EVAR was more pronounced in more recent studies (P = .069) and recently treated patients (P = .062). The certainty for the body of evidence for overall and postdischarge all-cause mortality was judged to be low and that for aneurysm-related mortality to be high.

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR showed a sustained mortality benefit during follow-up compared with open repair. A wider adoption of an endovascular-first strategy is justified.

Long-Term Outcomes After Open Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Early mortality in ruptured abdominal aneurysm (rAAA) is high, but data on long-term outcome are scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term outcome in survivors after open surgery for rAAA in well-defined population.

METHODS

This is a population-based, observational long-term follow-up (beyond 30-day mortality) study of patients surgically treated for rAAA from 2000 through 2014. Long-term survival was analysed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and compared to the general population by analyses of relative survival.

RESULTS

Out of 178 patients operated for rAAA, 95 patients (55%) either died in the perioperative period, were referred from other hospitals or were lost to follow-up (two patients). Altogether 83 patients were eligible for long-term outcomes: 72 men and 11 women. Estimated median crude survival time was 6.5 years [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.8-8.2]. Men had a median survival of 7.3 years (95% CI 5.1-9.4) versus 5.4 years in females (95% CI 3.5-7.3) (P = 0.082). Reinterventions during follow-up occurred in 31 (37%). Relative survival demonstrated a slightly higher risk of death in the rAAA population compared to the general age- and gender-matched population. Age, but not comorbidities, had a significant influence on long-term survival.

CONCLUSION

For survivors beyond 30 days after surgery for rAAA, long-term survival compares well to that of an age- and sex-matched population. A high frequency of cardiovascular comorbidities did not seem to affect long-term survival.

Aneurysm Volumes After Endovascular Repair of Ruptured vs Intact Aortic Aneurysms: A Retrospective Observational Study

Purpose

To compare changes in abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sac volume between endovascular aneurysm repairs (EVAR) performed for ruptured (rEVAR) vs intact (iEVAR) AAAs and to determine the impact of early volume shrinkage on future complications.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed of all patients undergoing standard infrarenal EVAR from 2002 to 2016 at a tertiary referral institution. Only patients with degenerative AAAs and with 30-day and 1-year computed tomography angiography (CTA) imaging were included. Early sac shrinkage was defined as a volume sac reduction >10% between the first (<30-day) and the 1-year CTA. The primary endpoint was to compare AAA sac volume changes between patients undergoing rEVAR (n=51; mean age 71.0±8.5 years; 46 men) vs iEVAR (n=393; mean age 72.3±7.5 years; 350 men). Results are reported as the mean difference with the interquartile range (IQR Q1, Q3). The secondary endpoint was freedom from aneurysm-related complications after 1 year as determined by regression analysis; the results are presented as the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

At baseline, the rEVAR group had larger aneurysms (p<0.001) and shorter (p<0.001) and more angulated (p=0.028) necks. Aneurysm sac volume decreased more in the rEVAR group during the first year [−26.3% (IQR −38.8%, −12.5%)] vs the iEVAR group [−11.9% (IQR −27.5%, 0); p<0.001]. However, after the first year, the change in sac volume was similar between the groups [−3.8% (IQR −32.9%, 31.9%) for rEVAR and −1.5% (IQR −20.9%, 13.6%) for iEVAR, p=0.74]. Endoleak occurrence during follow-up was similar between the groups. In the overall population, patients with early sac shrinkage had a lower incidence of complications after the 1-year examination (adjusted HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.89, p=0.01).

Conclusion

EVAR patients treated for rupture have more pronounced aneurysm sac shrinkage compared with iEVAR patients during the first year after EVAR. Patients presenting with early shrinkage are less likely to encounter late complications. These parameters may be considered when tailoring surveillance protocols.

The role of the axillary Impella 5.0 device on patients with acute cardiogenic shock

Background

Acute cardiogenic shock is associated with high mortality rates. The Impella device is a microaxial left ventricular assist device that can be inserted through the axillary artery. The purpose of our study is to determine the role of the Axillary Impella devices on patients with acute cardiogenic shock.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify patients who underwent Axillary Impella device placement for acute cardiogenic shock from January 1st, 2014 to September 30th, 2018 at a single institution. In-patient records were examined to determine duration of device, length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and 30-day in-hospital mortality.

Results

A total of 40 patients, who were primarily men (N = 29) with a mean age of 61.2 ± 10.7 years old, underwent Axillary Impella placement for cardiogenic shock. The primary reasons for implant were (1) required upgraded support from an Impella CP or intra-aortic balloon pump (iabp) to Impella 5.0, (2) to treat left ventricular (LV) distention for patients on extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation (ECMO), and (3) to provide longer term support and allow for mobilization of the patients in whom a device was already indwelling. Twenty-three of the patients had previous devices already in place including a Femoral Impella CP device or an iabp and 9 patients were on ECMO support. The duration of the device was 21.05 ± 17 days with the LOS of 40.8 ± 28 days for those patients. Seventeen of the patients went on to additional surgery including (1) Heartmate 3 device placement (N = 6), (2) other cardiac procedures such as surgical revascularization (N = 9), and orthotopic heart transplantation (N = 2). A total of 21 patients of the 40 (52%) died during their hospitalization with 7 patients (17%) having complications related to the Impella device. These complications included right arm ischemia or neuropathy (N = 3) and Impella malfunction requiring device replacement (N = 4). The majority of these devices were placed in the right axillary artery (N = 38) versus the left axillary artery (N = 2).

Conclusions

A total of 58% (N = 23) of the study patients had previous mechanical support and 23% (N = 9) were on ECMO demonstrating the severity of disease and accounting for the high mortality. The Axillary Impella device allows for a minimally invasively placed device that is durable with a mean duration of 3 weeks. The Axillary artery Impella 5.0 provides upgraded full cardiac support while allowing for mobilization of the patient. In addition, it treats LV distention in patients on ECMO while avoiding sternotomy. Finally, the Axillary Impella provides time for decision making for explant, additional therapy with either long-term devices or orthotopic heart transplant.

Morphologic and Operative Evolution of Open Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Increased use of endovascular repair for intact abdominal aortic aneurysms has fundamentally shifted the approach to ruptured aneurysms. Unfortunately, not all patients are anatomically suited for endovascular repair. It is hypothesized that, in the endovascular era, patients undergoing open repair are increasingly complex; with an unknown impact on postoperative morbidity and mortality.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The Cleveland Clinic Foundation database was queried for all patients undergoing open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA) from 2006 to 2015. Electronic medical charts and cross-sectional imaging were retrospectively reviewed. The overall patient cohort was dichotomized between early (E-OR, 2006 to 2010) and late open repairs (L-OR, 2011 to 2015). Groups were compared based on demographic, anatomic, and perioperative variables. The primary endpoint was perioperative mortality. Secondary endpoints included overall mortality, late aneurysm-related mortality, and perioperative morbidity.

RESULTS

Of 140 patients who underwent open repair of rAAA (63, E-OR; 77, L-OR), 76% had cross-sectional imaging available for review. Aneurysm repairs in the later time period had significantly shorter infrarenal neck lengths, were more likely to have a prior aortic intervention, tended to have poor access vessels, and were more likely to require visceral or renal revascularization (each P < 0.05). While late survival did not differ between time periods, perioperative mortality (27 vs. 46%, P = 0.021) and late aneurysm-related mortality (29.9% vs. 47.6%, P = 0.031) was lower for L-OR compared with E-OR. While no anatomic variables significantly impacted survival, early time period of repair, presence of chronic kidney disease, and need for cardiopulmonary resuscitation were predictive of both perioperative and overall mortality on univariate and multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the increasing anatomic and operative complexity of patients undergoing open repair of rAAAs, perioperative mortality and late aneurysm-related mortality have improved over time. These results highlight the need for both systems and expertise needed to appropriately treat this changing patient population.

Strategy of endovascular versus open repair for patients with clinical diagnosis of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: the IMPROVE RCT

BACKGROUND

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a common vascular emergency. The mortality from emergency endovascular repair may be much lower than the 40-50% reported for open surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether or not a strategy of endovascular repair compared with open repair reduces 30-day and mid-term mortality (including costs and cost-effectiveness) among patients with a suspected ruptured AAA.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial, with computer-generated telephone randomisation of participants in a 1 : 1 ratio, using variable block size, stratified by centre and without blinding.

SETTING

Vascular centres in the UK (n = 29) and Canada (n = 1) between 2009 and 2013.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 613 eligible participants (480 men) with a ruptured aneurysm, clinically diagnosed at the trial centre.

INTERVENTIONS

A total of 316 participants were randomised to the endovascular strategy group (immediate computerised tomography followed by endovascular repair if anatomically suitable or, if not suitable, open repair) and 297 were randomised to the open repair group (computerised tomography optional).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was 30-day mortality, with 30-day reinterventions, costs and disposal as early secondary outcome measures. Later outcome measures included 1- and 3-year mortality, reinterventions, quality of life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

The 30-day mortality was 35.4% in the endovascular strategy group and 37.4% in the open repair group [odds ratio (OR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.28; p = 0.62, and, after adjustment for age, sex and Hardman index, OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.33]. The endovascular strategy appeared to be more effective in women than in men (interaction test p = 0.02). More discharges in the endovascular strategy group (94%) than in the open repair group (77%) were directly to home (p < 0.001). Average 30-day costs were similar between groups, with the mean difference in costs being -£1186 (95% CI -£2997 to £625), favouring the endovascular strategy group. After 1 year, survival and reintervention rates were similar in the two groups, QoL (at both 3 and 12 months) was higher in the endovascular strategy group and the mean cost difference was -£2329 (95% CI -£5489 to £922). At 3 years, mortality was 48% and 56% in the endovascular strategy group and open repair group, respectively (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.00; p = 0.053), with a stronger benefit for the endovascular strategy in the subgroup of 502 participants in whom repair was started for a proven rupture (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89; p = 0.009), whereas aneurysm-related reintervention rates were non-significantly higher in this group. At 3 years, considering all participants, there was a mean difference of 0.174 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% CI 0.002 to 0.353 QALYs) and, among the endovascular strategy group, a cost difference of -£2605 (95% CI -£5966 to £702), leading to 88% of estimates in the cost-effectiveness plane being in the quadrant showing the endovascular strategy to be 'dominant'.

LIMITATIONS

Because of the pragmatic design of this trial, 33 participants in the endovascular strategy group and 26 in the open repair group breached randomisation allocation.

CONCLUSIONS

The endovascular strategy was not associated with a significant reduction in either 30-day mortality or cost but was associated with faster participant recovery. By 3 years, the endovascular strategy showed a survival and QALY gain and was highly likely to be cost-effective. Future research could include improving resuscitation for older persons with circulatory collapse, the impact of local anaesthesia and emergency consent procedures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48334791 and NCT00746122.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of bowel ischemia after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Outcomes after repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA) have improved in the last decade. It is unknown whether this has resulted in a reduction of postoperative bowel ischemia (BI). The primary objective was to determine BI prevalence after RAAA repair. Secondary objectives were to determine its major sequelae and differences between open repair (OR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

This systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42017055920) followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. MEDLINE and Embase were searched for studies published from 2005 until 2018. The methodologic quality of observational studies was assessed with the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool. The quality of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. BI prevalence and rates of BI as cause of death, reoperation, and bowel resection were estimated with meta-analyses with a random-effects model. Differences between OR and EVAR were estimated with pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Changes over time were assessed with Spearman rank test (ρ). Publication bias was assessed with a funnel plot analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 101 studies with 52,670 patients were included; 72 studies were retrospective cohort studies, 14 studies were prospective cohort studies, 12 studies were retrospective administrative database studies, and 3 studies were RCTs. The overall methodologic quality of the RCTs was high, but that of observational studies was low. The pooled prevalence of BI ranged from of 0.08 (95% CI, 0.07-0.09) in database studies to 0.10 (95% CI, 0.08-0.12) in cohort studies. The risk of BI was higher after OR than after EVAR (risk ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.25-2.57). The pooled rate of BI as cause of death was 0.04 (95% CI, 0.03-0.05), and that of BI as cause of reoperation and bowel resection ranged between 0.05 and 0.07. BI prevalence did not change over time (ρ, -0.01; P = .93). The funnel plot analysis was highly suggestive of publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of clinically relevant BI after RAAA repair is approximately 10%. Approximately 5% of patients undergoing RAAA repair suffer from severe consequences of BI. BI is less prevalent after EVAR than after OR.

Endovascular repair versus open repair in the treatment of ruptured aortic aneurysms: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysm remains a fatal event in up to 65% of cases and emergency open surgery (ruptured open aneurysm repair or rOAR) has a great intraoperative mortality of about 30-50%. The introduction of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (ruptured endovascular aneurysm repair or rEVAR) has rapidly challenged the conventional approach to this catastrophic event. The purpose of this systematic review is to compare the outcomes of open surgical repair and endovascular interventions.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature search was performed using Medline, Scopus, and Science Direct from August 2010 to March 2017 using keywords identified and agreed by the authors. Randomized trials, cohort studies, and case-report series were contemplated to give a breadth of clinical data.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Ninety-three studies were included in the final analysis. Thirty-five (50.7%) of the listed studies evaluating the within 30 days mortality rates deposed in favor of rEVAR, while the others (comprising all four included RCTs) failed detecting any difference. Late mortality rates were found to be lower in rEVAR group in seven on twenty-seven studies (25.9%), while one (3.7%) reported higher mortality rates following rEVAR performed before 2005, one found lower incidence of mortality at 6 months in the endovascular group but higher rates in the same population at 8 years of follow-up, and the remaining (66.7%) (including all three RCTs) failed finding any benefit of rEVAR on rOAR. A lower incidence of complications was reported by thirteen groups (46.4%), while other thirteen studies did not find any difference between rEVAR and rOAR. Each of these two conclusions was corroborated by one RCTs. Other two studies (7.2%) found higher rates of tracheostomies, myocardial infarction, and acute tubular necrosis or respiratory, urinary complications, and acute renal failure respectively in rOAR group. The majority of studies (59.0%, 72.7%, and 89.3%, respectively) and all RCTs found significantly lower rates of length of hospitalization, intensive care unit transfer, and blood loss with or without transfusion need in rEVAR group. The large majority of the studies did not specified neither the type nor the brands of employed stent grafts.

CONCLUSIONS

The bulk of evidence regarding the comparison between endovascular and open surgery approach to RAAA points to: 1) non-inferiority of rEVAR in terms of early (within 30 days) and late mortality as well as rate of complications and length of hospitalization, with trends of better outcomes associated to the endovascular approach; 2) significantly better outcomes in terms of intensive care unit transfer and blood loss with or without transfusion need in the rEVAR group. These conclusions reflect the results of the available RCTs included in the present review. Thus rEVAR can be considered a safe method in treating RAAA and we suggest that it should be preferred when technically feasible. However, more RCTs are needed in order to give strength of these evidences, bring to definite clinical recommendations regarding this subject, and assess the superiority (if present) of one or more brands of stent grafts over the others.

Editor's Choice - Re-interventions After Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Report From the IMPROVE Randomised Trial

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

The aim was to describe the re-interventions after endovascular and open repair of rupture, and investigate whether these were associated with aortic morphology.

METHODS

In total, 502 patients from the IMPROVE randomised trial (ISRCTN48334791) with repair of rupture were followed-up for re-interventions for at least 3 years. Pre-operative aortic morphology was assessed in a core laboratory. Re-interventions were described by time (0-90 days, 3 months-3 years) as arterial or laparotomy related, respectively, and ranked for severity by surgeons and patients separately. Rare re-interventions to 1 year, were summarised across three ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm trials (IMPROVE, AJAX, and ECAR) and odds ratios (OR) describing differences were pooled via meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Re-interventions were most common in the first 90 days. Overall rates were 186 and 226 per 100 person years for the endovascular strategy and open repair groups, respectively (p = .20) but between 3 months and 3 years (mid-term) the rates had slowed to 9.5 and 6.0 re-interventions per 100 person years, respectively (p = .090) and about one third of these were for a life threatening condition. In this latter, mid-term period, 42 of 313 remaining patients (13%) required at least one re-intervention, most commonly for endoleak or other endograft complication after treatment by endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) (21 of 38 re-interventions), whereas distal aneurysms were the commonest reason (four of 23) for re-interventions after treatment by open repair. Arterial re-interventions within 3 years were associated with increasing common iliac artery diameter (OR 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.93; p = .004). Amputation, rare but ranked as the worst re-intervention by patients, was less common in the first year after treatment with EVAR (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.05-0.88) from meta-analysis of three trials.

CONCLUSION

The rate of mid-term re-interventions after rupture is high, more than double that after elective EVAR and open repair, suggesting the need for bespoke surveillance protocols. Amputations are much less common in patients treated by EVAR than in those treated by open repair.

Short-term outcomes of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm, including ruptured cases

Introduction

Endovascular aneurysm repair as a minimally invasive alternative has become a commonly used surgical method for treating patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).

Aim

To analyze short-term outcomes of endovascular treatment of AAA patients, including ruptured cases.

Material and methods

From 2010 to 2015, 247 patients with AAA were treated using the endovascular aneurysm repair technique. A short-term analysis was conducted – up to 30 days after surgery. It included 236 patients with planned surgery and 11 operated on in emergency mode, due to ruptured AAA.

Results

Rates of short-term mortality and re-interventions among patients undergoing planned surgery were 2.5% and 4.2%, respectively. Surgical complications occurred in 18 (7.6%) patients, with the most common being thrombosis and blockage of the stent graft (2.5%). Systemic complications were found in 19 (8%) planned cases, with the most common being arrhythmias (1.7%). In patients with ruptured AAA, short-term mortality was 36.4%, while re-interventions were performed in 3 (27.3%) patients. Rates of surgical and systemic complications for ruptured AAA were 45.4% and 72.7%, respectively.

Conclusions

The AAA patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair showed relatively low short-term mortality. However, larger groups of patients with ruptured AAA are required in order to assess the outcomes in this sub-population.

Femoral Artery Closure Versus Surgical Cutdown for Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND To compare the outcome and complication rates of femoral artery closure and surgical cutdown for endovascular aortic repair procedures (EVAR). MATERIAL AND METHODS Patients underwent either percutaneous femoral artery closure (PA group) or surgical cutdown (SC group) for EVAR between July 2011 and June 2016 and EVAR procedures were used for all cases. Data on outcomes and complications were collected and compared. RESULTS The SC group contained 55 patients and the PA group contained 60 patients and the technical success rates were 100.0% and 98.0%, respectively. The mean operation time, time to ambulation, and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the PA group (P<0.01). The estimated intraoperative blood loss and wound pain scores were significantly higher in the SC group (P<0.01). However, the PA procedure was more expensive (P<0.01). The overall incidence rate of complications was higher in the SC group (P=0.026). CONCLUSIONS The PA technique had a high success rate, shorter operation time and hospital stay, and fewer wound complications compared to SC. Thus, PA might be the preferred choice for selected EVAR procedures.

Comparative clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of endovascular strategy v open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: three year results of the IMPROVE randomised trial

Objective To assess the three year clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of a strategy of endovascular repair (if aortic morphology is suitable, open repair if not) versus open repair for patients with suspected ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.Design Randomised controlled trial.Setting 30 vascular centres (29 in UK, one in Canada), 2009-16.Participants 613 eligible patients (480 men) with a clinical diagnosis of ruptured aneurysm, of whom 502 underwent emergency repair for rupture.Interventions 316 patients were randomised to an endovascular strategy (275 with confirmed rupture) and 297 to open repair (261 with confirmed rupture).Main outcome measures Mortality, with reinterventions after aneurysm repair, quality of life, and hospital costs to three years as secondary measures.Results The maximum follow-up for mortality was 7.1 years, with two patients in each group lost to follow-up by three years. After similar mortality by 90 days, in the mid-term (three months to three years) there were fewer deaths in the endovascular than the open repair group (hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.90), leading to lower mortality at three years (48% v 56%), but by seven years mortality was about 60% in each group (hazard ratio 0.92, 0.75 to 1.13). Results for the 502 patients with repaired ruptures were more pronounced: three year mortality was lower in the endovascular strategy group (42% v 54%; odds ratio 0.62, 0.43 to 0.88), but after seven years there was no clear difference between the groups (hazard ratio 0.86, 0.68 to 1.08). Reintervention rates up to three years were not significantly different between the randomised groups (hazard ratio 1.02, 0.79 to 1.32); the initial rapid rate of reinterventions was followed by a much slower mid-term reintervention rate in both groups. The early higher average quality of life in the endovascular strategy versus open repair group, coupled with the lower mortality at three years, led to a gain in average quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at three years of 0.17 (95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.33). The endovascular strategy group spent fewer days in hospital and had lower average costs of -£2605 (95% confidence interval -£5966 to £702) (about €2813; $3439). The probability that the endovascular strategy is cost effective was >90% at all levels of willingness to pay for a QALY gain.Conclusions At three years, compared with open repair, an endovascular strategy for suspected ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm was associated with a survival advantage, a gain in QALYs, similar levels of reintervention, and reduced costs, and this strategy was cost effective. These findings support the increasing use of an endovascular strategy, with wider availability of emergency endovascular repair.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48334791; ClinicalTrials NCT00746122.

Surgical Versus Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Evidence to Guide the Optimal Approach for the Individual Patient

The choice between an open surgical and an endovascular approach for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair remains an individualized clinical decision. As the technology and applications of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) continue to evolve, so does the literature investigating its outcomes. Multiple high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing EVAR to open surgical repair (OSR) have now been published with long-term follow-up. Experience with ruptured aneurysms and the use of complex endografts is growing as well. This review is an up-to-date compilation of pertinent clinical trials for practitioners placed in the context of individual patient considerations to guide the choice of an optimal approach to the management of AAAs.

Outcomes of endovascular and open surgical repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms in elderly patients

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is becoming the preferred treatment modality for patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA). Although the survival advantage of EVAR over open aortic repair (OAR) has been shown in some studies, it is unclear whether this benefit extends to elderly patients. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of rAAA repair in octogenarians.

METHODS

We reviewed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) data set (2005-2014) to identify patients older than 80 years who were treated with EVAR and OAR for rAAA. Procedural trends were evaluated during the course of the study period. Perioperative outcomes including mortality, morbidity, and hospital length of stay (LOS) were compared. Multivariable regression models were used to identify predictors of perioperative mortality and morbidity.

RESULTS

Among 1048 elderly patients who underwent rAAA repair, 450 (43%) and 598 (57%) were treated with EVAR and OAR, respectively. The use of EVAR to treat rAAA had increased significantly in this population of patients (0% in 2005 vs 56% in 2014; P < .001). The overall 30-day mortality rate among octogenarians was 41%. The mortality rate was significantly higher among those treated with OAR compared with EVAR (47% vs 33%; P < .001). Pneumonia (21% vs 10%; P < .001), reintubation (14% vs 9%; P < .001), and >48-hour ventilator dependence (43% vs 21%; P < .001) were significantly higher in patients undergoing OAR. Hospital LOS (13 vs 10 days; P < .001) was also longer in the OAR cohort. Compared with EVAR, OAR was independently predictive of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-2.2; P < .001), pneumonia (AOR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7-3.6; P < .001), >48-hour ventilator dependence (AOR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.8-3.3; P < .001), and longer LOS (adjusted mean ratio, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.6; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly patients have significant but acceptable perioperative mortality and morbidity after rAAA repair. Use of endovascular repair in the elderly population has increased and is associated with better perioperative survival and 30-day outcomes compared with traditional open repair in this study.

Clinical outcomes for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm with the Seal stent graft

OBJECTIVE

Since 2007, the availability of the Seal (S & G Biotech Inc, Seong-nam, Gyeonggi-do, Korea) stent graft for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has improved short-term outcomes in Korea. However, midterm outcome data are lacking. This retrospective study evaluated the midterm outcomes of 126 patients who underwent EVAR using the Seal stent graft between 2007 and 2010.

METHODS

Data regarding use of the Seal stent graft for EVAR were collected from 16 Korean centers, and were analyzed retrospectively using Kaplan-Meier and Cox univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 71 ± 8 years (median, 70; range, 49-87 years). Patients who were treated using a bifurcated graft (113; 90%) were generally symptomatic (56; 44%, which included 13 ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms [10%]) and male (105; 83%). The primary technical success rate was 99%. Four patients (3%) died within 30 days, 5 patients (4%) died after 30 days, and 12 patients (9%) were lost to follow-up. The survival rates were 97% ± 2% (1 month), 97% ± 2% (3 months), 96% ± 2% (6 months), 96% ± 2% (1 year), 94% ± 3% (3 years), and 81% ± 10% (5 years). During a mean follow-up of 55 ± 22 months (median, 40; range, 0.03-91.2 months), 18 reinterventions were performed for 16 patients (13%). The freedom from reintervention rates were 96% ± 2% (1 month), 96% ± 2% (3 months), 94% ± 2% (6 months), 89% ± 3% (1 year), 84% ± 4% (3 years), and 57% ± 17% (5 years). The mean aneurysm diameter significantly decreased from 69.6 to 46.6 mm during the follow-up (P < .0001). A proximal neck of less than 15 mm, different simultaneous endoleaks, and insufficient bilateral coverage of the iliac aneurysm were associated with significantly higher rates of increased or unchanged aneurysm diameters (all P < .0001). Significantly higher rates of clinical failure were observed in patients who were less than 70 years old (P = .04), had a neck length of less than 15 mm (P = .02), and had a neck diameter of greater than 28 mm (P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Most Seal stent grafts were implanted successfully (even in cases with a physical status of grade IV or higher or a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm), had an appropriate reintervention rate, and were stable during the midterm follow-up. However, there was a high rate of type I endoleak, which may be related to the early device model that we used. Therefore, long-term radiologic follow-up is recommended for the early detection of stent graft migration or endoleaks.

Endovascular vs. Open Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Patients presenting with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms are most often treated with open repair despite the fact that endovascular aneurysm repair is a less invasive and widely accepted method with clear benefits for elective aortic aneurysm patients. A debate exists regarding the definitive benefit in endovascular repair for patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. The aim of this literature review was to determine if any trends exist in favor of either open or endovascular repair.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature search was performed using PUBMED, OVID, and Google Scholar databases. The search yielded 64 publications.

RESULTS

Out of 64 publications, 25 were retrospective studies, 12 were population-based, 21 were prospective, 5 were the results of RCTs, and 1 was a case-series. Sixty-one studies reported on early mortality and provided data comparing endovascular repair (rEVAR) and open repair (rOR) for ruptured abdominal aneurysm groups. Twenty-nine of these studies reported that rEVAR has a lower early mortality rate. Late mortality after rEVAR compared to that of rOR was reported in 21 studies for a period of 3 to 60 months. Results of 61.9% of the studies found no difference in late mortality rates between these 2 groups. Thirty-nine publications reported on the incidence of complications. Approximately half of these publications support that the rEVAR group has a lower complication rate and the other half found no difference between the groups. Length of hospital stay has been reported to be shorter for rEVAR in most studies. Blood loss and need for transfusion of either red cells or fresh frozen plasma was consistently lower in the rEVAR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences between the included publications affect the outcomes. Randomized control trials have not been able to provide clear conclusions. rEVAR can now be considered a safe method of treating rAAA, and is at least equal to the well-established rOR method.

Current treatment strategies for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) represents one of the most challenging emergencies in surgery. Open repair (OR) is associated with relevant morbidity and mortality and has not been reduced significantly over the last decade. The introduction of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and its meanwhile common use in the treatment of rAAA has raised the demand for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in order to resolve a potential superiority of either OR or EVAR.

PURPOSE

This review discusses the current treatment strategies in rAAA repair including diagnostics, peri-operative management and results of OR and EVAR, focussing on RCTs comparing both modalities.

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality after OR and EVAR shows no significant difference in published RCTs. In particular with respect to OR, 30-day mortality was much lower than anticipated throughout all RCTs ranging from 18 to 37 %. EVAR for rAAA resulted in reduced in-hospital stay. Limitations of all except one RCT are low patient recruitment and exclusion of haemodynamically unstable patients.

CONCLUSIONS

OR and EVAR need to be provided for rAAA. Despite lacking evidence, EVAR is the first choice treatment in experienced high-volume vascular centres. Low mortality rates in all RCTs raise the question if aortic surgery should be centralised.