Prophylactic Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair? Open Repair Brings Early Pain but Later Gain

The retroperitoneal approach for contemporary open abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery: The anatomical reasoning

In current practice, the place of open surgery in managing abdominal aortic aneurysm is a contentious issue. The principal reason being greater applications of endovascular techniques treating increasingly complicated aortic disease. Development of branched and fenestrated devices enabled this, with numbers increasing annually. This meant a good risk patient with a long infrarenal aortic neck and normal diameter non-tortuous iliac arteries may be suitable for both endovascular and open techniques. However, indications for open surgery are becoming increasingly unclear nowadays due to short-term gains in morbidity and mortality. Exact aortic anatomical morphologies optimum for open or endovascular techniques remains unclear. As graft technology evolves, possibilities for endovascular options are expanding. Currently, establishing optimum treatment plans for complicated abdominal aortic aneurysm (little or no infrarenal neck) is difficult without considering general fitness of the patient. Hence, two sets of possible postoperative complications and follow-up protocols must be explained to patients before either approach. Complicating matters is the optimum surgical approach used for any open repair. The standard approach for open abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery has been transperitoneal as this provides excellent access to the infrarenal aorta and iliac arteries. However, although less commonly used, the retroperitoneal approach has advantages particularly when location of proximal aortic disease indicates suprarenal clamp might be optimum. This paper scrutinises benefits of the retroperitoneal approach performed purely for anatomical reasons where stent graft may be considered complicated. Also, long-term outcomes are examined in terms of endo-leak and subsequent development of true and false aneurysm following both endovascular and open repair.

Survival, cardiovascular morbidity, and reinterventions after elective endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in patients with and without diabetes: A nationwide propensity-adjusted analysis

Epidemiological data indicate decreased risk for development and growth of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). On the other hand, DM adds to increased cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. In a nationwide observational cohort study of patients registered in the Swedish Vascular Register and the Swedish National Diabetes Register, we evaluated potential effects of DM on total mortality, CV morbidity, and the need for reintervention after elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for AAA. We compared 748 patients with and 2630 without DM with propensity score-adjusted analysis, during a median 4.22 years of follow-up for patients with DM, and 4.05 years for those without. In adjusted analysis, diabetic patients showed higher rates of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during follow-up (relative risk (RR) 1.44, 95% CI 1.06-1.95; p = 0.02), but lower need for reintervention (RR 0.12, CI 0.02-0.91; p = 0.04). There were no differences in total (RR 0.88, CI 0.74-1.05; p = 0.15) or CV (RR 1.58, CI 0.87-2.86; p = 0.13) mortality, or stroke (RR 0.95, CI 0.68-1.32; p = 0.75) during follow-up. In conclusion, patients with DM had higher rates of AMI and lower need for reintervention after elective EVAR than those without DM, whereas neither total nor CV mortality differed between groups. The putative protective effects of DM towards further AAA enlargement and late sac rupture may help explain the lower need for reintervention and absence of excess mortality.

Meta-analysis of long-term survival after elective endovascular or open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the preferred strategy for elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) for many patients. However, the superiority of the endovascular procedure has recently been challenged by reports of impaired long-term survival in patients who underwent EVAR. A systematic review of long-term survival following AAA repair was therefore undertaken.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Articles reporting short- and/or long-term mortality of EVAR and open surgical repair (OSR) of AAA were identified. Pooled overall survival estimates (hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding 95 per cent c.i. for EVAR versus OSR) were calculated using a random-effects model. Possible confounding owing to age differences between patients receiving EVAR or OSR was addressed by estimating relative survival.

RESULTS

Some 53 studies were identified. The 30-day mortality rate was lower for EVAR compared with OSR: 1·16 (95 per cent c.i. 0·92 to 1·39) versus 3·27 (2·71 to 3·83) per cent. Long-term survival rates were similar for EVAR versus OSR (HRs 1·01, 1·00 and 0·98 for 3, 5 and 10 years respectively; P = 0·721, P = 0·912 and P = 0·777). Correction of age inequality by means of relative survival analysis showed equal long-term survival: 0·94, 0·91 and 0·76 at 3, 5 and 10 years for EVAR, and 0·96, 0·91 and 0·76 respectively for OSR.

CONCLUSION

Long-term overall survival rates were similar for EVAR and OSR. Available data do not allow extension beyond the 10-year survival window or analysis of specific subgroups.

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Evolving Controversies and Uncertainties

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is defined as a permanent dilatation of the abdominal aorta that exceeds 3 cm. Most AAAs arise in the portion of abdominal aorta distal to the renal arteries and are defined as infrarenal. Most AAAs are totally asymptomatic until catastrophic rupture. The strongest predictor of AAA rupture is the diameter. Surgery is indicated to prevent rupture when the risk of rupture exceeds the risk of surgery. In this review, we aim to analyze this disease comprehensively, starting from an epidemiological perspective, exploring etiology and pathophysiology, and concluding with surgical controversies. We will pursue these goals by addressing eight specific questions regarding AAA: (1) Is the incidence of AAA increasing? (2) Are ultrasound screening programs for AAA effective? (3) What causes AAA: Genes versus environment? (4) Animal models: Are they really relevant? (5) What pathophysiology leads to AAA? (6) Indications for AAA surgery: Are surgeons over-eager to operate? (7) Elective AAA repair: Open or endovascular? (8) Emergency AAA repair: Open or endovascular?