Effect of lipid-modifying drug therapy on survival after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Statin intensity and postoperative mortality following open repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysm

Background

There is a lack of evidence for the association between intensive statin therapy and outcomes following vascular surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between perioperative statin intensity and in-hospital mortality following open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair.

Methods

Patients undergoing open AAA repair between 2009 and 2015 were identified from the Premier Healthcare Database. Statin use was classified into low, moderate and high intensity, based on American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. Supratherapeutic intensity was defined as doses higher than the recommended guidelines. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were undertaken to assess the association between statin intensity and postoperative major adverse events and in-hospital mortality.

Results

Of 6497 patients undergoing open AAA repair, 3217 (49·5 per cent) received perioperative statin. Statin users were more likely to present with three or more co-morbidities than non-users (26·5 versus 21·8 per cent; P < 0·001). Unadjusted postoperative mortality was significantly lower in statin users (2·6 versus 6·3 per cent; P < 0·001); however, there was no difference in the risk of developing major adverse events. Multivariable analysis showed that statin use was associated with lower odds of death (odds ratio 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·31 to 0·54). Moderate, high and supratherapeutic statin intensities were not associated with lower odds of death or major adverse events compared with low-intensity statin therapy.

Conclusion

Statin use is associated with lower odds of death in hospital following open AAA repair. High-intensity statins were not associated with lower morbidity or mortality.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Factors Influencing Survival Following Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Predicting long-term survival following repair is essential to clinical decision making when offering abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) treatment. A systematic review and a meta-analysis of pre-operative non-modifiable prognostic risk factors influencing patient survival following elective open AAA repair (OAR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) was performed.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane electronic databases were searched to identify all relevant articles reporting risk factors influencing long-term survival (≥1 year) following OAR and EVAR, published up to April 2015. Studies with <100 patients and those involving primarily ruptured AAA, complex repairs (supra celiac/renal clamp), and high risk patients were excluded. Primary risk factors were increasing age, sex, American Society of Anaesthesiologist (ASA) score, and comorbidities such as ischaemic heart disease (IHD), cardiac failure, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), renal impairment, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), and diabetes. Estimated risks were expressed as hazard ratio (HR).

RESULTS

A total of 5,749 study titles/abstracts were retrieved and 304 studies were thought to be relevant. The systematic review included 51 articles and the meta-analysis 45. End stage renal disease and COPD requiring supplementary oxygen had the worst long-term survival, HR 3.15 (95% CI 2.45-4.04) and HR 3.05 (95% CI 1.93-4.80) respectively. An increase in age was associated with HR of 1.05 (95% CI 1.04-1.06) for every one year increase and females had a worse survival than men HR 1.15 (95% CI 1.07-1.27). An increase in ASA score and the presence of IHD, cardiac failure, hypertension, COPD, renal impairment, cerebrovascular disease, PVD, and diabetes were also factors associated with poor long-term survival.

CONCLUSION

The result of this meta-analysis summarises and quantifies unmodifiable risk factors that influence late survival following AAA repair from the best available published evidence. The presence of these factors might assist in clinical decision making during discussion with patients regarding repair.

Effect of lipid-modifying therapy on long-term mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several observational studies have demonstrated that lipid-modifying therapy may improve long-term survival in abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) patients after repair. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating the effect of lipid-modifying therapy on long-term mortality.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of multiple databases up to April 2014. Studies that evaluated exposure to lipid-modifying therapy, reported mortality data and hazard ratio (HR) or provided survival curve for their estimation were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled HR estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Eight studies (seven cohorts, one post hoc study of a randomization controlled trial) reporting 2,605 patients on lipid-modifying therapy were included. Meta-analysis showed a significant 39% reduction in long-term mortality with lipid-modifying therapy (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.51-0.73). After exclusion of one study which was contributing to considerable heterogeneity, a significant 33% reduction in mortality risk was a more conservative, consistent estimate (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.59-0.77).

CONCLUSION

Meta-analysis of studies supports a protective role of lipid-modifying therapy on mortality risk after AAA repair. Aggressive lipid intervention should be recommended to those who receiving AAA repair.

Long-term outcomes and factors influencing late survival following elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: A 24-year experience

Background

Abdominal aortic aneurysms can be either treated by an open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair or an endovascular repair. Comparing clinical predictors of outcomes and those which influence survival rates in the long term is important in determining the choice of treatment offered and the decision-making process with patients.

Aims

To determine the influence of pre-existing clinical predictors and perioperative determinants on late survival of elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and endovascular repair at a tertiary hospital.

Methods

Consecutive patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from 1990 to 2013 were included. Data were collected from a prospectively acquired database and death data were gathered from the Queensland state death registry. Pre-existing risks and perioperative factors were assessed independently. Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression modeling were performed.

Results

During the study period, 1340 abdominal aortic aneurysms were repaired electively, of which 982 were open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. The average age was 72.4 years old and 81.7% were males. The cumulative percentage survival rates for open abdominal aortic aneurysms repair at 5, 10, 15 and 20 years were 79, 49, 31 and 22, respectively. The corresponding 5-, 10- and 15-year survival rates for endovascular repair were not significantly different at 75, 49 and 33%, respectively (P = 0.75). Predictors of reduced survival were advanced age, American Society of Anaesthesiology scores, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal impairment, bifurcated grafts, peripheral vascular disease and congestive heart failure.

Conclusions

Open repair offers a good long-term treatment option for patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm and in our experience there is no significant difference in late survival between open abdominal aortic aneurysms repair and endovascular repair. Consideration of the factors identified in this study that predict reduced long-term survival for open abdominal aortic aneurysms repair and endovascular repair should be considered when deciding repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Disparities in lipid control and statin drug use among diabetics with noncoronary atherosclerotic vascular disease vs those with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM), coronary artery disease (CAD), and noncoronary atherosclerotic vascular diseases (NCVDs) have similar risks of cardiovascular events and similar recommendations for lipid control. There are limited data regarding lipid control in diabetic patients with NCVD in current clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To assess current day practice of lipid control in patients with DM with NCVD vs those with CAD.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 3336 patients with DM and known atherosclerotic vascular disease between January 2009 and March 2012. We compared demographic variables, lipid levels, and statin use in diabetics with CAD alone vs diabetics without CAD but with one or more NCVD.

RESULTS

There were 234 patients in DM with NCVD group and 3102 patients in DM with CAD group. The DM with NCVD group had a higher mean total cholesterol (152 ± 40 vs 146 ± 42 mg/dL; P = .019) and mean low-density lipoprotein (LDL; 86 ± 35 vs 80 ± 34 mg/dL; P = .04) with only 70% of patients achieving LDL of <100 mg/dL (compared with 80% in the DM with CAD group; P < .001). Statin use was 100% in CAD vs 75% in NCVD group (P < .001). In addition to limited use of more potent statins in the NCVD group, there was also a significantly lower dose of statins used overall.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates lower use and less aggressive application of statins among diabetics with NCVD compared with diabetics with CAD, resulting in higher mean LDL and total cholesterol in the NCVD group.