The Immediate Management of the Patient with Rupture: Open Versus Endovascular repair (IMPROVE) aneurysm trial--ISRCTN 48334791 IMPROVE trialists

Endovascular management of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms and acute aortic dissections

The management of vascular emergencies is dependent on rapid identification and confirmation of the diagnosis with concurrent patient stabilization prior to immediate transfer to the operating suite. A variety of technological advances in diagnostic imaging as well as the advent of minimally invasive endovascular interventions have shifted the contemporary treatment algorithms of such pathologies. This review provides a comprehensive discussion on the current state and future trends in the management of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms as well as acute aortic dissections.

Incidental extravascular findings in CT angiograms in patients post endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: clinical relevance and frequency

Background

To evaluate the incidence and clinical relevance of extravascular incidental findings (EVIF), particularly malignancies, in planning and follow-up CT angiograms (CTA) of the abdominal aorta in patients who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Retrospective study of 2203 planning and follow-up CTAs of 418 patients who underwent EVAR in a single tertiary centre between 2006 and 2015. CTA reports were scrutinized for EVIFs, which were classified according to clinical relevance, into (I) immediate, (II) potential and (III) no clinical relevance. Clinical follow-up and management were reviewed for significant findings. Follow-up CTAs of patients with incidental malignancies were re-reviewed by two consultant radiologists to evaluate if early missed malignant findings on previous CTAs were present.

Results

In total, 950 EVIFs were noted in 418 patients [31 females (7.4%), 387 males (92.6%); age range 63–93, mean age 79.0 years]. The number of patients with findings in each category were; Category I (115), Category II (165), Category III (304). Incidental malignant findings were reported in 51 patients (12.2%), of which 27 were noted on the initial CTA (6.5%) and 24 on follow-up CTAs (5.7%). Of the 24 patients with malignancies on follow-up CTAs, 13 had early malignant findings missed or misinterpreted on previous CTAs, while 11 had no significant abnormality even on retrospective review.

Conclusion

A high number of significant EVIFs, particularly incidental malignancies, can be identified in follow-up CTAs of patients who undergo EVAR. Specific ‘review areas’ when reporting surveillance CTAs can be recommended based on the findings of our study.

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.

The beneficial place for the treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

To study the beneficial place for the treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAAs).

METHOD

A retrospective chart review of consecutive RAAA patients was performed. Patients were divided into two groups: direct group and transfer group. We retrospectively reviewed patients' hospital charts and recorded various clinical factors apparent on presentation. The primary consequence was mortality during hospitalization, and some other parameters such as duration of intensive care unit (ICU). All patients were followed up at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and one year after discharge.

RESULTS

During 4-year period, 56 RAAA patients were treated (24 in direct group, and 32 in transfer group). Significant differences were shown for systolic blood pressure, pulse oxygen saturation, hemoglobin, the time interval from diagnosis to operation et al. There was no difference concerning age and comorbidity among two groups. All the patients were treated by open surgical aneurysm repair. The mortality rate was 68.8% ((6 + 16)/32) in transfer group and 33.3% (8/24) in direct group (P = 0.00067). Both the duration of ICU stay and entire hospitalization were a bit longer in the transfer group, but there was no significant difference. The mean follow-up time was 25.2 ± 12.9 months. The cumulative survival difference was significant (P = 0.042) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

It is beneficial that we treat RAAAs in the diagnosed hospital. The reasons are: 1) to avoid the development of unstable state of aneurysm after rupturing of stable state; 2) the time interval from initial symptoms to operation will be shortened.

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.

The role of cost-effectiveness for vascular surgery service provision in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVE

The cost of health care is increasingly becoming an international issue, with many health care systems requiring evaluation of cost when agreeing to fund health care. In the United Kingdom (UK), for example, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence highlights the importance of using cost-effectiveness analyses to facilitate the effective use of resources. This study evaluates the use of cost-effectiveness analyses and the provision of vascular surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review of published literature was performed. UK-based studies assessing cost-effectiveness or cost-utility of superficial venous interventions, abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) were included. All included studies were quality assessed to determine the overall strength of UK economic evidence for each intervention.

RESULTS

Four superficial venous, six AAA, and two CEA studies met the inclusion criteria. After quality assessment, the UK evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of superficial venous intervention was graded strong. The economic evidence for asymptomatic and symptomatic CEA was graded limited and insufficient, respectively, owing to a paucity of UK literature in this field. There was strong UK economic evidence affirming that endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is unlikely to be a cost-effective alternative to open repair.

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong economic evidence for symptomatic superficial venous intervention. However, funding for varicose vein treatments remains controversial. Future economic analyses are required for symptomatic and asymptomatic CEA to better advise national policy. Despite strong economic evidence, current UK guidance is for EVAR over open repair in the elective setting, with the majority of elective AAA repairs being EVAR.

Integration of endovascular therapy of ruptured abdominal and iliac aneurysms in the treatment algorithm: a single-center experience in a medium-volume vascular center

PURPOSE

To evaluate the influence of endovascular therapy of ruptured abdominal or iliac aneurysms on total mortality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed the mortality of 40 patients from 2005 to 2009, when only surgical treatment was available. These results were compared with the period 2010 to 2013, when endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) was assessed as the first option in selected patients.

RESULTS

During 2005 to 2009, the mortality was 37.5%. From 2010 to 2013, 45 patients were treated with mortality 28.9%. Open repair was performed in 35 (77.8%) patients and EVAR in 10 (22.2%) patients. The 30-day and 1-year mortality rates of the EVAR group were 0% and 20%, respectively, and the total mortality rate was 30% during follow-up (median 11 months, range 1-42 months). The 30-day mortality in the surgical group remained unchanged, at 37.1%, and 1-year and total mortality rates were 45.7% and 51.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Following integration in the treatment algorithm, EVAR decreased total mortality in our center by 8.6%.

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.

Endovascular Treatment versus Open Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: The Influence of Fitness in Decision Making

Two methods of repair are currently available for an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), open aneurysm repair and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The decision making depends on the balance of risks and benefits. The treating physician must take into account the patient's life expectancy, the patient's fitness, the anatomic suitability that makes endovascular repair possible, and finally the patient's preference. The patient's fitness is an important variable predicting the outcome of AAA surgical reconstruction. The hypothesis is that the impact of risk factors upon perioperative mortality might differ between patients undergoing open repair and endovascular repair. The purpose of this review article is to investigate whether fitter patients with a large AAA benefit more from having endovascular rather than open repair. According to the available data, there is emerging evidence that patients at high medical risk for open repair may benefit from EVAR while in low risk patients with suitable anatomy for EVAR, both techniques have similar effects. There is rising evidence that a patient with ruptured AAA would benefit more from an endovascular procedure if eligible, and thus fitness in such emergencies is not the first priority but anatomical suitability for EVAR.

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.

Mortality from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: clinical lessons from a comparison of outcomes in England and the USA

BACKGROUND

The outcome of patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) varies by country. Study of practice differences might allow the formulation of pathways to improve care.

METHODS

We compared data from the Hospital Episode Statistics for England and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample for the USA for patients admitted to hospital with rAAA from 2005 to 2010. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, mortality after intervention, and decision to follow non-corrective treatment. In-hospital mortality and the rate of non-corrective treatment were analysed by binary logistic regression for each health-care system, after adjustment for age, sex, year, and Charlson comorbidity index.

FINDINGS

The study included 11,799 patients with rAAA in England and 23,838 patients with rAAA in the USA. In-hospital mortality was lower in the USA than in England (53·05% [95% CI 51·26-54·85] vs 65·90%; p<0·0001). Intervention (open or endovascular repair) was offered to a greater proportion of cases in the USA than in England (19,174 [80·43%] vs 6897 [58·45%]; p<0·0001) and endovascular repair was more common in the USA than in England (4003 [20·88%] vs 589 [8·54%]; p<0·0001). Postintervention mortality was similar in both countries (41·77% for England and 41·65% for USA). These observations persisted in age-matched and sex-matched comparisons. In both countries, reduced mortality was associated with increased use of endovascular repair, increased hospital caseload (volume) for rAAA, high hospital bed capacity, hospitals with teaching status, and admission on a weekday.

INTERPRETATION

In-hospital survival from rAAA, intervention rates, and uptake of endovascular repair are lower in England than in the USA. In England and the USA, the lowest mortality for rAAA was seen in teaching hospitals with larger bed capacities and doing a greater proportion of cases with endovascular repair. These common factors suggest strategies for improving outcomes for patients with rAAA.

FUNDING

None.

Emergent endovascular vs. open surgery repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: a meta-analysis

Objectives

To systematically review studies comparing peri-operative mortality and length of hospital stay in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) to patients who underwent open surgical repair (OSR).

Methods

The Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched until Apr 30, 2013 using keywords such as abdominal aortic aneurysm, emergent, emergency, rupture, leaking, acute, endovascular, stent, graft, and endoscopic. The primary outcome was peri-operative mortality and the secondary outcome was length of hospital stay.

Results

A total of 18 studies (2 randomized controlled trials, 5 prospective studies, and 11 retrospective studies) with a total of 135,734 rAAA patients were included. rAAA patients who underwent EVAR had significantly lower peri-operative mortality compared to those who underwent OSR (overall OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.58 to 0.67, P<0.001). rAAA patients with EVAR also had a significantly shorter mean length of hospital stay compared to those with OSR (difference in mean length of stay ranged from −2.00 to −19.10 days, with the overall estimate being −5.25 days (95% CI = −9.23 to −1.26, P = 0.010). There was no publication bias and sensitivity analysis showed good reliability.

Conclusions

EVAR confers significant benefits in terms of peri-operative mortality and length of hospital stay. There is a need for more randomized controlled trials to compare outcomes of EVAR and OSR for rAAA.

Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

An abnormal dilatation of the abdominal aorta is referred to as an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Due to the risk of rupture, surgical repair is offered electively to individuals with aneurysms greater than 5.5 cm in size. Traditionally, conventional open surgical repair (OSR) was considered the first choice approach. However, over the past two decades endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has gained popularity as a treatment option. This article intends to review the role of EVAR in the management of elective AAA.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of EVAR versus conventional OSR in individuals with AAA considered fit for surgery, and EVAR versus best medical care in those considered unfit for surgery. This was determined by the effect on short, intermediate and long-term mortality, endograft related complications, re-intervention rates and major complications.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (January 2013) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2012, Issue 12). The TSC also searched trial databases for details of ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EVAR with OSR in individuals with AAA considered fit for surgery. and comparing EVAR with best medical care in individuals considered unfit for surgery. We excluded studies with inadequate data or using an inadequate randomisation technique.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three reviewers independently evaluated trials for appropriateness for inclusion and extracted data using pro forma designed by the Cochrane PVD Group. We assessed the quality of trials using The Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool. We entered collected data in to Review Manager (version 5.2.3) for analysis. Where direct comparisons could be made, we determined odds ratios (OR). We tested studies for heterogeneity and, when present, we used a random-effects model; otherwise we used a fixed-effect model. We tabulated data that could not be collated.

MAIN RESULTS

Four high-quality trials comparing EVAR with OSR (n = 2790) and one high-quality trial comparing EVAR with no intervention (n = 404) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In individuals considered fit for surgery, a pooled analysis, including 1362 individuals randomised to EVAR and 1361 randomised to OSR, found short-term mortality (including 30-day or inhospital mortality, excluding deaths prior to intervention) with EVAR to be significantly lower than with OSR (1.4% versus 4.2%, OR 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.55; P < 0.0001). Using intention-to-treat analysis (ITT) there was no significant difference in mortality at intermediate follow-up (up to four years from randomisation), with 221 (15.8%) and 237 (17%) deaths in the EVAR (n = 1393) and OSR (n = 1390) groups, respectively (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.12; P = 0.40). There was also no significant difference in long-term mortality (beyond four years), with 464 (37.3%) deaths in the EVAR and 470 (37.8%) deaths in the OSR group (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.15; P = 0.78). Similarly, there was no significant difference in aneurysm-related mortality between groups, either at the intermediate- or long-term follow up.Studies showed that both EVAR and OSR were associated with similar incidences of cardiac deaths (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.52; P = 0.36) and fatal stroke rate (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.55; P = 0.52). The long-term reintervention rate was significantly higher in the EVAR group than in the OSR group (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.51; P = 0.02; I(2) = 85%). Results of the reintervention analysis should be interpreted with caution due to significant heterogeneity. Operative complications, health-related quality of life and sexual dysfunction were generally comparable between the EVAR and OSR groups. However, there was a slightly higher incidence of pulmonary complications in the OSR group compared with the EVAR group (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75; P = 0.006).In individuals considered unfit for conventional OSR, the one included trial found no difference between the EVAR and no-intervention groups with regard to all-cause mortality at final follow up, with 21.0 deaths per 100 person-years in the EVAR group and 22.1 deaths per 100 person years in the no-intervention group (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with EVAR 0.99, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.27; P = 0.97). Aneurysm-related deaths were, however, significantly higher in the no-intervention group than in the EVAR group (adjusted HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.89; P = 0.02). There was no difference in myocardial events (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.91) between the groups in this study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In individuals considered fit for conventional surgery, EVAR was associated with lower short-term mortality than OSR. However, this benefit from EVAR did not persist at the intermediate- and long-term follow ups. Individuals undergoing EVAR had a higher reintervention rate than those undergoing OSR. Most of the reinterventions undertaken following EVAR, however, were catheter-based interventions associated with low mortality. Operative complications, health-related quality of life and sexual dysfunction were generally comparable between EVAR and OSR. However, there was a slightly higher incidence of pulmonary complications in the OSR group than in the EVAR group.In individuals considered unfit for open surgery, the results of a single trial found no overall short- or long-term benefits of EVAR over no intervention with regard to all-cause mortality, but individuals may differ and individual preferences should always be taken into account.

Endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm does not confer survival benefits over open repair

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) is being increasingly performed despite lack of good evidence for its superiority. Other reported studies suffer from patient selection and publication bias with limited follow-up. This study is a single-center propensity score comparing early and midterm outcomes between open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular repair of rAAA (REVAR).

METHODS

A retrospective review from January 2001 to November 2010 identified 312 patients who underwent rAAA repairs. Thirty-one patients with antecedent AAA repair and three with incomplete records were excluded, leaving 37 REVARs and 241 OSRs. Propensity score-based matching for sex, age, preoperative hemodynamic status, surgeon's annual AAA volume, and preoperative cardiopulmonary resuscitation was performed in a 1:3 ratio to compare outcomes. Thirty-seven REVARs were matched with 111 OSRs. Late survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier methods.

RESULTS

Operative time and blood replacement were higher with OSR. Overall complication rates were similar (54% REVAR vs 66% OSR; P = .23), except for higher incidences of tracheostomies (21% vs 3%; P = .015), myocardial infarction (38% vs 18%; P = .036), and acute tubular necrosis (47% vs 21%; P = .009) with OSR. Operative mortality rates were similar (22% REVAR vs 32% OSR), with an odds ratio of 0.63 for REVAR (95% confidence interval = [0.24, 1.48]; P = .40). No differences in the incidences for secondary interventions for aneurysm- or graft-related complications were noted (22% REVAR vs 22% OSR; P = .99). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates were also similar (50%, 50%, 42% REVAR vs 54%, 52%, 47% OSR; P = .66).

CONCLUSIONS

REVAR for rAAA does not seem to conclusively confer either acute or late survival advantages. Routine use of REVAR should be deferred until prospective, randomized trial data become available.

Correção endovascular do aneurisma da aorta abdominal: análise dos resultados de único centro

OBJETIVO: Avaliar os resultados clínicos imediatos e em médio prazo do tratamento endovascular em pacientes portadores de aneurisma da aorta abdominal em um centro de referência para doenças cardiovasculares. MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: Estudo retrospectivo de uma série de pacientes submetidos a tratamento endovascular de aneurisma da aorta abdominal, no período de janeiro de 2009 a julho de 2010. Foram avaliados as características demográficas, o sucesso técnico, o sucesso terapêutico, a morbimortalidade, as complicações e a taxa de reintervenções perioperatórias imediatos, e após um ano de acompanhamento. RESULTADOS: Foram analisados 102 pacientes consecutivos com idade média de 72 ± 9 anos, sendo 79% deles do sexo masculino. Houve sucesso técnico em 97,1% e êxito terapêutico em 81% dos casos. A mortalidade perioperatória foi de 0,9% e a anual, de 7,8%. Foram necessárias reintervenções em 18,8% dos pacientes durante o seguimento. CONCLUSÃO: Em nosso estudo, os resultados obtidos justificam a realização desse procedimento nos pacientes com anatomia adequada.

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: endovascular program development and results

Improvements in endovascular technology and techniques have allowed us to treat patients in ways we never thought possible. Today endovascular treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms is associated with markedly decreased morbidity and mortality when compared to the open surgical approach, yet there are several fundamental obstacles in our ability to offer these endovascular techniques to most patients with ruptured aneurysms. This article will focus on the technical aspects of endovascular aneurysm repair for rupture, with particular attention to developing a standardized multidisciplinary approach that will help ones ability to deal with not just the technical aspects of these procedures, but also address some of the challenges including: the availability of preoperative CT, the choice of anesthesia, percutaneous vs. femoral cut-down approach, use of aortic occlusion balloons, need for bifurcated vs. aorto-uniiliac stentgrafts, need for adjunctive procedures, diagnosis and treatment of abdominal compartment syndrome, and conversion to open surgical repair.