A comparison of endovascular versus open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm - Meta-analysis of propensity score-matched data

Transition from Open Repair to Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for Rupture Aortic Aneurysms throughout a 16-Year Period of Time in a Single Tertiary Center

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is recommended as the first option for both elective and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) with suitable anatomy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of the gradual adoption of ruptured EVAR (rEVAR) as first option in the management of rAAAs in a reference tertiary center over a 16 year-period.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected clinical data was undertaken, including all patients that were treated for rAAA infrarenal or juxtarenal either with open surgical repair (OSR) or EVAR from 2006-2023. Three periods were identified and analyzed: Initial (2006-2011); intermediate (2012-2017); and current (2018-2023). The primary outcomes were the 30-day mortality rate in relation to the changing pattern of treatment. Secondary outcomes were re-intervention and mortality during the follow up period.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients were treated for rAAA; 52% by endovascular means [EVAR (94), Ch-EVAR (9), and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (1)] and 48% by OSR (96). In the initial period, 61 patients were treated for rAAA (21% EVAR vs. 79% OSR), 68 in intermediate patients (47% EVAR vs. 53% OSR), and 71 in current period (83% EVAR vs. 17% OSR). Only in the current period juxta -renal rAAAs were treated by endovascular means (14%). The 30-day mortality rate was 46% in initial period (31% for EVAR vs. 50% for OSR), 64% in second period (46% in EVAR vs. 80% for OSR), and 35% in third period (25% for EVAR vs. 83% for OSR). The mean follow up did not differ between the groups, (EVAR 28.3 ± 2 months, vs. OSR 33.1 ± 3 months, P = 0.56). The survival rate did not differ between the groups; in rEVAR was 82% (SE 5%), 74% (SE 6%), 68% (SE 6.5%), and 63% (SE 7.7%) at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months, respectively, and in OSR was 76% (SE 7%), 66% (SE 8%), and 56% (SE 9.5%) at 6, 24, and 48 months, respectively (P = 0.544).

CONCLUSIONS

Through a 16-year period, the implementation of EVAR as treatment of choice for rAAAs over OSR resulted in a noticeable reduction in the 30-day mortality. rEVAR was feasible in over 80% of rAAA patients.

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.

The Comparison of Endovascular and Open Surgical Treatment for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in Terms of Safety and Efficacy on the Basis of a Single-Center 30-Year Experience

OBJECTIVE

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) is a critical condition with a high mortality rate. Over the years, endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has evolved as a viable treatment option in addition to open repair (OR). The primary objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of EVAR and OR for the treatment of rAAA based on a comprehensive analysis of our single-centre 30-year experience.

METHODS

Patients treated for rAAA at the Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Germany from 1 January 1993 to 31 December 2022 were included. Relevant information was retrieved from archived medical records. Patient survival and surgery-related complications were analysed.

RESULTS

None of the patient-specific markers, emergency department-associated parameters, and co-morbidities were associated with patient survival. The 30-day and in-hospital mortality was higher in the OR group vs. in the EVAR group (50% vs. 8.7% and 57.1% vs. 13%, respectively). OR was associated with more frequent occurrence of more severe complications when compared to EVAR. Overall patient survival was 56 ± 5% at 12 months post-surgery (52 ± 6% for OR vs. 73 ± 11% for EVAR, respectively) (p < 0.05). Patients ≥70 years of age showed poorer survival in the OR group, with a 12-month survival of 42 ± 7% vs. 70 ± 10% for patients <70 years of age (p < 0.05). In the EVAR group, this age-related survival advantage was not found (12-month survival: ≥70 years: 67 ± 14%, <70 years: 86 ± 13%). Gender-specific survival was similar regardless of the applied method of care.

CONCLUSION

OR was associated with more severe complications in our study. EVAR initially outperformed OR for rAAA regarding patient survival while re-interventions following EVAR negatively affect survival in the long-term. Elderly patients should be treated with EVAR. Gender does not seem to have a significant impact on survival.

Urgent and emergent repair of complex aortic aneurysms using an off-the-shelf branched device

Introduction

Endovascular repair using off-the-shelf endografts is a viable solution in patients with ruptured or symptomatic complex aortic aneurysms. This analysis aimed to present the peri-operative and follow-up outcomes in urgent and emergent cases managed with the t-Branch multibranched thoracoabdominal endograft.

Methods

Prospectively collected data from all consecutive urgent and emergent cases managed in two aortic centers between January 1st, 2014, to November 30th, 2022, using the t-Branch device (Cook Medical Inc., Bjaeverskov, Denmark) were analyzed. Patients presenting with ruptured aortic complex aneurysms were characterized as emergent and patients with aneurysms >90 mm of diameter, or symptomatic aneurysms were characterized as urgent. Technical success, 30-day mortality, major adverse events (MAE) and spinal cord ischemia (SCI) rates were assessed.

Results

225 patients (36.5% females, 72.5 ± 2.8 years) were included; 73.0% were urgent. The mean aneurysm diameter was 109 ± 3.9 mm and 44.4% were type I-III TAAAs. Females (p = .03), para-renal aneurysms (p = .02) and ASA score IV (p < .001) were more common in emergent cases. Technical success was 97.8%. Thirty-day mortality and MAE rates were 17.8% and 30.6%, respectively. SCI rate was 14.7%, (4.8% paraplegia rate) with 22.2% of patients receiving prophylactic cerebrospinal drainage. Thirty-day mortality (13.3% vs. 26.7%, p = .04) and MAE (26.0% vs. 43.0%, p = .02) were more common among emergent cases while technical success (97.6% vs. 98.3%, p = .9), and SCI (13.3% vs. 18.3%, p = .4) were similar. Survival at 12-months was 83.5% (SE 5.9%) for the urgent and 77.1% (SE 8.2%) for the emergent group (log rank, p = 0.96).

Conclusion

T-Branch represents an effective and safe solution for the management of urgent and emergent cases with complex aortic aneurysms, with high technical success, promising early mortality and SCI rates.

Impact of an emergency endovascular aneurysm repair protocol on 30-day ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm mortality

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the longstanding impact of an emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) protocol for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) on 30-day mortality.

METHODS

All adult patients with an rAAA who underwent a surgical or endovascular intervention at a tertiary care center between March 2001 and December 2018 were evaluated. An emergency EVAR protocol was introduced in January 2004. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality, which was calculated using risk-adjusted logistic regression for the preprotocol and postprotocol periods. A risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis examined changes in 30-day mortality after protocol implementation.

RESULTS

We identified 376 patients with rAAA between 2001 and 2018 (75 preprotocol and 301 postprotocol), with a decreasing incidence of rAAA during the study period. The introduction of the protocol in 2004 was associated with increased EVAR use (63.6% vs 6.7%; P < .001). Patients managed according to the protocol were more frequently unstable (systolic blood pressure [SBP] of ≤80 mm Hg, 46.5% postprotocol vs 22.7% preprotocol; P < 0.001), with a lower average SBP (87.4 mm Hg postprotocol vs 106 mm Hg preprotocol; P < .001) and worse renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate 61.5 mL/min postprotocol vs 83.2 mL/min preprotocol; P < .001). The risk-adjusted 30-day mortality was 23.2% with the emergency EVAR protocol, versus 35.8% preprotocol (P = .0727). A subgroup analysis demonstrated improved the 30-day mortality for unstable patients (SBP of ≤80 mm Hg) at 38.0% (vs 62.4% preprotocol introduction; P = .0190). A cumulative sum analysis demonstrated worse than expected mortality outcomes in the preprotocol period, and stability of surgical performance over 15 years after protocol introduction.

CONCLUSIONS

On reflection of a 17-year experience with EVAR for rAAA, the implementation of an emergency EVAR protocol demonstrated stable surgical performance for all patients with an rAAA and evidence of improved 30-day mortality for unstable patients with an rAAA. Since the protocol introduction, EVAR has become a mainstay intervention and, despite an increase in comorbid patients, the overall incidence of rAAA is declining. EVAR should be considered the first-line intervention for the appropriate patient unstable with an rAAA.

In-hospital outcomes of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: A single center experience

Introduction: Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA) is a catastrophic condition with in-hospital mortalities up to 89%. Patient survival depends on multiple factors; however, prompt surgery is essential to prevent mortality. We report the in-hospital outcomes of RAAA at a high-volume and teaching vascular surgery center in Iran.

Methods: This study is a single-center retrospective analysis of patients with infrarenal RAAA during February 20, 2012 to December 21, 2019 at Shohada-Tajrish Medical Center, Tehran,Iran. We identified 66 patients with RAAA during the study period. The patients were dividedinto two groups based on their transfer status (Transfer group versus non-transfer group). The primary outcome was in-hospital death. The secondary outcomes were in-hospital myocardial infarction (MI), abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) and postoperative renal dysfunction requiring dialysis.

Results: The mean age of the patients was 74.2 ± 8.3 years. Forty-seven patients (71.2%) were transferred to our center from other institutions. There were 46 in-hospital deaths (69.7%) and three in-hospital MIs (4.5%). Three patients (4.5%) had postoperative ACS and six patients (9.1%)had postoperative renal dysfunction requiring dialysis. Transfer patients had an increased rate of in-hospital death compared to non-transferred patients (76.6.1% versus 52.6%); however, the difference was not statistically significant (P =0.055).

Conclusion: We found no significant different between operative mortality of transferred and non-transferred RAAA patients. Transfer of patients to tertiary centers with experienced vascular surgeons may delay the surgery. However, the transfer may be inevitable in areas where the optimal care of RAAA patients is not possible.