Comparison of open and endovascular repair of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Fenestrated and Chimney/Snorkel Techniques for Endovascular Repair of Juxtarenal Aortic Aneurysms

OBJECTIVES

Comparative effectiveness of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) and chimney graft endovascular aneurysm repair (ChEVAR) for juxtarenal aortic aneurysms (JAAs) remains unclear. Our objective was to identify and analyze the current body of evidence comparing the effectiveness of both techniques for JAA.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of FEVAR and ChEVAR for JAA repair. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Register for Controlled Trials from January 1, 1990, for randomized and non-randomized studies assessing outcomes of FEVAR and ChEVAR for JAA repair. Screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development, and Evaluations) certainty of evidence were performed in duplicate. Data were pooled statistically where possible.

RESULTS

Nine retrospective cohort studies comparing the use of FEVAR and ChEVAR for juxtarenal aneurysm were included for meta-analysis. The FEVAR and ChEVAR arms of the meta-analysis consisted of 726 participants and 518 participants, respectively. There were 598 (86.8%) and 332 (81.6%) men in each arm. The mean diameter was larger in the ChEVAR arm (59 mm vs 52.5 mm). Both techniques had similar rates of postoperative 30-day mortality, 3.38% (8/237) versus 3.52% (8/227), acute kidney injury, 16.76% (31/185) versus 17.31% (18/104), and major adverse cardiac events, 7.30% (46/630) versus 6.60% (22/333). The meta-analysis supported the use of FEVAR for most outcomes, with significant advantage for technical success (odds ratio [OR]: 3.24, 95% CI: 1.24-8.42) and avoidance of type 1 endoleak (OR: 5.76, 95% CI: 1.94-17.08), but a disadvantage for spinal cord ischemia (OR: 10.21, 95% CI: 1.21-86.11), which had a very low number of events. The quality of evidence was "moderate" for most outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Both endovascular techniques had good safety profiles. The evidence does not support superiority of either FEVAR or ChEVAR for JAA.

CLINICAL IMPACT

While lack of equipoise has hampered the design of randomised trials of open versus endovascular repair of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms, concern about the durability of endovascular repair highlights the need for stronger evidence of the comparative efficacy of endovascular techniques. This review performed meta-analysis and evidence appraisal of recent data from large observational studies comparing fenestrated and chimney techniques, using a comprehensive outcome set. Superiority of either intervention could not be established due to differences in participants' baseline risk in each study arm. However, data suggests that both techniques are safe and suitable for use when indicated.

Chimney Versus Fenestrated Endovascular Versus Open Repair for Juxta/Pararenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of the Short-term Results

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to compare the short-term results of fenestrated endovascular repair (FEVAR), chimney endovascular repair (ChEVAR), and open surgery (OS) for patients with juxta/pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (JAAA/PAAA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science were searched from inception to 1 July 2022. Any comparative studies investigating the results of two or three treatment strategies (ChEVAR, FEVAR, or OS) on clinical outcomes for patients with JAAA/PAAA were included. Analysed outcomes were 30-day mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and bowel ischaemia (BI).

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies with 8853 patients were included in the analysis. FEVAR (OR = 0.58, 95%CrI 0.36-0.82) and ChEVAR (OR = 0.56, 95%CrI 0.28-1.02) were associated with lower 30-day mortality than OS. FEVAR (OR = 0.54, 95%CrI 0.33-0.85) was associated with lower risk of AKI than OS. FEVAR (OR = 0.43, 95%CrI 0.20-0.89) and ChEVAR (OR = 0.34, 95%CrI 0.10-0.93) compared to OS were associated with lower rates of BI. FEVAR (OR = 0.67, 95%CrI 0.49-0.90) and ChEVAR (OR = 0.61, 95%CrI 0.35-1.02) were associated with lower 30-day MACE risk than OS. FEVAR was associated with a higher rate of SCI compared to OS (OR = 4.90, 95%CrI 1.55-19.17).

CONCLUSION

We found a clear benefit for FEVAR and ChEVAR versus OS in terms of reduced 30-day mortality, BI, and MACE, as well as AKI for FEVAR. This suggests that higher-risk patients might benefit from endovascular treatment of JAAA/PAAA; however, should be applied in clinical practice with caution, since long-term outcomes were outside of the scope of this review.

Endovascular Repair Versus Open Surgical Repair for Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the short and long-term outcomes of endovascular repair (ER) versus open surgical repair (OSR) for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAs), using propensity-matched and non-propensity-matched methods.

METHODS

PubMed, OVID, Embase, ELSEVIER and Cochrane library were searched for the studies that compared ER versus OSR for CAAAs from January 1999 to December 2020. CAAAs were defined as short neck, juxtarenal, pararenal and suprarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, 30-day reintervention, medium and long-term survival. We pooled outcomes of original studies and also performed subgroup analyses using RevMan. The analysis of statistical heterogeneity was performed with STATA 16.0.

RESULTS

21 studies with 12049 patients (3847 ERs, 8202 OSRs) were included in this meta-analysis. In general, the patients undergoing ER were significantly older and likely to be man; more common with diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, renal failure, but smaller aortic aneurysms. In the non-propensity-matched subgroup analysis of ER versus OSR, ER was associated with significantly decreased 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-0.74; P＜.001; I²=4%) and 30-day reintervention (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.40-0.87; P = .007; I²=56%); lower rate of long-term survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.21-2.47; P = .002; I²=0%); less perioperative comorbidities including myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, acute kidney injury, permanent dialysis, wound complications, bowel ischemia; and shorter hospital length of stay. In the propensity-matched subgroup, ER was associated with poorer long-term survival (HR: 1.80; 95% CI: 1.06-3.06; P = .03; I²=0%), higher incidences of lower extremity ischemia (OR: 12.25; 95% CI: 1.54-97.48; P = .02; I²=16%) and renal artery restenosis (OR: 7.63; 95% CI: 1.35-43.24; P = .02). However, there was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 0.65-2.66; P = .45; I²=0%), 30-day reintervention (OR: 1.58; 95% CI: 0.62-4.03; P = .34; I²=26%), mid-term survival (HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.30-3.56; P = .96; I²=0%) between ER and OSR groups.

CONCLUSION

Our analyses suggest that OSR of CAAAs, compared with ER, is associated with improved long-term survival without increasing of perioperative deaths. ER may be considered in the patients who are high-risk for open repair.

The role of surgical and total endovascular techniques in the treatment of ruptured juxtarenal aortic aneurysms

Background: Ruptured juxtarenal aortic aneurysms (RJAAA) represent a special challenge in clinical practice, but the evidence to guide therapeutic decision-making is scarce. The aim of this study was to present two different approaches, open surgical (OAR) and chimney endovascular repair (CHEVAR), for treating patients with RJAAA. Patients and methods: This retrospective two-center study included all patients per center undergoing OAR or CHEVAR for RJAAA between February 2008 and January 2020. Juxtarenal aortic aneurysms were defined as having an infrarenal neck of 2-5 mm, measured after three-dimensional reconstruction of the computed tomography angiography scan. Results: 12 OAR patients (10 male, median age 73 years [58-90 years]) and 6 CHEVAR patients (all male, median age 74 years [59-83 years]) were included. In the OAR group, the proximal aortic clamping was suprarenal in 7 and interrenal in 5 patients. Cold renal perfusion was used in 4 patients, in 2 with suprarenal aortic clamping and in 2 with interrenal aortic clamping. 3 CHEVAR patients received a single renal chimney, the other 3 received double renal chimneys. Technical success was 12/12 in the OAR group 5/6 in the CHEVAR group. In-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality were 3/12 after OAR and 0/6 after CHEVAR. 2 OAR patients required transient dialysis. Median in-hospital stay was 14 (10-63) and 8 (6-21) days and median follow-up (FU) was 20 (3-37) and 30 (7-101) months, respectively. No further deaths occurred during FU. One OAR patient and 4 CHEVAR patients required aortic reinterventions. Conclusions: RJAAAs are rare. Both OAR and CHEVAR can represent adequate treatments for RJAAAs. OAR is the traditional approach, but CHEVAR has - in a high-volume center - promising early results with nonetheless a need for continuous FU to prevent reinterventions. Defining the studied aortic pathology precisely is essential for future research in order to draw valid conclusions.