Locoregional Anesthesia Offers Improved Outcomes after Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Endovascular Aortic Balloon control versus open Aortic cross Clamp in open ruptured abdominal Aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

To determine 30-day mortality of endovascular aortic balloon control compared with open aortic cross clamp in open surgical repair (OSR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort review was performed of all adult patients who underwent OSR of an infrarenal rAAA between 2001 and 2018 at a single tertiary care center. A total of 174 patients were identified, of which 21 patients received endovascular aortic balloon control and 137 patients received an open aortic cross clamp. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Two-variable multivariate logistic regression was adjusted for preoperative blood pressure and age.

RESULTS

Endovascular aortic balloon control was nonsignificantly associated with lower mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24 to 2.38), P = 0.63), and when placed under local anesthesia showed a trend toward improved mortality (adjusted OR = 0.34 (95%CI 0.06 to 1.77), P = 0.19). Balloon placement under general anesthesia was nonsignificantly associated with worse mortality (adjusted OR = 2.50 (95%CI 0.35 to 9.13), P = 0.46).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no significant difference in mortality with the use of endovascular aortic balloon control in rAAA patients undergoing OSR, and it may be considered as an alternative approach to open aortic cross clamp in properly selected 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.

Local versus general anesthesia for endovascular aneurysm repair in ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND

In the endovascular treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA), there is no effective evidence to show preference for a specific anesthetic option. A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the result of different anesthesia in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of RAAA.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies were searched in PubMed, Embase, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool were applied to evaluate the quality of cohort studies and RCTs, respectively. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to express differences for primary and secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were applied in the primary outcome to illustrate the results further. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Random-effects models were used considering limited research regardless of I²  < 50%.

RESULTS

Ten cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. Perioperative mortality was presented as the primary outcome by analyzing eight of these research. Among the included patients, local anesthesia (LA) was considered as a better choice considering perioperative mortality (n = 156/902) rather than general anesthesia (n = 907/3434) with significant difference (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.35-0.67; p < 0.00001; I²  = 42%). However, no significant difference was found in the secondary outcome: the complication rate, ICU admission rate, postoperative morbidity of pneumonia, myocardial infarction, leg ischemia, and wound complication.

CONCLUSIONS

There exists some evidence in this review that LA appears to improve perioperative mortality, especially in hemodynamically stable patients and should be recommended for patients undergoing EVAR with RAAA when appropriate.

Percutaneous EVAR for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Using the Cordis INCRAFT Endograft

OBJECTIVES

Low profile endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) devices such as the Cordis INCRAFT AAA Stent Graft System may expand the category of patients suitable for endovascular repair. We report our experience with the INCRAFT system in treating ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA).

METHODS

We included all patients presenting with rAAA from 2015 to 2019 in our hospital who were treated by percutaneous EVAR with the INCRAFT system. The primary outcome was technical success, referring to adequate stent graft placement. Secondary outcomes included completion of the procedure under local anesthesia and mortality at 30-days, one year and long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

Fifteen male patients (mean age: 74 years, SD 6.7) were treated for rAAA with a median aneurysm diameter of 8.25 cm (SD 1.66). The device was successfully delivered and deployed in all subjects. Per-procedurally one type I endoleak required additional stent placement and one patient developed an acute thrombosis of the device main body and iliac limbs requiring thrombectomy. 80.0% of patients were successfully treated under local anesthesia only. The 30 day and one year mortality were 26.6% and 33.3% respectively. Long-term survival was 60.0% at a median follow-up period of 57 months, with two patients requiring late reintervention for an endoleak.

CONCLUSIONS

The INCRAFT system can be used to percutaneously treat rAAA with a high technical success rate and mortality similar to reported in the literature for other devices. The large majority of procedures can be completed with only local anesthesia.

Percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with monitored anesthesia care decreases operative time but not pulmonary complications

OBJECTIVES

To report our experience and compare the results of percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (PEVAR) performed under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) to PEVAR under general anesthesia (GA).

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent non-emergency endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) was completed. Patients were excluded if they had a complex repair, including fenestrated, branched, or parallel endografting. Demographics, operative data, 30-day mortality/morbidity and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 159 patients were identified with a median age of 69. 115 patients had PEVAR, 45 (39.1%) PEVAR MAC and 70 (60.9%) PEVAR GA. PEVAR MAC compared to PEVAR GA had decreased operative time (106 vs. 134 min, P < 0.001), time in the operating room (163 vs. 245 min, P = 0.016), and estimated blood loss (EBL) (115 vs. 176 mL P = 0.012). There was no statistically significant difference in the hospital length of stay (LOS) (1.9 vs. 2.7 days, P = 0.133), and post-operative complications including pulmonary (2.2 vs. 2.9%, P = 0.835). Forty-four patients had EVAR with a femoral cutdown (FC), including 14 PEVAR conversions. PEVAR conversion was associated with higher EBL (543 vs. 323 mL, P = 0.03), operative time (230 vs. 178 min, P = 0.01), and operating room time (307 vs. 275 min, P = 0.01) compared to planned EVAR with FC.

CONCLUSIONS

PEVAR under MAC is associated with shorter time in the operating room compared to PEVAR under GA. PEVAR under MAC does however not decrease overall morbidities, including postoperative pulmonary complications.

A meta-analysis of locoregional anesthesia versus general anesthesia in endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a meta-analytic review of studies investigating the effect of the anesthesia modality on perioperative mortality in endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (REVAR).

METHODS

The present meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Multiple electronic databases were comprehensively searched from database inception to January 2020. Eligible studies included cohort studies that reported the 30-day/in-hospital mortality rate or the multivariate adjusted odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio of the mortality risk for patients who underwent emergency REVAR under locoregional anesthesia (LA) vs general anesthesia (GA). A random effects model was used to estimate the ORs by pooling the related data from individual studies.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies were included in this analysis. The first meta-analysis of seven studies that reported the 30-day/in-hospital mortality with a total of 3116 patients (867 in the LA group and 2249 in the GA group) revealed that LA was associated with a lower 30-day/in-hospital mortality than GA (16.4% vs 25.4%; unadjusted OR, 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.68). The second meta-analysis of three of these seven studies (including 586 patients in the LA group and 1945 in the GA group) that reported the perioperative variables revealed comparable baseline characteristics but a lower 30-day/in-hospital mortality in the LA group (unadjusted OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.42-0.71). The third meta-analysis of the adjusted ORs or hazard ratios that were reported from four studies (including 501 patients in the LA group and 1136 in the GA group) showed a similar trend (adjusted OR,0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

REVAR under LA is associated with a lower 30-day/in-hospital mortality than REVAR under GA. However, because the included studies may have had some observation bias, further randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate the present results.