Myocardial Damage in High-risk Patients Undergoing Elective Endovascular or Open Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Prognostic value of extended cardiac risk assessment before elective open abdominal aortic surgery

BACKGROUND

Major vascular surgery is associated with a high perioperative risk and significant mortality. Despite advances in risk stratification, monitoring, and management of perioperative complications, cardiac complications are still common. Stress echocardiography is well established in coronary artery disease diagnostics; however, its prognostic value before high-risk aortic surgery is unknown. This prospective, single-center study compared the outcome of patients undergoing extended cardiac risk assessment before open abdominal aortic surgery with the outcome of patients who had received standard preoperative assessment.

METHODS

The study included patients undergoing elective open abdominal aortic surgery. Patients who underwent standard preoperative assessment before the start of a dedicated protocol were compared with patients who had extended cardiac risk assessment, including dobutamine stress echocardiography, as part of a stepwise interdisciplinary cardiovascular team approach. The combined primary endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, emergency coronary revascularization, and life-threatening arrhythmia within 30 days. The secondary endpoint was acute renal failure and severe bleeding.

RESULTS

In total, 77 patients (mean age 68.1 ± 8.1 years, 70% male) were included: 39 underwent standard and 38 underwent cardiac risk assessment. The combined primary endpoint was reached significantly more often in patients before than after implementation of the extended cardiac stratification procedure (15% vs. 0%, p = 0.025). The combined secondary endpoint did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with extended cardiac risk assessment undergoing elective open abdominal aortic surgery had better 30-day outcomes than did those who had standard preoperative assessment.

Prognostic value of left ventricular systolic function before vascular surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Vascular surgery carries a high risk of post-operative cardiac complications. Recent studies have shown an association between asymptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction and increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). This systematic review aims to evaluate the prognostic value of left ventricular function as determined by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) measured by resting echocardiography before vascular surgery.

METHODS

This review conformed to PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. PubMed, OVID Medline and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to 27 October 2022. Eligible studies assessed vascular surgery patients, with multivariable-adjusted or propensity-matched observational studies measuring LVEF via resting echocardiography and providing risk estimates for outcomes. The primary outcomes measures were all-cause mortality and congestive heart failure at 30 days. Secondary outcome included the composite outcome MACE.

RESULTS

Ten observational studies were included (4872 vascular surgery patients). Studies varied widely in degree of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, symptom status, and outcome reporting, precluding reliable meta-analysis. Available data demonstrated a trend towards increased incidence of all-cause mortality, congestive heart failure and MACE in patients with pre-operative LVEF <50%. Methodological quality of the included studies was found to be of moderate quality according to the Newcastle Ottawa Checklist.

CONCLUSION

The evidence surrounding the prognostic value of LVEF measurement before vascular surgery is currently weak and inconclusive. Larger scale, prospective studies are required to further refine cardiac risk prediction before vascular surgery.

Mid-Term Survival and Risk Factors Associated With Myocardial Injury After Fenestrated and/or Branched Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

Myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS) is an independent predictor of post-operative mortality in non-cardiac surgery patients and may increase health costs. Few data are available for MINS in vascular surgery patients, in general, and those undergoing fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repairs (F/BEVAR), in particular. The incidence of MINS after F/BEVAR, the associated risk factors, and prognosis have not been determined. The aim of the present study was to help fill these knowledge gaps.

METHODS

A single centre, retrospective study was carried out at a high volume F/BEVAR centre in a university hospital. Adult patients who underwent F/BEVAR between October 2010 and December 2018 were included. A high sensitivity troponin T (HsTnT) assay was performed daily in the first few post-operative days. MINS was defined as a HsTnT level ≥ 14 ng/L (MINS₁₄) or ≥ 20 ng/L (MINS₂₀). After assessment of the incidence of MINS, survival up to two years was estimated in a Kaplan-Meier analysis and the groups were compared according to MINS status. A secondary aim was to identify predictors of MINS.

RESULTS

Of the 387 included patients, 240 (62.0%) had MINS₁₄ and 166 (42.9%) had MINS₂₀. In multivariable Cox models, both conditions were significantly associated with poor two year survival (MINS14: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10 - 4.19; MINS₂₀: aHR 2.43, 95% CI 1.36 - 4.34). In a multivariable logistic regression, age, revised cardiac risk index, duration of surgery, pre-operative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and haemoglobin level were independent predictors of MINS.

CONCLUSION

After F/BEVAR surgery, the incidence of MINS was particularly high, regardless of the definition considered (MINS₁₄ or MINS₂₀). MINS was significantly associated with poor two year survival. The modifiable predictors identified were duration of surgery, eGFR, and haemoglobin level.

Pre-operative stress testing in the evaluation of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Pre-operative stress testing is widely used to evaluate patients for non-cardiac surgeries. However, its value in predicting peri-operative mortality is uncertain. The objective of this study is to assess the type and quality of available evidence in a comprehensive and statistically rigorous evaluation regarding the effectiveness of pre-operative stress testing in reducing 30-day post -operative mortality following non -cardiac surgery.

Methods

The databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases (from inception to January 27, 2016) were searched for all studies in English. We included studies with pre-operative stress testing prior to 10 different non-cardiac surgery among adults and excluded studies with sample size<15. The data on study characteristics, methodology and outcomes were extracted independently by two observers and checked by two other observers. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. We performed random effects meta-analysis to estimate relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) in two-group comparison and pooled the rates for stress test alone. Heterogeneity was assessed using I² and methodological quality of studies using Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The predefined protocol was registered in PROSPERO #CRD42016049212.

Results

From 1807 abstracts, 79 studies were eligible (297,534 patients): 40 had information on 30-day mortality, of which 6 studies compared stress test versus no stress test. The risk of 30-day mortality was not significant in the comparison of stress testing versus none (RR: 0.79, 95% CI = 0.35–1.80) along with weak evidence for heterogeneity. For the studies that evaluated stress testing without a comparison group, the pooled rates are 1.98% (95% CI = 1.25–2.85) with a high heterogeneity. There was evidence of potential publication bias and small study effects.

Conclusions

Despite substantial interest and research over the past 40 years to predict 30-day mortality risk among patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery, the current body of evidence is insufficient to derive a definitive conclusion as to whether stress testing leads to reduced peri-operative mortality.

Open versus endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: Incidence of cardiovascular events in 632 patients in a department of defense cohort over 6-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is common with unacceptably high rates of mortality and morbidity with unknown rates of complications after repair in the Department of Defense (DoD).

METHODS

All patients treated at a DOD or VA clinic or medical facility with a diagnosis of AAA identified by ICD-9 code search were identified by Patient Administration Systems and Biostatistics Activity (PASBA) using the Standard Inpatient Data Record (SIDR) and Composite Ambulatory Patient Encounter Record (CAPER) from January 2006 till December 2011. The primary outcome was death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and cardiac arrhythmia between subjects who underwent endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) or open aortic repair (OAR).

RESULTS

A total of 8314 patients were screened to identify 632 patients who underwent surgical repair of non-ruptured AAA. EVAR was performed in 497 patients (78.6%) and OAR in 135 patients (21.4%). Mortality at 30 days was less common in EVAR patients (1.6% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.004), but was not sustained (16.9% vs. 17.8%, p = 0.797). Mean survival free from mortality was not different between the two groups (EVAR vs. OAR: 6.14 ± 0.13 years vs. 6.11 ± 0.22 years, p = 0.378). The composite endpoint of MI, stroke, arrhythmia, or death was not different between groups at 30 days (EVAR vs. OAR: 12.9% vs. 14.1%, p = 0.774) or in long-term follow-up population (EVAR vs. OAR: 40.6% vs. 31.9%, p = 0.073) though there was a trend toward higher event rates in the EVAR. The composite endpoint of MI, stroke, and arrhythmia occurred in 198 patients (31%).

CONCLUSION

EVAR was associated with lower 30-day mortality rates; however, this benefit was not sustained in longer-term follow-up. There is no difference in the rates of stroke, myocardial infarction, or cardiac arrhythmia at 30 days or in long-term follow-up.

The anesthesia in abdominal aortic surgery (ABSENT) study: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing troponin T release with fentanyl-sevoflurane and propofol-remifentanil anesthesia in major vascular surgery

BACKGROUND

On the basis of data indicating that volatile anesthetics induce cardioprotection in cardiac surgery, current guidelines recommend volatile anesthetics for maintenance of general anesthesia during noncardiac surgery in hemodynamic stable patients at risk for perioperative myocardial ischemia. The aim of the current study was to compare increased troponin T (TnT) values in patients receiving sevoflurane-based anesthesia or total intravenous anesthesia in elective abdominal aortic surgery.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, open, parallel-group trial comparing sevoflurane-based anesthesia (group S) and total intravenous anesthesia (group T) with regard to cardioprotection in 193 patients scheduled for elective abdominal aortic surgery. Increased TnT level on the first postoperative day was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were postoperative complications, nonfatal coronary events and mortality.

RESULTS

On the first postoperative day increased TnT values (>13 ng/l) were found in 43 (44%) patients in group S versus 41 (43%) in group T (P = 0.999), with no significant differences in TnT levels between the groups at any time point. Although underpowered, the authors found no differences in postoperative complications, nonfatal coronary events or mortality between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In elective abdominal aortic surgery sevoflurane-based anesthesia did not reduce myocardial injury, evaluated by TnT release, compared with total intravenous anesthesia. These data indicate that potential cardioprotective effects of volatile anesthetics found in cardiac surgery are less obvious in major vascular surgery.

Preoperative cardiac evaluation of the vascular surgery patient--an anesthesia perspective

The morbidity and mortality associated with vascular surgery procedures are largely the results of cardiac events. National guidelines have been regularly proposed and updated by the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) to ensure optimal perioperative management and risk stratification. Controversy remains between experts and other cardiology societies regarding several patient care issues including revascularization before surgery, timing of β-blocker therapy, and the administration of antiplatelet therapy. Several landmark articles recently published have helped to modify the guidelines in the hope of improving vascular patient outcomes. In this review, we searched all recent available literature pertaining to perioperative cardiac evaluation before major vascular surgery. We propose an algorithm for preoperative cardiac evaluation, which is a modification to the AHA recommendations. Incorporated in this algorithm are recent published pivotal articles that can help in guiding physicians caring for the vascular patient requiring major operative or endovascular interventions.

Perioperative cardiac damage in vascular surgery patients

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing vascular surgery are at increased risk for developing cardiac complications. Majority of patients with perioperative myocardial damage are asymptomatic. Our objective is to review the available literature addressing the prevalence and prognostic implications of perioperative myocardial damage in vascular surgery patients.

METHODS

An Internet-based literature search was performed using MEDLINE to identify all published reports on perioperative myocardial damage in vascular surgery patients. Only those studies published from 2000 to 2010 evaluating myocardial damage using troponin I or T, with or without symptoms of angina pectoris were included.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies evaluating the prevalence of perioperative myocardial ischaemia or infarction were included in the study. The incidence of perioperative myocardial ischaemia ranged from 14% to 47% and the incidence of perioperative myocardial infarction ranged from 1% to 26%. In addition, 10 studies evaluating the prognostic value of perioperative myocardial ischaemia towards postoperative mortality or the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events were included. In the retrieved studies, hazard ratios varied from 1.9 to 9.0.

CONCLUSION

The high prevalence and asymptomatic nature of perioperative myocardial damage, combined with a substantial influence on postoperative mortality of vascular surgery patients, underline the importance of early detection and adequate management of perioperative myocardial damage. This article provides an extended overview regarding the prevalence and prognostic value of perioperative myocardial ischaemia and infarction in vascular surgery patients. In addition, treatment options to reduce the risk of perioperative myocardial damage are provided based on the current available literature.

Revised Cardiac Risk Index (Lee) and perioperative cardiac events as predictors of long-term mortality in patients undergoing endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

To determine if the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (Lee) is useful for stratification of patients by risk of both perioperative cardiac morbidity and long-term all-cause mortality in the setting of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

DESIGN

This study was designed as a retrospective review.

SETTING

It was conducted at a single academic medical institution.

PARTICIPANTS

The analysis included 225 patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms admitted to the authors' institution from 1999 to 2006.

INTERVENTIONS

All patients underwent endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Data were collected from medical records, office charts, and physician quality-assurance databases. There were no in-hospital cardiac deaths. The major adverse cardiac event rate in the perioperative period was 6.2%. Long-term all-cause mortality was 23%. Univariate analysis showed that a history of coronary artery disease (CAD) (likelihood ratio [LR] = 8.7, p = 0.023), history of congestive heart failure (LR = 4, p = 0.042), and a Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) > or =3 (LR = 8.6, p = 0.004) were significant predictors for perioperative major adverse cardiac events. A history of CAD (LR = 10.7, p = 0.002), echocardiographic evidence of myocardial infarction (LR = 8.5, p = 0.006), exercise tolerance of only 1 block (LR = 8.4, p = 0.005), RCRI > or =3 (LR = 5.6, p = 0.022), and perioperative cardiac events (LR = 15.9, p < 0.0001) were significantly associated with long-term all-cause mortality. Perioperative cardiac events remained highly significant in predicting long-term mortality within the RCRI > or =3 subgroup (LR = 6.1, p = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study confirm that long-term mortality remains high after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. The Lee index may be a useful tool for stratification of high-risk patients from both a short- and long-term perspective in the setting of endoluminal graft repair.

Long-term cardiac outcome in high-risk patients undergoing elective endovascular or open infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVES

To assess long-term outcome of patients at high cardiac risk undergoing endovascular or open AAA repair.

METHODS

Patients undergoing open or endovascular infrarenal AAA repair with >or=3 cardiac risk factors and preoperative cardiac stress testing (DSE) at 2 university hospitals were studied. Main outcome was cardiac event free and overall survival. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the influence of type of AAA repair on long-term outcome.

RESULTS

In 124 patients (55 endovascular, 69 open) the number and type of cardiac risk factors, medication use and DSE results were similar in both groups. In multivariable analysis, adjusting for cardiac risk factors, stress test results, medication use, and propensity score endovascular repair was associated with improved cardiac event free survival (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.30-0.98) but not with an overall survival benefit (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.37-1.46). Importantly, statin therapy was associated with both improved overall survival (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.21-0.83) and cardiac event free survival (HR 0.45; 95% CI 0.23-0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

The perioperative cardiac benefit of endovascular AAA repair in high cardiac risk patients is sustained during long-term follow-up provided patients are on optimal medical therapy but it is not associated with improved overall long-term survival.