Mid-term Outcomes following Emergency Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Abdominal Compartment Syndrome-When Is Surgical Decompression Needed?

Compartment syndrome occurs when increased pressure inside a closed anatomical space compromises tissue perfusion. The sudden increase in pressure inside these spaces requires rapid decompression by means of surgical intervention. In the case of abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS), surgical decompression consists of a laparostomy. The aim of this review is to identify the landmarks and indications for the appropriate moment to perform decompression laparotomy in patients with ACS based on available published data. A targeted literature review was conducted on indications for decompression laparotomy in ACS. The search was focused on three conditions characterized by a high ACS prevalence, namely acute pancreatitis, ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm and severe burns. There is still a debate around the clinical characteristics which require surgical intervention in ACS. According to the limited data published from observational studies, laparotomy is usually performed when intra-abdominal pressure reaches values ranging from 25 to 36 mmHg on average in the case of acute pancreatitis. In cases of a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, there is a higher urgency to perform decompression laparotomy for ACS due to the possibility of continuous hemorrhage. The most conflicting recommendations on whether surgical treatment should be delayed in favor of other non-surgical interventions come from studies involving patients with severe burns. The results of the review must be interpreted in the context of the limited available robust data from observational studies and clinical trials.

Time-to-event data meta-analysis of late outcomes of endovascular versus open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

We investigated whether the well-documented perioperative survival advantage of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair would be sustained during follow-up.

METHODS

A systematic review conforming to the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) statement standards was conducted to identify studies that had reported the follow-up outcomes of endovascular vs open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Electronic bibliographic sources (MEDLINE [medical literature analysis and retrieval system online], Embase [Excerpta Medica database], CINAHL [cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature], and CENTRAL [Cochrane central register of controlled trials]) were interrogated using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, United Kingdom). A time-to-event data meta-analysis was performed using the inverse variance method, and the results were reported as summary hazard ratios (HRs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Mixed effects regression was applied to investigate the outcome changes over time. The quality of the body of evidence was appraised using the GRADE (grades of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation) system.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials and 22 observational studies reporting a total of 31,383 patients were included in the quantitative synthesis. The mean follow-up duration across the studies ranged from 232 days to 4.9 years. The overall all-cause mortality was significantly lower after EVAR than after open repair (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.86). However, the postdischarge all-cause mortality was not significantly different (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.85-1.43). The aneurysm-related mortality, which was reported by one randomized controlled trial, was not significantly different between EVAR and open repair (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.15). Meta-regression showed the mortality difference in favor of EVAR was more pronounced in more recent studies (P = .069) and recently treated patients (P = .062). The certainty for the body of evidence for overall and postdischarge all-cause mortality was judged to be low and that for aneurysm-related mortality to be high.

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR showed a sustained mortality benefit during follow-up compared with open repair. A wider adoption of an endovascular-first strategy is justified.

Abdominal compartment syndrome after r-EVAR: a systematic review with meta-analysis on incidence and mortality

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular aneurysm repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (r-EVAR) sometimes complicates with abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) due to extensive retroperitoneal hematoma, with significant prognostic implications. This systematic review aimed to analyze the incidence of the syndrome and assess the impact of ACS on mortality. Mortality after decompressive laparotomy was also assessed.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Two databases were searched: Medline and Web of Science. The search was conducted through October 2019. The titles and abstracts of the retrieved articles were independently reviewed. All studies reporting on the ACS incidence after r-EVAR were initially included. From each study, eligibility was determined and descriptive, methodological, and outcome data was extracted. The incidence was calculated with summary proportion. Odds ratio was used to compare the mortality rate. Meta-analysis was performed with fixed effect model when calculating the ACS incidence in r-EVAR patients and when assessing the impacts of ACS and DL in the mortality rate.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 46 studies were included, with a cumulative cohort of 3064 patients. Two hundred and fifty-two (8.2%) patients developed ACS. The ACS pooled incidence was 9% with a 95% confidence interval of [0.08; 0.11]. Among the 46 included studies, 19 studies reported data on the mortality rate, corresponding to 1825 of the 3064 patients. Of these, 169 (9.3%) had developed ACS and 94 (55.6%) of them died by multi organ failure. Among the 1656 patients without ACS, 328 died (19.8%). The mortality odds ratio meta-analysis was 6.25 with a 95% confidence interval of [4.44, 8.80]. Decompressive laparotomy was performed in 41 patients, decreasing mortality in 47%.

CONCLUSIONS

ACS affects approximately 9% of patients submitted to r-EVAR, and significantly increases perioperative mortality. Close postoperative surveillance to clinical signs of ACS is vital in these patients.

Strategy of endovascular versus open repair for patients with clinical diagnosis of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: the IMPROVE RCT

BACKGROUND

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a common vascular emergency. The mortality from emergency endovascular repair may be much lower than the 40-50% reported for open surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether or not a strategy of endovascular repair compared with open repair reduces 30-day and mid-term mortality (including costs and cost-effectiveness) among patients with a suspected ruptured AAA.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial, with computer-generated telephone randomisation of participants in a 1 : 1 ratio, using variable block size, stratified by centre and without blinding.

SETTING

Vascular centres in the UK (n = 29) and Canada (n = 1) between 2009 and 2013.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 613 eligible participants (480 men) with a ruptured aneurysm, clinically diagnosed at the trial centre.

INTERVENTIONS

A total of 316 participants were randomised to the endovascular strategy group (immediate computerised tomography followed by endovascular repair if anatomically suitable or, if not suitable, open repair) and 297 were randomised to the open repair group (computerised tomography optional).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was 30-day mortality, with 30-day reinterventions, costs and disposal as early secondary outcome measures. Later outcome measures included 1- and 3-year mortality, reinterventions, quality of life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

The 30-day mortality was 35.4% in the endovascular strategy group and 37.4% in the open repair group [odds ratio (OR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.28; p = 0.62, and, after adjustment for age, sex and Hardman index, OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.33]. The endovascular strategy appeared to be more effective in women than in men (interaction test p = 0.02). More discharges in the endovascular strategy group (94%) than in the open repair group (77%) were directly to home (p < 0.001). Average 30-day costs were similar between groups, with the mean difference in costs being -£1186 (95% CI -£2997 to £625), favouring the endovascular strategy group. After 1 year, survival and reintervention rates were similar in the two groups, QoL (at both 3 and 12 months) was higher in the endovascular strategy group and the mean cost difference was -£2329 (95% CI -£5489 to £922). At 3 years, mortality was 48% and 56% in the endovascular strategy group and open repair group, respectively (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.00; p = 0.053), with a stronger benefit for the endovascular strategy in the subgroup of 502 participants in whom repair was started for a proven rupture (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89; p = 0.009), whereas aneurysm-related reintervention rates were non-significantly higher in this group. At 3 years, considering all participants, there was a mean difference of 0.174 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% CI 0.002 to 0.353 QALYs) and, among the endovascular strategy group, a cost difference of -£2605 (95% CI -£5966 to £702), leading to 88% of estimates in the cost-effectiveness plane being in the quadrant showing the endovascular strategy to be 'dominant'.

LIMITATIONS

Because of the pragmatic design of this trial, 33 participants in the endovascular strategy group and 26 in the open repair group breached randomisation allocation.

CONCLUSIONS

The endovascular strategy was not associated with a significant reduction in either 30-day mortality or cost but was associated with faster participant recovery. By 3 years, the endovascular strategy showed a survival and QALY gain and was highly likely to be cost-effective. Future research could include improving resuscitation for older persons with circulatory collapse, the impact of local anaesthesia and emergency consent procedures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48334791 and NCT00746122.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Endovascular repair versus open repair in the treatment of ruptured aortic aneurysms: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysm remains a fatal event in up to 65% of cases and emergency open surgery (ruptured open aneurysm repair or rOAR) has a great intraoperative mortality of about 30-50%. The introduction of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (ruptured endovascular aneurysm repair or rEVAR) has rapidly challenged the conventional approach to this catastrophic event. The purpose of this systematic review is to compare the outcomes of open surgical repair and endovascular interventions.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature search was performed using Medline, Scopus, and Science Direct from August 2010 to March 2017 using keywords identified and agreed by the authors. Randomized trials, cohort studies, and case-report series were contemplated to give a breadth of clinical data.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Ninety-three studies were included in the final analysis. Thirty-five (50.7%) of the listed studies evaluating the within 30 days mortality rates deposed in favor of rEVAR, while the others (comprising all four included RCTs) failed detecting any difference. Late mortality rates were found to be lower in rEVAR group in seven on twenty-seven studies (25.9%), while one (3.7%) reported higher mortality rates following rEVAR performed before 2005, one found lower incidence of mortality at 6 months in the endovascular group but higher rates in the same population at 8 years of follow-up, and the remaining (66.7%) (including all three RCTs) failed finding any benefit of rEVAR on rOAR. A lower incidence of complications was reported by thirteen groups (46.4%), while other thirteen studies did not find any difference between rEVAR and rOAR. Each of these two conclusions was corroborated by one RCTs. Other two studies (7.2%) found higher rates of tracheostomies, myocardial infarction, and acute tubular necrosis or respiratory, urinary complications, and acute renal failure respectively in rOAR group. The majority of studies (59.0%, 72.7%, and 89.3%, respectively) and all RCTs found significantly lower rates of length of hospitalization, intensive care unit transfer, and blood loss with or without transfusion need in rEVAR group. The large majority of the studies did not specified neither the type nor the brands of employed stent grafts.

CONCLUSIONS

The bulk of evidence regarding the comparison between endovascular and open surgery approach to RAAA points to: 1) non-inferiority of rEVAR in terms of early (within 30 days) and late mortality as well as rate of complications and length of hospitalization, with trends of better outcomes associated to the endovascular approach; 2) significantly better outcomes in terms of intensive care unit transfer and blood loss with or without transfusion need in the rEVAR group. These conclusions reflect the results of the available RCTs included in the present review. Thus rEVAR can be considered a safe method in treating RAAA and we suggest that it should be preferred when technically feasible. However, more RCTs are needed in order to give strength of these evidences, bring to definite clinical recommendations regarding this subject, and assess the superiority (if present) of one or more brands of stent grafts over the others.

Endovascular repair versus open surgery in patients in the treatment of the ruptured of aneurysms abdominal

INTRODUCTION

Rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysm is still a difficult challenge for the vascular surgeon due to the high perioperative mortality. The aim of our study is to describe the characteristics of the population as well as to compare morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing open surgery or endovascular repair in our center.

METHODS

Database with 82 rAAA between January 2002-December 2014, studying two cohorts, open surgery and endovascular repair. Epidemiologic, clinical, surgical techniques, perioperative mortality and complications are analyzed.

RESULTS

82 rAAA cases were operated (men: 80, women: 2). Mean age 72±9.6 years. 76.8% (63 cases) was performed by open surgery.

BACKGROUND

smokers 59, 7%, alcoholism 19.5%, DM 10.9%, AHT: 53.6%, dyslipidemia 30.5%. The most frequent clinical presentation was abdominal pain with lumbar irradiation: 50 cases (20.7% associating syncope). Overall hospital mortality was 58.5%. Hemodynamic shock prior to intervention was associated with increased mortality (p <.001). Anemia, leukocytosis, aneurysm size, sex and age did not show a statistically significant difference with respect to mortality (p>.05). The presence of iliac aneurysms was associated with increased mortality (p <.0045). Perioperative mortality in endovascular repair was 42%, and in open surgery was 63.5% (p>.05). Hospital stay was lower in the endovascular group (p=.3859).

CONCLUSIONS

Hemodynamic shock and the presence of concomitant iliac aneurysms have a statistically significant association with perioperative mortality in both groups. We found clinically significant differences in mortality, complications and hospital stay when comparing both groups with better results for EVAR, without statistically significant differences.

Clinical outcomes of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms that underwent endovascular repair in a district general hospital

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of elective endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) in patients at a district general hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective clinical study was conducted using data on 16 patients with elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and nine patients with consecutive rAAA treated with EVAR from January 2010 to December 2014 in a district general hospital in Taiwan.

RESULTS

The preoperative characteristics of the two groups are listed. Thirty-six percent (9/25) of the patients were referred from other hospitals that did not offer surgical services. The percentage of patients with rAAA that were transferred from other hospitals was 55.5% (5/9). The stay durations in the intensive care unit for elective EVAR cases were shorter than those for emergent EVAR (1.75±1 d elective vs. 10±13.37 d emergent; P<0.019). The hospitalization days (11.06±4.07 d elective vs. 21.89±18.36 d emergent; P<0.031), operative time (183.63±57.24 min elective vs. 227.11±59.92 min emergent; P<0.009), and blood loss volumes (115.63±80.41 mL elective vs. 422.22±276.26 mL emergent; P<0.005) are shown; statistics for use of Perclose ProGlide(®) (7 cases elective vs. 0 case emergent; P<0.024) are compared. The overall 30-d mortality rate was 11.11% (1/9).

CONCLUSIONS

The results confirm that EVAR surgery can be safely performed in a district general hospital with an integrated health care system. Using Perclose ProGlide(®) for selected cases may reduce blood loss and operative time.

Endovascular vs. Open Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Background

Patients presenting with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms are most often treated with open repair despite the fact that endovascular aneurysm repair is a less invasive and widely accepted method with clear benefits for elective aortic aneurysm patients. A debate exists regarding the definitive benefit in endovascular repair for patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. The aim of this literature review was to determine if any trends exist in favor of either open or endovascular repair.

Material/Methods

A literature search was performed using PUBMED, OVID, and Google Scholar databases. The search yielded 64 publications.

Results

Out of 64 publications, 25 were retrospective studies, 12 were population-based, 21 were prospective, 5 were the results of RCTs, and 1 was a case-series. Sixty-one studies reported on early mortality and provided data comparing endovascular repair (rEVAR) and open repair (rOR) for ruptured abdominal aneurysm groups. Twenty-nine of these studies reported that rEVAR has a lower early mortality rate. Late mortality after rEVAR compared to that of rOR was reported in 21 studies for a period of 3 to 60 months. Results of 61.9% of the studies found no difference in late mortality rates between these 2 groups. Thirty-nine publications reported on the incidence of complications. Approximately half of these publications support that the rEVAR group has a lower complication rate and the other half found no difference between the groups. Length of hospital stay has been reported to be shorter for rEVAR in most studies. Blood loss and need for transfusion of either red cells or fresh frozen plasma was consistently lower in the rEVAR group.

Conclusions

Differences between the included publications affect the outcomes. Randomized control trials have not been able to provide clear conclusions. rEVAR can now be considered a safe method of treating rAAA, and is at least equal to the well-established rOR method.

Endovascular strategy or open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: one-year outcomes from the IMPROVE randomized trial

Aims

To report the longer term outcomes following either a strategy of endovascular repair first or open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, which are necessary for both patient and clinical decision-making.

Methods and results

This pragmatic multicentre (29 UK and 1 Canada) trial randomized 613 patients with a clinical diagnosis of ruptured aneurysm; 316 to an endovascular first strategy (if aortic morphology is suitable, open repair if not) and 297 to open repair. The principal 1-year outcome was mortality; secondary outcomes were re-interventions, hospital discharge, health-related quality-of-life (QoL) (EQ-5D), costs, Quality-Adjusted-Life-Years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness [incremental net benefit (INB)]. At 1 year, all-cause mortality was 41.1% for the endovascular strategy group and 45.1% for the open repair group, odds ratio 0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62, 1.17], P = 0.325, with similar re-intervention rates in each group. The endovascular strategy group and open repair groups had average total hospital stays of 17 and 26 days, respectively, P < 0.001. Patients surviving rupture had higher average EQ-5D utility scores in the endovascular strategy vs. open repair groups, mean differences 0.087 (95% CI 0.017, 0.158), 0.068 (95% CI −0.004, 0.140) at 3 and 12 months, respectively. There were indications that QALYs were higher and costs lower for the endovascular first strategy, combining to give an INB of £3877 (95% CI £253, £7408) or €4356 (95% CI €284, €8323).

Conclusion

An endovascular first strategy for management of ruptured aneurysms does not offer a survival benefit over 1 year but offers patients faster discharge with better QoL and is cost-effective.

Clinical trial registration

ISRCTN 48334791.

Epidemiology of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms in a well-defined Norwegian population with trends in incidence, intervention rate, and mortality

OBJECTIVE

Ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) represent both a life-threatening emergency for the affected patient and a considerable health burden globally. The aim of this study was to investigate the contemporary epidemiology of rAAA in a defined Norwegian population for which both hospital and autopsy data were available.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single-center population-based study of rAAA. The study includes all consecutively diagnosed prehospital and in-hospital cases of rAAA in the catchment area of Stavanger University Hospital between January 2000 and December 2012. Incidence and mortality rates (crude and adjusted) were calculated using national demographic data.

RESULTS

A total of 216 patients with primary rAAA were identified. The adjusted incidence rate for the study period was 11.0 per 100,000 per year (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.6-12.5). Twenty patients died out of the hospital, and 144 of the 196 patients (73%) admitted to the hospital underwent surgery. The intervention rate varied from 48% to 81% during the study period. The adjusted mortality rate was 7.5 per 100,000 per year (95% CI, 6.3-8.8). No differences in the incidence and mortality rates were found in comparing early and late periods. The 90-day standardized mortality ratio for the study period was 37.2 (95% CI, 31.6-43.7). The overall 90-day mortality was 68% (146 of 216 persons) and 51% (74 of 144 persons) for the patients treated for rAAA.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a stable incidence and mortality rate during a decade. The prehospital death rate was lower (9%), the intervention rate (73%) higher, and the total mortality (68%) lower than in most other studies. Geographic and regional differences may influence the epidemiologic description of rAAA and hence should be taken into consideration in comparing outcomes for in-hospital mortality and intervention rates.

Utility of simultaneous interventional radiology and operative surgery in a dedicated suite for seriously injured patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In recent years, combined interventional radiology and operative suites have been proposed and are now becoming operational in select trauma centres. Given the infancy of this technology, this review aims to review the rationale, benefits and challenges of hybrid suites in the management of seriously injured patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

No specific studies exist that investigate outcomes within hybrid trauma suites. Endovascular and interventional radiology techniques have been successfully employed in thoracic, abdominal, pelvic and extremity trauma. Although the association between delayed haemorrhage control and poorer patient outcomes is intuitive, most supporting scientific data are outdated. The hybrid suite model offers the potential to expedite haemorrhage control through synergistic operative, interventional radiology and resuscitative platforms. Maximizing the utility of these suites requires trained multidisciplinary teams, ergonomic and workplace considerations, as well as a fundamental paradigm shift of trauma care. This often translates into a more damage-control orientated philosophy.

SUMMARY

Hybrid suites offer tremendous potential to expedite haemorrhage control in trauma patients. Outcome evaluations from trauma units that currently have operational hybrid suites are required to establish clearer guidelines and criteria for patient management.

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.