Outcomes After Open Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in Patients with Friendly Versus Hostile Aortoiliac Anatomy

Comparison between endovascular aneurysm repair-selected and endovascular aneurysm repair-only strategies for the management of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: An 11-year experience at a Chinese tertiary hospital

Objectives

The aim of this study was to review our management experience of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAAs) using an endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR)-only strategy, and discuss the feasibility of this strategy.

Materials and methods

A retrospective analysis of clinical data was performed in patients with RAAAs from January 2009 to October 2020. Our strategy toward operative treatment for RAAAs evolved from an EVAR-selected (from January 2009 to April 2014) to an EVAR-only (from May 2014 to October 2020) strategy. Baseline characteristics, thirty-day mortality, perioperative complications, and long-term outcomes of patients were compared between the two periods.

Results

A total of 93 patients undergoing emergent RAAA repair were eventually included. The overall operation rate in RAAAs at our centre was 70.5% (93/132). In the EVAR-only period, all 53 patients underwent ruptured endovascular aneurysm repair (rEVAR). However, only 47.5% (19/40) of patients in the EVAR-selected period underwent rEVAR, and the remaining 21 patients underwent emergent open surgery. Thirty-day mortality in the EVAR-only group was 22.6% (12/53) compared with 25.0% (10/40) for the EVAR-selected group (P = 0.79). Systolic blood pressure ≤70 mmHg [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 4.99, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13–22.08, P = 0.03] and abdominal compartment syndrome (adjusted OR 3.72, 95% CI, 1.12–12.32, P = 0.03) were identified as independent risk factors responsible for 30-day mortality. After 5 years, 47.5% (95% CI, 32.0–63.0%) of patients in the EVAR-selected group were still alive versus 49.1% (95% CI, 32.3–65.9%) of patients in the EVAR-only group (P = 0.29).

Conclusion

The EVAR-only strategy has allowed rEVAR to be used in nearly all the RAAAs with similar mortality comparing with the EVAR-selected strategy. Due to the avoidance of operative modality selection, the EVAR-only strategy was associated with a more simplified algorithm, less influence on haemodynamics, and a shorter operation and recovery time.

Results from a nationwide prospective registry on open surgical or endovascular repair of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (JRAAA) can be treated either with open surgical repair (OSR) including suprarenal clamping or by complex endovascular aneurysm repair (cEVAR). In this study we present the comparison between the short-term mortality and complications of the elective JRAAA treatment modalities from a national database reflecting daily practice in the Netherlands.

METHODS

All patients undergoing elective JRAAA open repair or cEVAR (fenestrated EVAR or chimney EVAR) between January 2016 and December 2018 registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA) were eligible for inclusion. Descriptive perioperative variables and outcomes were compared between patients treated with open surgery or endovascularly. Adjusted odds ratios for short-term outcomes were calculated by logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

In all, 455 primary treated JRAAA patients could be included (258 OSR, 197 cEVAR). Younger patients and female patients were treated more often with OSR vs cEVAR (72±6.1 vs. 76±6.0, p<0.001, 22% vs 15%, p=0.047, respectively). Patients treated with OSR had significantly more major and minor complications as well as a higher chance of early mortality (OSR: cEVAR, 45% vs. 21%, p<0.001; 34% vs. 23%, p =0.011; 6.6% vs. 2.5%, p=0.046, respectively). After logistic regression with adjustment for confounders, patients who were treated with OSR showed an odds ratio of 3.64 (95%CI 2.25-5.89, p<0.001) for major complications compared to patients treated with cEVAR and for minor complications the odds ratios were 2.17 (95%CI 1.34-3.53, p=0.002) higher. For early mortality the odds ratios were 3.79 (95%CI 1.26-11.34, p=0.017) higher after OSR compared to cEVAR.

CONCLUSION

In this study, after primary elective OSR for JRAAA the odds for major complications, minor complications, and short-term mortality were significantly higher compared to cEVAR.

Comparison of treatment options for aortic necks outside standard endovascular aneurysm repair instructions for use

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is associated with worse outcomes in patients whose anatomy does not meet the device instructions for use (IFU). However, whether open surgical repair (OSR) and commercially available fenestrated EVAR (Zenith Fenestrated [ZFEN]) represent better options for these patients is unknown.

METHODS

We identified all patients without prior aortic surgery undergoing elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms with neck length ≥4 mm at a single institution with EVAR, OSR, and ZFEN. We applied device-specific aneurysm neck-related IFU to EVAR patients, and a generic EVAR IFU to ZFEN and OSR patients. Long-term outcomes were studied using propensity scores with inverse probability weighting. We compared outcomes in patients undergoing EVAR by adherence to IFU and outcomes by repair types in the subset of patients not meeting IFU.

RESULTS

Of 652 patients (474 EVAR, 34 ZFEN, 143 OSR), 211 had measurements outside of standard EVAR IFU (109 EVAR [23%], 27 ZFEN [80%], and 74 OSR [52%]). Perioperative mortality was 0.5% overall. For EVAR, treatment outside the IFU was associated with significantly higher adjusted rates of long-term type IA endoleak (22% at 5 years compared to 2% within IFU, hazard ratio [HR]: 5.8 [3.1-10.9], P < .001), and lower survival (5- and 10-year survival: 56% and 34% vs 81% and 53%, HR: 2.3 [1.2-4.3], P = .01). There was no difference in reinterventions or open conversion. In patients not meeting IFU, ZFEN was associated with higher adjusted rates of reinterventions (EVAR as referent: HR: 2.6 [1.5-4.4, P < .001), whereas OSR and EVAR patients experienced similar reintervention rates (HR: 0.7 [0.4-1.1], P = .13). Patients outside the IFU experienced lower mortality with OSR compared with either EVAR (HR: 0.4 [0.2-0.9], P = .005) or ZFEN (HR: 0.3 [0.1-0.7], P = .002). When restricted to patients outside the IFU deemed fit for open repair, OSR patients remained associated with lower adjusted mortality compared with ZFEN (HR: 0.2 [0.1-0.5], P < .001), but statistical significance was lost in the comparison to EVAR (HR: 0.6 [0.3-1.1], P = .1).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment outside device-specific IFU is associated with adverse long-term outcomes. Open surgical repair is associated with higher long-term survival in patients who fall outside of the EVAR IFU and should be favored over EVAR or ZFEN in suitable patients. A three-vessel-based fenestrated strategy may not be a durable solution for difficult aortic necks, but more data are needed to evaluate the performance of newer, four-vessel devices.

Suitability of the Aortic Neck Anatomy for Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in Korean Patients with Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Purpose

To evaluate the aortic neck anatomy in Korean patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs).

Materials and Methods

We examined computed tomography scans of 343 patients with AAAs (≥5.5 cm for men or ≥5 cm for women) between 2009 and 2018. Eligibility of neck anatomy for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) was assessed with the standard instructions for use (IFU) (length ≥15 mm, suprarenal angulation (SRA) ≤45°, infrarenal angulation (IRA) ≤60°, and diameter 18-32 mm) and the extended IFU (length ≥10 mm, SRA ≤60°, IRA ≤75°, and diameter 17-32 mm).

Results

There were 71 women (20.7%), and 61 patients (17.8%) with rupture. Women had smaller neck diameters (21.3 vs. 23.4 mm, P<0.001 for proximal neck; 22.2 vs. 24.5 mm, P<0.001 for distal neck), and higher angulations (51.5° vs. 37.8°, P<0.001 for SRA; 77.7° vs. 57.0°, P<0.001 for IRA) than men. However, the neck length was not significantly different. Patients with ruptured AAAs had shorter neck lengths (21.0 vs. 26.8 mm, P=0.005) than those with intact AAAs. However, the neck diameters and angulations were not significantly different. EVAR eligibility for standard and extended IFUs was found in 37.5% and 55.1% of men, and 11.3% and 25.4% of women (P<0.001 for both IFUs); neck anatomy was eligible in 34.0% of intact AAAs and 23.0% of ruptured AAAs (P=0.098).

Conclusion

A significant proportion of the Korean patients did not meet the IFU for EVAR, mainly due to the angulated neck. Women, and patients with ruptured AAAs, were less likely to meet the IFU criteria.

Morphologic and Operative Evolution of Open Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Increased use of endovascular repair for intact abdominal aortic aneurysms has fundamentally shifted the approach to ruptured aneurysms. Unfortunately, not all patients are anatomically suited for endovascular repair. It is hypothesized that, in the endovascular era, patients undergoing open repair are increasingly complex; with an unknown impact on postoperative morbidity and mortality.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The Cleveland Clinic Foundation database was queried for all patients undergoing open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA) from 2006 to 2015. Electronic medical charts and cross-sectional imaging were retrospectively reviewed. The overall patient cohort was dichotomized between early (E-OR, 2006 to 2010) and late open repairs (L-OR, 2011 to 2015). Groups were compared based on demographic, anatomic, and perioperative variables. The primary endpoint was perioperative mortality. Secondary endpoints included overall mortality, late aneurysm-related mortality, and perioperative morbidity.

RESULTS

Of 140 patients who underwent open repair of rAAA (63, E-OR; 77, L-OR), 76% had cross-sectional imaging available for review. Aneurysm repairs in the later time period had significantly shorter infrarenal neck lengths, were more likely to have a prior aortic intervention, tended to have poor access vessels, and were more likely to require visceral or renal revascularization (each P < 0.05). While late survival did not differ between time periods, perioperative mortality (27 vs. 46%, P = 0.021) and late aneurysm-related mortality (29.9% vs. 47.6%, P = 0.031) was lower for L-OR compared with E-OR. While no anatomic variables significantly impacted survival, early time period of repair, presence of chronic kidney disease, and need for cardiopulmonary resuscitation were predictive of both perioperative and overall mortality on univariate and multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the increasing anatomic and operative complexity of patients undergoing open repair of rAAAs, perioperative mortality and late aneurysm-related mortality have improved over time. These results highlight the need for both systems and expertise needed to appropriately treat this changing patient population.

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.

Expanded Suitability of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms for Total Endovascular Repair Using the Endurant Endograft and Heli-FX EndoAnchors

Purpose: To assess if the suitability of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAAs) can be expanded by combining the Endurant stent-graft with the Heli-FX EndoAnchors. Materials and Methods: Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scans of 90 patients (mean age 73.2±9 years; 87 men) with RAAA admitted between January 2014 and January 2018 in 2 tertiary care centers were analyzed in a 3-dimensional workstation. Anatomical features of the aneurysms according to the instructions for use (IFU) for the Endurant endograft were evaluated and expansion of treatment with Heli-FX EndoAnchors was assessed. Results: Neck length <10 mm was present in 41 (45.6%) patients; 5 had neck diameters outside the IFU and 45 (50.0%) had conical necks. Thrombus and calcium were absent in 63 (70.0%) and 73 (81.1%), respectively. In the study cohort, 44 (48.9%) patients met all the neck criteria, although overall IFU compliance was found in only 35 (38.9%) patients due to iliac-related issues in 21 patients. The adjunctive use of EndoAnchors in the entire study group would enhance the therapeutic range to an additional 24 patients, 8 of whom would need an associated iliac procedure. This represents an expansion of the total EVAR approach from 48.9% to 75.6% of cases if some iliac issues are overcome and from 38.9% to 56.7% without correcting iliac deficiencies. Conclusion: The main reason of being unfit for endovascular treatment in this series was neck length <10 mm. Based on this analysis, nearly 40% of RAAA patients would have been candidates for EVAR based on the IFU neck criteria for the Endurant stent-graft. This suitability could be nearly doubled with the use of EndoAnchors and correction of unsuitable iliac anatomy. The use of EndoAnchors has the potential to offer a significant benefit in the endovascular treatment of RAAA patients.

Who Should Be Operated When Presenting with a Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm? A Monocentric Study in a Tertiary Hospital

BACKGROUND

Mortality with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) is 80% overall, 50% when operated, and 100% when not operated. Distinguishing in emergency patients who should be operated versus being offered palliative treatment is difficult. We sought to identify key factors to consider in this decision-making.

METHODS

Between 2001 and 2014, we selected all consecutive patients with rAAA treated by open or endovascular procedures in a tertiary hospital for inclusion in this retrospective, single-center study. Symptomatic aneurysms and isolated ruptured iliac aneurysms were excluded. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were institutionalization rate and long-term mortality. Associations between predictive factors and in-hospital mortality were evaluated using univariate logistic regression. The local ethics committee approved this study.

RESULTS

The mean age (±standard deviation) of the 72 included patients was 73 years (±9.0) and 88% were men. Among the 65 open (90%) and 7 endovascular procedures (10%), overall in-hospital mortality was 21%, 1- and 2-year mortalities were both 26%, and the institutionalization rate was 5%. Mean follow-up was 43 months (Kaplan-Meier estimate). Univariate analysis identified age as associated with a 20% per year increased risk of in-hospital mortality (correlation, P < 0.0001). Female sex was the other main preoperative risk factor correlated with in-hospital mortality (P = 0.006). Significant perioperative risk factors were suprarenal clamping (P = 0.038), amount of fresh frozen plasma transfused (P = 0.018), and number of blood transfusions (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The most significant preoperative mortality-related factors were age and female sex. Our study also showed that institutionalization and long-term mortality are not factors to consider in the decision-making process.

Transition from Open Surgery to Endovascular Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Rupture

BACKGROUND

To review the outcome before and after the implementation of protocol-based strategy for endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture (rAAA).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from a tertiary center during the period 2006-2011. Demographics, comorbidities, blood examinations, perioperative patients' status, and mortality rates were recorded. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to assess the association of the type of the procedure with various factors.

RESULTS

A total of 58 (46 open surgical repair [OSR] and 12 EVAR) patients with mean age of 74 ± 17 years (91% males) were treated for rAAA. However, 39 (11 EVAR and 28 OSR) were operated with protocol-based strategy available. Total mortality rate was 52.6% (10 of 19) initially and 38.5% (15 of 39) after the implementation of a protocol-based strategy. During protocol-based treatment, the survival rate did not differ between the 2 procedures (7 of 11 EVAR and 17 of 28 OSR; P, ns). A 30-day mortality rate was associated with preoperative number of platelets (unadjusted P values, P = 0.013), age (odds ratio [OR] 0.796; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.685-0.925; P = 0.003), and diastolic blood pressure (OR, 1.053; 95% CI, 1.016-1.093; P = 0.005). After mean follow-up of 48 ± 11 months, EVAR patients presented better outcome regarding mortality rate (36% OSR vs. 0% EVAR; P = 0.0464).

CONCLUSIONS

After the adoption of an available rEVAR protocol-based strategy, EVAR and OSR were equally effective during postoperative 30 days. The role of hypotension and age is important on poor outcomes during this period. However, after midterm follow-up, EVAR demonstrates better survival rates than OSR.

Midterm Re-interventions and Survival After Endovascular Versus Open Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

To compare the midterm re-intervention and survival rates after EVAR and OR for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAA).

METHODS

Observational cohort study including all consecutive RAAA patients between 2004 and 2011 in 10 hospitals in the Amsterdam ambulance region. The primary end point was re-interventions within 5 years of the primary intervention. The secondary end point was death. The outcomes were estimated by survival analyses, compared using the logrank test, and subsequently adjusted for possible confounders using Cox proportional hazard models. Re-interventions were estimated in all patients and in patients who survived their hospital stay.

RESULTS

Of 467 patients with a RAAA, 73 were treated by EVAR and 394 by OR. Five years after the primary intervention, the rates of freedom from re-intervention were 55% for EVAR (26/73, 95% CI: 41-69%) and 60% for OR (130/394, 95% CI: 55-66%) (p = .96). After adjustment for age, sex, comorbidity, and pre-operative hemodynamic stability, the risk of re-intervention was similar (HR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.65-1.55). The survival rates were 36% for EVAR (45/73, 95% CI: 24-47%) and 38% for OR (235/394, 95% CI: 33-43%) (p = .83). In 297 patients who survived their hospital stay, the rates of freedom from re-intervention were 66% for EVAR (15/54, 95% CI: 52-81%) and 90% for OR (20/243, 95% CI: 86-95%) (p < .01). After adjustment for age and sex, the risk of re-intervention was higher after EVAR (HR 0.27, 95% CI: 0.14-0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Five years after the primary intervention, endovascular and open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm resulted in similar re-intervention and survival rates. However, in patients who survived their hospital stay the re-intervention rate was higher for EVAR than for OR.

The effect of aortic morphology on peri-operative mortality of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

AIMS

To investigate whether aneurysm shape and extent, which indicate whether a patient with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) is eligible for endovascular repair (EVAR), influence the outcome of both EVAR and open surgical repair.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The influence of six morphological parameters (maximum aortic diameter, aneurysm neck diameter, length and conicality, proximal neck angle, and maximum common iliac diameter) on mortality and reinterventions within 30 days was investigated in rAAA patients randomized before morphological assessment in the Immediate Management of the Patient with Rupture: Open Versus Endovascular strategies (IMPROVE) trial. Patients with a proven diagnosis of rAAA, who underwent repair and had their admission computerized tomography scan submitted to the core laboratory, were included. Among 458 patients (364 men, mean age 76 years), who had either EVAR (n = 177) or open repair (n = 281) started, there were 155 deaths and 88 re-interventions within 30 days of randomization analysed according to a pre-specified plan. The mean maximum aortic diameter was 8.6 cm. There were no substantial correlations between the six morphological variables. Aneurysm neck length was shorter in those undergoing open repair (vs. EVAR). Aneurysm neck length (mean 23.3, SD 16.1 mm) was inversely associated with mortality for open repair and overall: adjusted OR 0.72 (95% CI 0.57, 0.92) for each 16 mm (SD) increase in length. There were no convincing associations of morphological parameters with reinterventions.

CONCLUSION

Short aneurysm necks adversely influence mortality after open repair of rAAA and preclude conventional EVAR. This may help explain why observational studies, but not randomized trials, have shown an early survival benefit for EVAR.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN 48334791.