The Impact of Recent European Trials on Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Is a Paradigm Shift Warranted?

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) versus computed tomography angiography (CTA) in detection of endoleaks in post-EVAR patients. Are delayed type II endoleaks being missed? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to computed tomography angiography (CTA) for the detection of endoleaks within EVAR surveillance program.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review in Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane database was performed. Articles assessing diagnostic accuracy and comparative modality (CTA vs. CEUS) for endoleaks in adult patients within surveillance programs were retrieved. Methodological assessment was performed, using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tools. The sensitivity and specificity of data were extracted and statistical analysis was performed using MetaDiSc version 1.4.

RESULTS

Eight articles were found eligible (n = 454 patients). The pooled sensitivity of CEUS at detecting endoleak is 0.914 (CI 0.866-0.949) and pooled specificity is 0.782 (CI 0.741-0.820).

CONCLUSION

The CEUS with its dynamic nature and longer scanning window demonstrated to be a highly sensitive modality for endoleak detection in comparison to CTA in delayed endoleaks type II.

Concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysm and gastrointestinal malignancy: evolution of treatment paradigm in the endovascular era - review article

The incidence of concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysm and gastrointestinal malignancy is rare. Current treatment strategies in patients with both lesions remain controversial. It is unclear whether to treat the AAA and gastrointestinal malignancy simultaneously or in a staged manner. In patients with concomitant AAA and gastrointestinal malignancy surgical orthodoxy dictates that the most symptomatic lesion or the most life threatening condition should be treated first, however there is a therapeutic dilemma when neither or both of the lesions are symptomatic .In this review we explore (a) Priority of treatment in patients with concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysm and gastrointestinal malignancy (b) The role of EVAR in the management of abdominal aortic aneurysm and concomitant gastrointestinal malignancy.

Influence and critique of the PIVOTAL and the EVAR 2 Trials

Management of a condition that has potentially life-threatening consequences may not lend itself effectively to the scrutiny of a randomized clinical trial when an observation or no treatment option is offered as part of the trial. This type of trial often experiences a significant rate of crossover of subjects from no treatment to treatment, and when results are analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis, they may fail to resolve the issue under study. These trials are frequently used as Level 1 medical evidence and the potential impact on clinical decision-making and reimbursement can be quite significant and long-lasting. The authors observed this phenomenon during participation in the Positive Impact of Endovascular Options for Treating Aneurysms Early (PIVOTAL) trial and have observed it in an analysis of the Endovascular Aneurysm Repair 2 (EVAR 2) trial. Possible solutions to mitigate the high crossover effect are offered for consideration. Some clinical conditions dealing with potentially life-threatening problems probably do not lend themselves to be studied in randomized prospective clinical trials containing an observation or no treatment arm.

Three-dimensional aortic aneurysm model and endovascular repair: an educational tool for surgical trainees

OBJECTIVES

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a current valid treatment option for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). The success of EVAR depends on the selection of appropriate patients, which requires detailed knowledge of the patient's vascular anatomy and preoperative planning. Three-dimensional (3D) models of AAA using a rapid prototyping technique were developed to help surgical trainees learn how to plan for EVAR more effectively.

METHOD

Four cases of AAA were used as prototypes for the models. Nine questions associated with preoperative planning for EVAR were developed by a group of experts in the field of endovascular surgery. Forty-three postgraduate trainees in general surgery participated in the present study. The participants were randomly assigned into two groups. The 'intervention' group was provided with the rapid prototyping AAA models along with 3D computed tomography (CT) corresponding to the cases of the test, while the control group was provided with 3D CTs only.

RESULTS

Differences in the scores between the groups were tested using the unpaired t test. The mean test scores were consistently and significantly higher in the 3D CT group with models compared with the 3D CT group without models for all four cases. Age, year of training, sex and previous EVAR experience had no effect on the scores.

CONCLUSION

The 3D aortic aneurysm model constructed using the rapid prototype technique may significantly improve the ability of trainees to properly plan for EVAR.

Inherent problems with randomized clinical trials with observational/no treatment arms

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) offering an observation/no treatment (OBS/NoRx) arm as control and which are focused on the management of a condition with potentially life-threatening consequences, however small the risk, often experience a significant rate of crossover to treatment by those randomized to the OBS/NoRx arm. Results of these trials when analyzed on intent-to-treat basis often fail to resolve the issue at which they were directed. The authors have observed this in trials of abdominal aortic aneurysms with this design and use these to exemplify the dilemmas RCTs of such design create, with crossovers ranging from 27% to over 60% (EVAR II, UKSAT, ADAM, PIVOTAL). Results of these trials are frequently used as level I medical evidence and their potential impact on clinical decision making and reimbursement can be quite significant and long-lasting. Recommendations regarding trial end points and suggestions to mitigate the high crossover effect are offered. It may be that some clinical conditions dealing with potentially life-threatening problems should not be studied in randomized prospective clinical trials containing an OBS/NoRx arm.