Endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm does not confer survival benefits over open repair

Endovascular Aneurysm Repair-First Strategy for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Might Not Be Applicable to all Cases

BACKGROUND

We evaluate the relationship between the hospital case volume (HCV) and mortality outcomes after open aortic repair (OAR) and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of intact (iEVAR) and ruptured (rEVAR) abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using a contemporary administrative database.

METHODS

The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Database for New York (2016) and New Jersey/Maryland/Florida (2016-2017) were queried using International Classification of Disease-10th edition to identify patients who had undergone OAR and EVAR. The hospitals were categorized into quartiles (Q) per overall (EVAR + OAR) volume, OAR-alone volume and EVAR-alone volume. Cox regression adjusted for confounding factors was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 8,825 patients (mean age, 73.5 ± 9.5 years; 6,861 male [77.7%]) had undergone 1,355 OARs and 7,470 EVARs. Overall HCV had no impact on in-hospital mortality across quartiles after (iEVAR) (range, 0.7%-1.4%, P = 0.15), (rEVAR) (range, 20.5%-29.6%, P = 0.63) and open repair of intact AAA (iOAR) (range, 4.9%-8.8%, P = 0.63). However, the mortality rates after open repair of ruptured AAA (rOAR) in highest-volume (Q4) hospitals were significantly lower than those in the 3 lower quartile hospitals (23.1% vs. 44.7%, P < 0.001). When analyzed per OAR-alone volume, the same findings were observed (22.0% for Q4 vs. 41.6% for Q1-3, P < 0.001). Furthermore, in Q4 hospitals per the OAR-alone volume analysis, the mortality hazard was greater for rEVAR (39.0%) than for rOAR (22.0%) (HR = 2.3, 95% confidence interval, 1.02-5.34, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The mortality rates for iEVAR, rEVAR and iOAR were independent of HCV. However, after rOAR, mortality rates in high OAR volume hospitals were lower than those in the lower quartile hospitals, and, at least comparable to those of rEVAR. EVAR-first strategy for ruptured AAA might not be applicable to all cases. Patent-specific, individualized treatment should be the gold standard. For patients requiring rOAR, transfer to a regional center of excellence, when clinical safe, should be encouraged.

Impact of Interfacility Transfer of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Patients

OBJECTIVES

Interfacility transfer (IT) of patients with ruptured (r) abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) occurs not infrequently for a higher level of care. This study evaluates using contemporary administrative database the impact of IT on mortality after rAAA repair.

METHODS

Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Database for NY (2016) and NJ/MD/FL (2016-2017) were queried using ICD-10^th edition to identify patients who underwent open and endovascular repair of AAA. Hospitals were categorized into quartiles (Q) per overall volume. Mortality rates of IT vs non-transferred (NT) rAAA patients per treatment modality (open [rOAR] vs. endovascular [rEVAR]) were compared. Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) for mortality.

RESULTS

1475 patients presented with rAAA of whom 672 (45.6%) were not treated. Of the remaining 803 patients, 226 (28.1%) were transferred; 50 (22.1%) died without a repair after IT. The remaining 752 patients (176 IT + 576 NT) underwent 491 rEVARs and 261 rOARs. Baseline characteristics were similar between IT and NT patients except for higher proportion of Blacks (P=.03), lower-income families (P=.049) and rOAR (45.5% vs 31.4%, p=.001) in IT patients. Overall mortality rates were similar between NT (30.2%) and IT (27.3%, P=.46). On sub-group analysis, operative mortality rates after rEVAR were similar between NT and IT patients, without differences among hospital quartiles. After rOAR, however, operative mortality rates were lower in IT patients, largely due to improved outcomes in Q4 hospitals (P=.001, Q4 vs Q1, 2 & 3). Cox regression analysis demonstrated age (HR 1.03, CI 1.00-1.06, P=.02) and low-volume hospitals (Q1-3) (HR 1.89, CI 1.02-3.51, P=.04) are predictors of mortality. Total charges were similar ($286,727 IT vs $265,717 NT, P=.38).

CONCLUSIONS

Less than 30% of rAAA patients deemed to be a candidate for repair are transferred. IT does not affect mortality rates after rEVAR, irrespective of hospital volume. For rOAR candidates, however, regionalization of care with prompt transfer to a high-volume center improves the survival benefits without increased health care cost.

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.

A comparison of endovascular versus open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm - Meta-analysis of propensity score-matched data

BACKGROUND

Optimal management of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA) has been heavily debated in the literature. The aim of this review is to assess comparative outcomes from propensity-matched studies of endovascular versus open for rAAA.

METHODS

Electronic databases (MEDLINE and Embase) were searched in January 2021 using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface. Eligible studies compared endovascular versus open repair for rAAA using propensity-matched cohorts. Pooled estimates of perioperative outcomes were calculated using odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model. Time-to-event data meta-analysis was conducted using the inverse-variance method and reported as summary hazard ratio (HR) and associated 95% CI. The quality of evidence was graded using a system developed by the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group.

RESULTS

Six studies published between 2010 and 2020 were selected for qualitative and quantitative synthesis, reporting a total of 6731 patients. The odds of perioperative mortality after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) were significantly lower than after open surgical repair (OSR) (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.41-0.65). The hazard of overall mortality during follow-up was lower, although not significantly, after EVAR than after OSR (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62-1.01). The odds of acute kidney injury and early aneurysm-related reintervention were both significantly lower after EVAR than after OSR (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.78 and OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33-0.98, respectively). Patients treated with EVAR stayed in hospital for significantly less time than those treated with OSR (MD -5.13, 95% CI -7.94 to -2.32). The certainty of the body of evidence for perioperative mortality was low and for overall mortality was very low.

CONCLUSION

The evidence suggests that EVAR confers a significant benefit on perioperative mortality.

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.

Readmission and Utilization After Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in the United States

OBJECTIVES

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has emerged as a less invasive alternative to open repair for ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms (rAAA), but comparisons to traditional open rAAA repair and late complications leading to readmission are limited.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Hospitalizations for patients undergoing repair for rAAA were selected from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD). In-hospital mortality, complications, 30-day readmission, readmission diagnoses, and charges were evaluated. Design-adjusted chi-square, Wilcoxon test, and logistic regression were used for analysis.

RESULTS

During 2014-2016, 3,629 open rAAA and 5,037 EVAR were identified. The index mortality rate was 21.4% for EVAR vs. 33.5% for open (p < .0001). Median index length of stay (LOS) was 4.9 days for EVAR vs. 8.6 days for open repair (p < 0.001). All-cause 30-day readmission after rAAA was higher following EVAR (18.9%) than open (14.3%, p = .007). Time to readmission and charges for readmission stays did not differ between procedure groups. Respiratory complications were more common following open repair than EVAR (20.4% vs 11.4%, respectively; p = .008). Patients who underwent open repair suffered more infectious complications than patients treated with EVAR during readmission (49.2% vs 39.8%, respectively; p = 0.054). In multivariable analysis, factors associated with readmission included having EVAR during the index stay (Odds ratio [OR] = 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.88; p = .003), increased length of index stay (OR = 1.01; 95% CI 1.01-1.02; p = 0.002), chronic kidney disease (OR = 1.51; 95% CI 1.18-1.94; p = .001), and coronary artery disease (OR = 1.32; 95% CI 1.02-1.71; p = .034). Aggregate readmission charges totaled $79 million. Readmissions were most often infectious complications for both repair types.

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR was used more often than open repair for rAAA. In-hospital mortality and length of the index stay were significantly lower following EVAR. After multivariable adjustment, the odds of readmission were 1.5 times higher after EVAR, costing the health system more over time when prevalence and readmission are considered. Coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, and index length of stay were also associated with 30-day readmission. Further investigation into reasons why a less invasive procedure, EVAR, has a higher readmission rate and understanding post-discharge infectious complications may help lower overall health care utilization after rAAA.

Systematic review of plasma/packed red blood cell ratio on survival in ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

The ideal perioperative fluid resuscitation for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) is unknown. It has been shown in trauma studies that a higher ratio of plasma and platelets to packed red blood cells confers a mortality benefit. Controversy remains whether this is true also in the rAAA population. The objective of the present study was to investigate the benefit of a greater ratio of plasma/packed red blood cells in patients with rAAAs.

METHODS

A health sciences librarian searched four electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov, using concepts for the terms "fluid resuscitation," "survival," and "ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm." Two reviewers independently screened the studies that were identified through the search strategy and read in full any study that was potentially relevant. Studies were included if they had compared the mortality of patients with rAAAs who had received a greater ratio of plasma to other component therapy with that of patients who had received a lower ratio. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I (risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions) validated tool, and evidence quality was rated using the GRADE (grades of recommendation assessment, development, and evaluation) profile. No data synthesis or meta-analysis was planned or performed, given the anticipated paucity of research on this topic and the high degree of heterogeneity of available studies.

RESULTS

Our search identified seven observational studies for inclusion in the present review. Of these seven studies, three found an associated decrease in mortality with a greater ratio of plasma to packed red blood cells. The remaining four found no significant differences. The overall risk of bias was serious, and the evidence quality was very low.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the findings from the available studies would suggest that for patients who have undergone open surgery for a rAAA, mortality tends to be decreased when the amount of plasma transfused perioperatively is similar to the amount of packed red blood cells. However, the included studies reported very low-quality evidence based solely on highly heterogeneous observational studies, and further research is warranted.

Patients with a Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Are Better Informed in Hospitals with an "EVAR-preferred" Strategy: An Instrumental Variable Analysis of the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit

BACKGROUND

While several observational studies suggested a lower postoperative mortality after minimal invasive endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA) compared to conventional open surgical repair (OSR), landmark randomized controlled trials have not been able to prove the superiority of EVAR over OSR. Randomized controlled trials contain a selected, homogeneous population, influencing external validity. Observational studies are biased and adjustment of confounders can be incomplete. Instrumental variable (IV) analysis (pseudorandomization) may help to answer the question if patients with an RAAA have lower postoperative mortality when undergoing EVAR compared to OSR.

METHODS

This is an observational study including all patients with an RAAA, registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit between 2013 and 2017. The risk difference (RD) in postoperative mortality (30 days/in-hospital) between patients undergoing EVAR and OSR was estimated, in which adjustment for confounding was performed in 3 ways: linear model adjusted for observed confounders, propensity score model (multivariable logistic regression analysis), and IV analysis (two-stage least square regression), adjusting for observed and unobserved confounders, with the variation in percentage of EVAR per hospital as the IV instrument.

RESULTS

2419 patients with an RAAA (1489 OSR and 930 EVAR) were included. Unadjusted postoperative mortality was 34.9% after OSR and 22.6% after EVAR (RD 12.3%, 95% CI 8.5-16%). The RD adjusted for observed confounders using linear regression analysis and propensity score analysis was, respectively, 12.3% (95% CI 9.6-16.7%) and 13.2% (95%CI 9.3-17.1%) in favor of EVAR. Using IV analysis, adjusting for observed and unobserved confounders, RD was 8.9% (95% CI -1.1-18.9%) in favor of EVAR.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjusting for observed confounders, patients with an RAAA undergoing EVAR had a significant better survival than OSR in a consecutive large cohort. Adjustment for unobserved confounders resulted in a clinical relevant RD. An "EVAR preference strategy" in patients with an RAAA could result in lower postoperative mortality.

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.

Perioperative, Postoperative, and Long-Term Outcomes Following Open Surgical Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

We investigated factors that affected perioperative, postoperative, and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent open emergency surgical repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAA). All patients who underwent open emergency surgical repair from 1990 to 2011 were included (463 patients; 374 [81%] male; mean age 74.7 ± 8.7years). Logistic and Cox regression analyses were performed to explore the association of variables with outcomes. Preoperatively, median (interquartile range) hemoglobin was 11.2 (9.5-12.8) g/dL, and median creatinine level was 140 (112-177) µmol/L. Intraoperatively, the median operative time was 2.25 (2-3) hours, and median estimated blood loss was 1.5 (0.5-3) L; 250 (54%) patients required intraoperative inotropes, and a median of 6 (4-8) units of blood was transfused. Median length of hospital stay was 11 (7-20) days. In-hospital mortality rate was 35.6%, and 5-year mortality was 48%. Age, distance traveled, operation duration, postoperative myocardial infarction (MI), and multi-organ failure (MOF) were predictors of in-hospital mortality and long-term outcome. Additionally, postoperative acute renal failure predicted in-hospital mortality. In patients with RAAA undergoing open surgical repair, the strongest predictors of in-hospital mortality and long-term outcome were postoperative MOF and MI and operative duration.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of bowel ischemia after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Outcomes after repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA) have improved in the last decade. It is unknown whether this has resulted in a reduction of postoperative bowel ischemia (BI). The primary objective was to determine BI prevalence after RAAA repair. Secondary objectives were to determine its major sequelae and differences between open repair (OR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

This systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42017055920) followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. MEDLINE and Embase were searched for studies published from 2005 until 2018. The methodologic quality of observational studies was assessed with the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool. The quality of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. BI prevalence and rates of BI as cause of death, reoperation, and bowel resection were estimated with meta-analyses with a random-effects model. Differences between OR and EVAR were estimated with pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Changes over time were assessed with Spearman rank test (ρ). Publication bias was assessed with a funnel plot analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 101 studies with 52,670 patients were included; 72 studies were retrospective cohort studies, 14 studies were prospective cohort studies, 12 studies were retrospective administrative database studies, and 3 studies were RCTs. The overall methodologic quality of the RCTs was high, but that of observational studies was low. The pooled prevalence of BI ranged from of 0.08 (95% CI, 0.07-0.09) in database studies to 0.10 (95% CI, 0.08-0.12) in cohort studies. The risk of BI was higher after OR than after EVAR (risk ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.25-2.57). The pooled rate of BI as cause of death was 0.04 (95% CI, 0.03-0.05), and that of BI as cause of reoperation and bowel resection ranged between 0.05 and 0.07. BI prevalence did not change over time (ρ, -0.01; P = .93). The funnel plot analysis was highly suggestive of publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of clinically relevant BI after RAAA repair is approximately 10%. Approximately 5% of patients undergoing RAAA repair suffer from severe consequences of BI. BI is less prevalent after EVAR than after OR.

Abdominal compartment syndrome and ruptured aortic aneurysm: Validation of a predictive test (SCA-AAR)

BACKGROUND

The abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) has been clearly identified as being one of the main causes of mortality after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA). The ACS is defined as a sustained intra-abdominal pressure > 20 mm Hg associated with a new organ dysfunction or failure. A pilot study was conducted and found that the threshold of 3 among 8 selected criteria, we would predict an ACS occurrence with a 54% positive predictive value and a 92% negative predictive value. But a multicentric prospective study was clearly needed to confirm these results. The outcome of this new study is to assess the qualities of a predictive test on occurrence of the ACS after rAAA surgery.

METHODS

This is a 30 months prospective cohort study conducted in 12 centers and 165 patients will be included. All patients with a rAAA will be consecutively included, whatever the surgical treatment. At the end of surgery, all patients have an abdominal closure and a monitoring of intrabladder pressure will be established every 3 to 4 hours. Decompressive laparotomy will be indicated when ACS occurs. Follow-up period is 1 month. Eight pre- and per-operative criteria will be studied: anemia, hypotension, cardiac arrest, obesity, massive fluid resuscitation, transfusion, hypothermia, and acidosis.

DISCUSSION

In the literature, there is no recommendation about prophylactic decompression, but early decompressive laparotomy appears to improve survival. This study should make it possible to establish a predictive test, detect the ACS early, and consider a prophylactic decompression in the operating room.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02859662, Registered on 4 August 2016.

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.

Epidemiology and contemporary management of abdominal aortic aneurysms

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is most commonly defined as a maximal diameter of the abdominal aorta in excess of 3 cm in either anterior-posterior or transverse planes or, alternatively, as a focal dilation ≥ 1.5 times the diameter of the normal adjacent arterial segment. Risk factors for the development of AAA include age > 60, tobacco use, male gender, Caucasian race, and family history of AAA. Aneurysm growth and rupture risk appear to be associated with persistent tobacco use, female gender, and chronic pulmonary disease. The majority of AAAs are asymptomatic and detected incidentally on various imaging studies, including abdominal ultrasound, and computed tomographic angiography. Symptoms associated with AAA may include abdominal or back pain, thromboembolization, atheroembolization, aortic rupture, or development of an arteriovenous or aortoenteric fistula. The Screening Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Efficiently (SAAAVE) Act provides coverage for a one-time screening abdominal ultrasound at age 65 for men who have smoked at least 100 cigarettes and women who have family history of AAA disease. Medical management is recommended for asymptomatic patients with AAAs < 5 cm in diameter and focuses on modifiable risk factors, including smoking cessation and blood pressure control. Primary indications for intervention in patients with AAA include development of symptoms, rupture, rapid aneurysm growth (> 5 mm/6 months), or presence of a fusiform aneurysm with maximum diameter of 5.5 cm or greater. Intervention for AAA includes conventional open surgical repair and endovascular aortic stent graft repair.

Contemporary outcomes for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms using endovascular balloon control for hypotension

OBJECTIVE

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) continues to portend significant mortality, despite ruptured endovascular aneurysm repair (rEVAR), enhanced perioperative care, and endovascular balloon control (EBC) for hypotension. We review our academic institution's experience using a protocol of EBC for all hypotensive patients, irrespective of type of repair.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of 66 cases of rAAA treated at a single academic institution from 2007 to 2016 using EBC for hypotensive patients. Demographics, comorbidities, intraoperative parameters, and clinical outcomes were recorded. Patients were studied with respect to hemodynamic status, rEVAR, or ruptured open aortic repair in the setting of EBC for hypotension.

RESULTS

rEVAR was performed in 43 patients (65%) and ruptured open aortic repair in 23 patients (35%). rAAA was treated in 51 men (77%). Mean rAAA size was 7.6 mm, and mean age of the patients was 73 years. Perioperative survival was 82%. Overall survival at 30 days, 1 year, and 5 years was 71%, 65%, and 52%. Blood transfusion and severe hypotension were significant predictors of mortality at 30 days on multivariable analysis (odds ratio of 1.2 [P = .08] and 39 [P = .03], respectively). Severe hypotension was defined as a mean arterial blood pressure <65 mm Hg and vasopressor use and was present in 59% of the cohort. Normotension was defined as an absence of these conditions and was present in 12%, with 29% of patients exhibiting moderate hypotension. There was no difference in 30-day survival between normotensive and moderately hypotensive patients. The 30-day survival for severely hypotensive patients was 61% vs 85% for moderately hypotensive patients (P = .003), with a significant difference between groups that persisted at 1 year (85% vs 51%; P = .008) and 5 years (66% vs 51%; P = .017).

CONCLUSIONS

Good midterm outcomes for moderately hypotensive and normotensive patients can be obtained using an EBC protocol for hypotension with a regionalized transport system directly to the operating room. Severely hemodynamically unstable rAAA patients still pose a significant challenge despite mitigation of hypotension by EBC, suggesting that survival may be compromised by factors other than hypotension alone. We still advocate for the use of EBC for all hypotensive patients as part of a defined rAAA protocol before definitive repair.

Open versus endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: What have we learned after more than 2 decades of ruptured endovascular aneurysm repair?

BACKGROUND

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm is one of the most difficult clinical problems in surgical practice, with extraordinarily high morbidity and mortality. During the past 23 years, the literature has become replete with reports regarding ruptured endovascular aneurysm repair.

METHODS

A variety of study designs and databases have been utilized to compare ruptured endovascular aneurysm repair and open surgical repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm and studies of various designs from different databases have yielded vastly different conclusions. It therefore remains controversial whether ruptured endovascular aneurysm repair improves outcomes after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm in comparison to open surgical repair.

RESULTS

The purpose of this article is to review the best available evidence comparing ruptured endovascular aneurysm repair and open surgical repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, including single institution and multi-institutional retrospective observational studies, large national population-based studies, large national registries of prospectively collected data, and randomized controlled clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

This article will analyze the study designs and databases utilized with their attendant strengths and weaknesses to understand the sometimes vastly different conclusions the studies have reached. This article will attempt to integrate the data to distill some of the lessons that have been learned regarding ruptured endovascular aneurysm repair and identify ongoing needs in this field.

How to identify patients at risk of abdominal compartment syndrome after surgical repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms in the operating room: A pilot study

Objectives Abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) is poorly identified in surgery for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm and an early management is crucial. The aim of this study was to validate how many risk factors were needed to predict ACS. Secondary objectives were to assess its prevalence and the 30-day mortality. Methods All patients operated for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm during 5 years were included. An independent committee performed a retrospective diagnosis of ACS. Eight criteria were selected from the literature, and corresponded to pre- and intraoperative period: anemia (hemoglobin lower than 10 g/dL), prolonged shock (systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg more than 18 min), preoperative cardiac arrest, obesity (body mass index > 30), massive fluid resuscitation (≥3500 mL per hour for at least 1 h) and transfusions (>10 units packed blood red cell since the beginning of the treatment), severe hypothermia (≤33℃), acidosis (pH < 7.2). Sensitivity and specificity were assessed for each number of criteria. Results Eight patients were ACS+ and 28 ACS-, with three criteria for ACS+ and 1.5 for ACS- ( p = 0.002). Three criteria among the eight selected criteria have the best cutoff for sensitivity and specificity (75% and 82%) with a positive predictive value of 54% and a negative predictive value of 92%. The prevalence of ACS was 17%. The 30-day mortality in ACS+ tended to be higher than in ACS- ( p = 0.108). Conclusion The present results suggest that patients with an ACS seemed to have higher mortality and the threshold of three factors among eight specific factors is enough to predict this.

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.

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.

Current treatment strategies for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) represents one of the most challenging emergencies in surgery. Open repair (OR) is associated with relevant morbidity and mortality and has not been reduced significantly over the last decade. The introduction of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and its meanwhile common use in the treatment of rAAA has raised the demand for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in order to resolve a potential superiority of either OR or EVAR.

PURPOSE

This review discusses the current treatment strategies in rAAA repair including diagnostics, peri-operative management and results of OR and EVAR, focussing on RCTs comparing both modalities.

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality after OR and EVAR shows no significant difference in published RCTs. In particular with respect to OR, 30-day mortality was much lower than anticipated throughout all RCTs ranging from 18 to 37 %. EVAR for rAAA resulted in reduced in-hospital stay. Limitations of all except one RCT are low patient recruitment and exclusion of haemodynamically unstable patients.

CONCLUSIONS

OR and EVAR need to be provided for rAAA. Despite lacking evidence, EVAR is the first choice treatment in experienced high-volume vascular centres. Low mortality rates in all RCTs raise the question if aortic surgery should be centralised.

Endovascular Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms has Improved Outcomes Compared to Open Surgical Repair

INTRODUCTION

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) remains a critical diagnosis, and research is needed to address outcomes following surgical repair. The purpose of this study was to compare nationwide outcomes for patients who received either endovascular repair (EVAR) or open surgical repair (OSAR) for rAAA.

METHODS

The Medicare Provider Analysis and Review file from 2005 to 2009 was used to identify patients diagnosed with rAAA and treated with either EVAR or OSAR. Those patients with both procedures were excluded. Primary outcomes included mortality, postoperative complications, and readmission rates. Secondary outcomes included hospital resource utilization and length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

A total of 8480 patients with rAAA who underwent EVAR (n = 1939) or OSAR (n = 6541) were identified. On multivariate regression, the likelihood of dying in the hospital after OSAR compared to EVAR was significantly greater (odds ratio [OR] = 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.74-2.18). There was significantly greater frequency of postoperative complications after OSAR compared to EVAR (OR = 2.1, 95%CI = 1.86-2.37, P < .0001). Freedom from readmission after OSAR was significantly greater than that after EVAR. Total hospital cost for all services after EVAR was greater than that after OSAR (US$100 875 vs US$89 035; P < .0001), but intensive care unit (ICU) cost for EVAR was significantly less than that for OSAR (US$5516 vs US$8600; P < .0001). Total hospital and ICU LOS were shorter in EVAR compared to OSAR (P < .0001 for both).

DISCUSSION

EVAR for rAAA has shown mortality benefits over OSAR as well as reduced ICU and total LOS. This data suggest EVAR is associated with a greater survival benefit, fewer postoperative complications, and may help improve hospital resource utilization.

Long-term survival and quality of life after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) generally involves postsurgery admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Few studies have evaluated the impact of surgery for either ruptured or nonruptured AAA (with postoperative ICU treatment) on long-term survival and quality of life. The primary aim of this study was to quantify long-term survival and health-related quality of life (HrQpL) of a cohort of patients undergoing open AAA repair after hospital discharge.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing open elective or acute AAA reconstruction with postoperative admission to the ICU and discharged alive from the hospital during 2009 were identified. Primary outcome measures were 1-year and long-term mortality. The secondary outcome was the HrQoL using the EuroQol-6D (EQ-6D) questionnaire at the end of the follow-up period.

RESULTS

A total of 263 patients were treated and postoperatively discharged alive: 56 had a ruptured AAA (rAAA), 35 a symptomatic AAA, and 172 an asymptomatic AAA. The 1-year mortality after open AAA repair was 8 %. Overall, 39 % of patients died within 10 postoperative years (mean 6.0 ± 2.8 years). Long-term survival of patients with a ruptured or symptomatic aneurysm was similar to that of patients undergoing elective aneurysm repair. Long-term HrQoL of the total study population was worse than that of an age-matched general Dutch population on the EQ-us (range 0-1, difference 0.12). This decrease in HrQoL was mainly seen in mobility, self-care, usual activities, and cognition.

CONCLUSIONS

Ten years after open AAA repair, the overall survival rate was 59 %. Long-term survival and HrQoL were similar for patients with a repaired ruptured or symptomatic aneurysm and those who underwent elective aneurysm repair. There were also no differences in patients with infrarenal versus juxtarenal/suprarenal aneurysms. Surviving patients had a lower HrQoL than the age-matched general Dutch population, especially regarding mobility, self-care, usual activities, and cognition.

Open versus Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in the Elective and Emergent Setting in a Pooled Population of 37,781 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background. We evaluated the incidence of mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) in endovascular repair (EVAR) as compared to open aneurysm repair (OAR) in both elective and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA ) setting. Methods. We analyzed the rates of 30-day mortality, 30-day MI, and hospital length of stay (LOS) based on comparative observation and randomized control trials involving EVAR and OAR. Results. 41 trials compared EVAR to OAR with a total pooled population of 37,781 patients. Analysis of elective and ruptured AAA repair favored EVAR with respect to 30-day mortality with a pooled odds ratio of 0.19 (95% CI 0.17–0.20; I² = 88.9%; P < 0.001). There were a total of 1,835 30-day MI events reported in the EVAR group as compared to 2,483 events in the OAR group. The pooled odds ratio for elective AAA was 0.74 (95% CI 0.58–0.96; P = 0.02) in favor of EVAR. The average LOS was reduced by 296.75 hrs (95% CI 156.68–436.82 hrs; P < 0.001) in the EVAR population. Conclusions. EVAR has lower rates of 30-day mortality, 30-day MI, and LOS in both elective and ruptured AAA repair.

Emergency median sternotomy and cardiopulmonary bypass during ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

We report the case of a patient who developed severe cardiogenic shock during the open repair of a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. After controlling the bleeding from the ruptured aneurysm, the electrocardiogram exhibited ST-T elevation and bradycardia. A median sternotomy was performed, and cardiopulmonary bypass was established. Under cardiopulmonary bypass support, the patient successfully underwent a Y-shaped graft replacement. The venous and arterial cannulae were recannulated through the femoral artery and vein. The chest and abdomen were closed in the usual fashion. Five hours after admission to the intensive care unit, cardiopulmonary bypass was weaned successfully, and the patient was extubated 1 day after surgery. Postoperative coronary angiography showed severe vasospastic angina of the right coronary artery, which might have caused cardiogenic shock during the aneurysm repair. The patient had an uneventful recovery period and was discharged on the 14th postoperative day without neurological complications.