Durability and survival are similar after elective endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in younger patients

Long-Term Outcomes of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in Patients Aged ≤70 Years

Objectives: The efficacy of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) against abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in younger patients remains unknown. Hence, the current study aimed to investigate whether the aneurysm-related mortality rate of EVAR is acceptable among patients aged ≤70 years. Methods: Among 644 patients, 148 underwent EVAR (EVAR group), and 496 received open surgical repair (OSR group). The cumulative incidence rates of aneurysm-related death, any intervention, and serious aneurysm-related events after AAA repair were evaluated using the cumulative incidence function in the presence of competing risks. Results: The EVAR group had higher prevalences of several comorbidities, and overall survival for the EVAR group was significantly inferior to that of the OSR group. The cumulative incidence rates of aneurysm-related death, any intervention, and serious aneurysm-related events at 5 years were 1.5%, 11.7%, and 6.4% in the EVAR group and 1.3%, 5.3%, and 5.9% in the OSR group, respectively. EVAR was not a significant prognostic factor of aneurysm-related mortality and serious aneurysm-related events. However, it was an independent poor prognostic factor of any intervention. Conclusion: EVAR was not a significant prognostic factor of aneurysm-related mortality and serious aneurysm-related events. Therefore, it demonstrated acceptable procedure-related long-term outcomes, at least in high-risk young patients.

Long-term age-stratified survival following endovascular and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

The long-term survival differences between endovascular and open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms and specifically the impact of age on these differences remain a topic of debate. Therefore, we compared the long-term mortality between endovascular and open abdominal aneurysm repair for patients of different ages.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data from patients undergoing elective endovascular or open repair for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms within the Vascular Quality Initiative multi-national clinical registry (2003-2021). The primary outcome was long-term all-cause mortality comparing endovascular and open repair for patients aged <65 years, between 65-79 years, and those aged ≥80. In addition, we investigated the interaction between repair modality and ten-year hazard of mortality for sex, aneurysm diameter, and several pre-operative comorbid conditions within each age category. To account for non-random assignment of treatment, we used propensity scores and inverse probability weighted Cox proportional hazard analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 48,074 patients undergoing elective infrarenal abdominal aneurysm repair (89% endovascular) within the study period, including 7,940 patients aged <65, 29,555 aged between 65-79, and 10,579 aged ≥80 years. EVAR was associated with a higher propensity score-adjusted long-term hazard of mortality compared to open repair in the cohort aged <65 years (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-1.86; P=.026). The mortality was similar in the age cohort between 65-79 (HR: 0.94; 95%CI: 0.79-1.10; P=.43), while EVAR was associated with a lower hazard of mortality in the cohort aged ≥80 years (HR: 0.63; 95%CI: 0.46-0.86; P=.004). In patients aged <65, the hazard of mortality was higher with endovascular compared with open repair in those with female sex (HR: 4.40; 95%CI: 1.75-11.0), an aneurysm diameter >65mm (HR: 2.19; 95%CI: 1.11-4.34), and absence of coronary artery disease (HR: 1.26; 95%CI: 0.83-1.91), congestive heart failure (HR: 1.41; 95%CI: 1.03-1.92), and renal dysfunction (HR: 1.46; 95%CI: 1.04-2.05). In the patient cohort aged ≥80, a lower hazard of mortality for endovascular vs. open repair was observed for male patients, or those with small aneurysms or certain comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

In a selected group of young patients with a substantial life expectancy, the long-term mortality is higher with endovascular compared to open repair for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. Long-term mortality with endovascular repair is similar in the middle cohort and lower in the elderly cohort compared to open repair.

Effects of antithrombotic therapy on abdominal aortic aneurysm sac size after endovascular repair in patients with favorable neck anatomy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the influence of antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy on sac behavior after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzed data from patients with favorable neck anatomy who underwent EVAR between 2007 and 2019. Patients with ruptured AAA and ≤1 year of sac behavior evaluation were excluded. Sac shrinkage after 1 year, persistent type II endoleak, and late sac expansion were examined.

RESULTS

In total, 182 patients with favorable neck anatomy were included in this study. Multivariable analysis identified occluded inferior mesenteric artery (IMA [P = .049]), presence of posterior thrombus (P = .009) and no antiplatelet therapy (P = .012) as factors positively associated with sac shrinkage at 1 year. Persistent type II endoleak was detected in 56 (30.8%) patients, with patent IMA (P = .006), lack of posterior thrombus (P = .004), number of patent lumbar arteries (P = .004), and antiplatelet therapy (P = .039) being identified as significant risk factors. Multivariable analysis identified larger initial AAA diameter (P < .001), lack of posterior thrombus (P = .038), and antiplatelet (P = .038) and anticoagulation therapies (P = .003) as risk factors for late sac expansion.

CONCLUSIONS

After EVAR in patients with favorable neck anatomy, antiplatelet therapy is associated with lack of sac regression at 1 year, whereas antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies are risk factors for late sac expansion.

[Pro Endo: No Need for Open Any More... Surveillance is All Important]

Since its first report in 1991, endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become an established and preferred treatment modality for many patients. Several randomised controlled trials comparing EVAR and open repair have shown an early survival benefit, lower perioperative morbidity and shorter hospital stay with EVAR. As a result, EVAR has become the most common method of elective repair of BAAs in most vascular centres. Despite its widespread use, there are still subgroups of the patient population for whom the benefit of EVAR has not been clearly demonstrated. The most frequently discussed subgroup in this context is the patient with few risk factors - due to concerns about the durability and need of reinterventions. EVAR can provide durability and long-term survival similar to open repair in these younger patients, as long as the aneurysm anatomy and instructions for use are followed. The evidence on the effects of follow-up on patient survival is currently controversial. With increasing knowledge about the behavior of endoprostheses and factors that influence the complications of the endograft, changes in follow-up protocols have been made. A more patient-specific follow-up strategy and less compliance with a rigorous follow up scheme are required.

Early and Long-Term Outcomes of Endovascular Aortic Repair in Young and Low Surgical Risk Patients in the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment

PURPOSE

To investigate early- and long-term outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in young and low surgical risk patients.

METHODS

The global registry for endovascular aortic treatment (GREAT) was queried for all patients with AAA undergoing standard EVAR; patients were excluded if had previous AAA repair or underwent concomitant procedures. Young patients were defined if age <60; surgical risk was assessed through the validated Medicare perioperative risk score (MPRS) based on age, sex, renal function, heart failure, and peripheral vascular disease. Patients were classified as low (MPRS<3), average (MPRS 3-11), or high (MPRS>11) risk. Young versus older patients and low-risk versus average/high-risk patients were compared. The primary endpoints were early (30 days) major adverse events (MAEs), 5-year freedom from overall mortality, aortic-related mortality, and freedom from device-related reinterventions. Time-to-event endpoints were calculated by Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

Of 3217 included patients, 182 (6%) were <60 years old, 956 (30%) had a low surgical risk, 1561 (49%) an average risk, 700 (22%) a high risk. Young patients had a less angulated proximal neck (27.2±18.4° vs 30.9±21.5°; p=0.05); in low-risk compared to average/high-risk patients, a longer neck length (3±1.8 vs 2.8±1.4 cm; p=0.01) and lower neck angulation (29.7±21.8° vs 33.2±22.2°; p=0.01) were present. Young age alone had no significant impact on early mortality (0% vs 0.6%; p=0.62.) and MAEs (3.9% vs 6.1%; p=0.20), while these were significantly lower in low-risk compared to average/high-risk patients (early mortality: 0.1% vs 0.7%, p=0.04; MAEs: 4.1% vs 6.7%, p=0.005). At 5 years, overall survival was significantly higher in young (88% vs 76%; p<0.001) and lower-risk (77% vs 54%; p<0.001) patients; low-risk patients also had significantly decreased aortic-related mortality (0% vs 2%; p=0.04) and reintervention rates (6% vs 11%; p=0.007). There were no statistically significant differences in mortality (0% vs 2%; p=0.42) and reintervention rate (10% vs 10%; p=1.00) between young and older patients.

CONCLUSION

In this real-world registry, EVAR was more often offered in cases with suitable anatomy in young and low-risk patients. Low operative risk, rather than young age alone, predicted excellent early outcomes and low 5-year mortality, aortic-related mortality, and reintervention rates.

Unibody bifurcated aortic endograft: device description, review of the literature and future perspectives

The unibody (Powerlink/AFX/AFX2) Endovascular AAA device (Endologix Inc., CA, USA) presents a unique design with its long main body and two innate limbs. The device is designed to be deployed and sits on the native aortoiliac bifurcation and represents the only one-piece bifurcated endograft designed to use anatomical fixation for endograft stabilization. According to published literature, the unibody device seems to represent a valid choice in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. This particular device would seem to satisfactorily perform even in the treatment of more compressed aneurysms (also in off-label association with parallel grafts) and in occlusive pathologies. Ongoing studies will provide new real-life data in a large and unselected patient population to better understand the device’s advantages and limitations.

Current status on aortic endografts

Endovascular treatment has become widespread to treat aneurysmal disease, especially located in the aorta. The modern era of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair started between 1986 and 1991, and in the last 30 years, Endovascular Treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms evolved both due to the development of new materials and devices and the increasing appeal and effectiveness of the endovascular therapy itself. Vascular surgeons are using nowadays different solutions of Endovascular Treatment to treat all the expressions of aortic pathology (aneurysms, dissections and trauma) both in the acute and elective setting. Despite its use in every location of the aorta (the ascending aorta, the aortic arch, the thoracic aorta, thoraco-abdominal aorta, pararenal, iuxtarenal and infrarenal aortic aneurysms and iliac aneurysms), its safety and efficiency, endovascular treatment for aortic aneurysms presents some drawbacks: despite a lower short-term morbi-mortality, reinterventions and long-term patency are higher compared to open repair. In this review, we detail the most used types of endografts according to location, their performances and durability for each device. We conclude by discussing options to overcome ET limitations. Therefore, an obvious question arises: what we need in the future? What can the technological progress gives to physicians to further improve this new way of treating aorta?

Long-term Efficacy of EVAR in Patients Aged Less Than 65 Years with an Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm and Favorable Anatomy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare early and long-term outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) in patients aged ≤ 65 years.

METHODS

Data of patients aged ≤65 years undergoing infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, between 2005 and 2013, were retrospectively reviewed. All EVAR procedures were performed according to the instruction for use, and only OSR procedures with an infrarenal aortic cross-clamping were included in the study.

RESULTS

In this group of 115 patients (EVAR: 58 patients, 51% and OSR: 57 patients, 49%), EVAR and OSR patients had similar comorbidities, except for obesity (EVAR: 38% vs. OSR: 19%; P = 0.03). A stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) was necessary in 19% of patients with EVAR versus 79% with OSR (P = 0.001), and the amount of blood transfusion was 236 ± 31 mL for EVAR versus 744 ± 98 mL for OSR (P = 0.001). The hospital stay was 4 ± 2 days for EVAR versus 9 ± 6 days for OSR (P = 0.03). The overall 30-day mortality was 1% (EVAR: 0% vs. OSR: 2%; P = 0.30). Five patients (4%) required reinterventions within 30 days (EVAR: 0% vs. OSR: 8%, P = 0.001). The mean follow-up was 86 ± 38 months. Freedom from reintervention at 10 years after EVAR was 81% versus OSR 74%; (P = 0.77). Late reinterventions were reported in 13 patients (23%) with OSR and in 10 patients (17%) with EVAR. Postoperative retrograde ejaculation occurred more often in patients with OSR (31%) versus EVAR (2%) (P = 0.001). During the follow-up, cancer was found in 19 (17%) patients with no difference between EVAR and OSR (P = 0.83). The global survival at 10 years was 72% (EVAR: 79% vs. OSR: 70%; P = 0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, EVAR was associated with a shorter hospital stay, less need for the ICU, and less early reinterventions than OSR. Survival and reinterventions during the follow-up were not significantly different between EVAR and OSR. According to these results, EVAR may be considered for patients aged ≤65 years with a favorable anatomy.

Clinical evaluation of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm based on long-term experiences

Introduction

The endovascular method as a less invasive treatment for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has become an alternative to conventional open surgery.

Aim

The objective of the present study was to analyse the outcomes of endovascular treatment of AAA patients in long-term observation.

Material and methods

A group of 236 AAA patients subjected to planned endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) between 2010 and 2015 was reviewed. Rates of mortality, surgical complications and re-interventions were collected in the separate time periods, i.e. up to 30 days after surgery, 30 days to 3 years, and from 3 to 5 years after surgery. Cumulative rates of these parameters were evaluated in the short-term (up to 30 days after surgery), medium-term (up to 3 years), and long-term (up to 5 years after surgery) perspective.

Results

The median age of patients was 75 years, and the most common comorbidities were arterial hypertension (54%) and ischaemic heart disease (52%). Cumulative short-, medium- and long-term mortality rates were 2.5%, 14.2% and 28.9%, respectively. Total rates of surgical complications in short-, medium- and long-term observation were 7.6%, 12.6% and 17.5%, respectively. The cumulative rate of re-interventions ranged from 4.2% to 11.4%.

Conclusions

In the consecutive time periods, the increase in the percentage of surgical complications and re-interventions increased gradually, in contrast to mortality, where the curve grew significantly, which is expected due to the aging and numerous comorbidities in the observed group of patients.

Improved outcomes from endovascular aortic repair in younger patients: Towards improved risk stratification

Objectives

Abdominal aortic aneurysms are conventionally treated by open repair surgery. While endovascular aortic repair improves survival in high-risk patients, younger patients (40–65 years) potentially at lower risk with asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms undergoing endovascular aortic repair usually have poorer post-operative outcomes and require longer term follow-up. In this study, clinical data on younger patients were analyzed to investigate whether endovascular aortic repair leads to poorer short- and long-term outcomes.

Methods

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles comparing clinical outcomes in patients aged 40–65 years undergoing open repair or endovascular aortic repair and published between 2000 and 2017. In-hospital mortality, long-term mortality, and post-operative complication data were retrieved from eligible studies and clinical outcomes were compared. Twenty-one retrospective cohort analyses were included, accounting for 250,837 patients (149,051 endovascular aortic repair; 101,786 open repair). Risk ratios were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model. All statistical analyses were performed in Review Manager 5.3.

Results

Younger patients with asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms undergoing endovascular aortic repair had a significantly reduced 30-day mortality (odds ratio (OR) = 0.40, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.28–0.57; p  < 0.00001), long-term mortality (OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.17–0.82; p  = 0.01), incidence of reintervention (OR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.34–0.66; p  < 0.0001), and incidence of renal failure (OR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.37–1.82; p  < 0.00001).

Conclusions

Endovascular aortic repair may improve short- and long-term survival and reduce post-operative complications in younger patients with asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Inferior Mid-term Durability with Comparable Survival for Younger Patients Undergoing Elective Endovascular Infrarenal versus Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

The durability of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) when compared to open surgical repair (OSR) in younger patients for elective, infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) remains unclear due to limited follow-up.

METHODS

We identified all patients <70 years of age who underwent elective, de novo EVAR or OSR for infrarenal AAA from 2003 to 2013 in a multihospital, single institution. Baseline patient clinical and aneurysmal characteristics were adjusted for using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and negative binomial regression.

RESULTS

We identified 253 patients: 204 underwent EVAR (80.6%) and 49 OSR (19.4%). Baseline demographics and comorbidities were similar across groups. There were no deaths in the immediate perioperative period. The rate of new arrhythmia (EVAR: 1.0%, OSR: 10.2%; P = 0.004), median hospital length of stay (EVAR: 1 day, OSR: 5 days; P < 0.001), and discharge to a facility (EVAR: 2.9%, OSR: 12.2%; P = 0.016) were significantly increased for OSR. In both groups, median follow-up time was 4.5 years, in which survival did not differ between groups. The hazard of composite of freedom from death and any reinterventions (hazard ratio [HR] 4.3, P = 0.009), freedom from any reintervention (relative risk [RR] 4.08, P = 0.030), and freedom from any endovascular reintervention (RR 4.83, P = 0.038) were each higher for OSR when compared to EVAR. EVAR of the standard instruction for use (IFU) for neck length was more likely to die or undergo a reintervention (HR 4.90, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our retrospective review of younger patients undergoing elective AAA repair demonstrated no significant differences in perioperative mortality or survival over time between EVAR and OSR. EVAR required more total reinterventions and endovascular reintervention when compared to OSR.

Validation of a preoperative prediction model for mortality within 1 year after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair of intact aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

Most would agree that at least 1-year survival is necessary after intact abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair to appropriately justify the cost and risk of the procedure. No validated clinical decision instruments exist to predict survival after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) beyond the perioperative period. The purpose of this analysis was to create a preoperative prediction model for 1-year mortality after EVAR for intact AAA in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative.

METHODS

All intact EVARs in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative from 2011 to 2015 were randomly divided into training (n = 17,836) and validation (n = 2500) data sets, and 31 preoperative candidate predictors were identified. A logistic regression model for 1-year mortality was created, and bootstrapped stepwise variable elimination was used to reduce this model to a best subset of predictors. Penalized maximum likelihood estimation was used to correct for potential overfitting. The final model was internally validated by bootstrapping the area under the curve (AUC) and the calibration slope and intercept, and its performance when applied to the training and validation data sets was compared.

RESULTS

After elective and nonelective (symptomatic, intact) EVAR, 1-year mortality was 5.5% (n = 900/16,411) and 11.4% (n = 162/1425), respectively. The mean probability of 1-year mortality was 6.0% (n = 1062) in the training set and 5.7% (n = 143) in the validation cohort (P = .12). Significant preoperative predictors of 1-year mortality included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, age, preoperative renal insufficiency (creatinine concentration ≥1.8 mg/dL or on hemodialysis), ejection fraction <50%, transfer status, body mass index <24 kg/m², preoperative beta-blocker exposure, larger AAA diameter, and lower admission hemoglobin level. Preoperative statin use was found to be protective. The bias-corrected AUC was 0.759 (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit P value of 0.36; calibration intercept, -0.003; slope, 0.999). When applied to the validation data set, the model had AUC of 0.724 (95% confidence interval, 0.676-0.768; calibration intercept, 0.0009; slope, 0.970), which was in excellent agreement with the original data set bias-corrected AUC. Notably, ∼27.5% (n = 4902) had four or more risk factors with a predicted 1-year post-EVAR mortality risk of 10% to 22% despite that 33.2% of these patients had AAA diameters below recommended treatment guideline minimum thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

This validated preoperative prediction model for 1-year mortality identifies patients less likely to benefit from EVAR. Appropriateness of intact AAA EVAR care delivery can be improved by use of this clinical decision aid to determine which high-risk patients have lower probability of mortality within the first postoperative year relative to their predicted annualized rupture risk.

Meta-analysis of long-term survival after elective endovascular or open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the preferred strategy for elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) for many patients. However, the superiority of the endovascular procedure has recently been challenged by reports of impaired long-term survival in patients who underwent EVAR. A systematic review of long-term survival following AAA repair was therefore undertaken.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Articles reporting short- and/or long-term mortality of EVAR and open surgical repair (OSR) of AAA were identified. Pooled overall survival estimates (hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding 95 per cent c.i. for EVAR versus OSR) were calculated using a random-effects model. Possible confounding owing to age differences between patients receiving EVAR or OSR was addressed by estimating relative survival.

RESULTS

Some 53 studies were identified. The 30-day mortality rate was lower for EVAR compared with OSR: 1·16 (95 per cent c.i. 0·92 to 1·39) versus 3·27 (2·71 to 3·83) per cent. Long-term survival rates were similar for EVAR versus OSR (HRs 1·01, 1·00 and 0·98 for 3, 5 and 10 years respectively; P = 0·721, P = 0·912 and P = 0·777). Correction of age inequality by means of relative survival analysis showed equal long-term survival: 0·94, 0·91 and 0·76 at 3, 5 and 10 years for EVAR, and 0·96, 0·91 and 0·76 respectively for OSR.

CONCLUSION

Long-term overall survival rates were similar for EVAR and OSR. Available data do not allow extension beyond the 10-year survival window or analysis of specific subgroups.

[Proximal fixation devices in endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneyrysm with unfavourable proximal neck anatomy]

Abdominal aortic aneurysm is a common vascular disease requiring surgical treatment. Currently, endovascular aortic repair is a good alternative to open surgery. However, high incidence of unfavorable anatomical variants of the proximal landing zone limit the use of endovascular aortic repair in these patients. Additional techniques can increase applicability of endovascular procedure with optimal results. Two patients with unfavorable proximal neck anatomy undergoing endovascular aortic repair with anchor type of proximal fixation devices are reported in the article.

Is Age a Determinant Factor in EVAR as a Predictor of Outcomes or in the Selection Procedure? Our Experience

Introduction

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the therapy of choice in high risk patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm. The good results described are leading to the broadening of clinical indications to younger patients. However, reintervention rates seem higher and even with successful treatment sometimes there is growth of the aneurysm sac and rupture, meaning a failure of the therapeutic goal. This study proposes to analyse the impact of age in patients' selection and post-EVAR results.

Methods

The clinical records of consecutive patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair, between 2001 and 2013, were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided according to age groups (<70, 70-80 and >80 years). Gender, body mass index, aneurysm anatomic features, neck characteristics, iliac morphology, surgical indication, endograft type, anesthesic risk classification, length of stay, reinterventions and mortality were analysed and compared.

Results

The study included 171 patients, 161 (94.1%) men, and mean age 74.1±8.9 years. The age group under 70 had 32% of the patients. Only three characteristics were found different among age groups: 1) body mass index was higher in younger patients, with a considerable trend toward significance (P=0.06); 2) surgical indication, in the younger group, surgeon's and the patient's option were more proeminent (P<0.05); 3) erectile dysfunction was higher in elderly group (P<0.05). No other clinical and anatomical characteristics or final outcomes were found statisticaly different among age groups.

Conclusion

The absence of statistically differences in mortality and reinterventions among age groups suggests that age by itself is not a relevant factor in endovascular aneurysm repair. Indeed, the three characteristics different in younger (obesity, sexual function and patient's choice) favor endovascular aneurysm repair.

Comparable perioperative mortality outcomes in younger patients undergoing elective open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Evidence for benefit of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) over open surgical repair for de novo infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in younger patients remains conflicting because of heterogeneous study populations and small sample sizes. The objective of this study was to compare perioperative and short-term outcomes for EVAR and open surgery in younger patients using a large national disease and procedure-specific data set.

METHODS

We identified patients 65 years of age or younger undergoing first-time elective EVAR or open AAA repair from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2003-2014). We excluded patients with pararenal or thoracoabdominal aneurysms, those medically unfit for open repair, and those undergoing EVAR for isolated iliac aneurysms. Clinical and procedural characteristics were balanced using inverse propensity of treatment weighting. A supplemental analysis extended the study to those younger than 70 years.

RESULTS

We identified 2641 patients, 73% (n = 1928) EVAR and 27% (n = 713) open repair. The median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 59-64 years), and 13% were female. The median follow-up time was 401 days (interquartile range, 357-459 days). Unadjusted perioperative survival was 99.6% overall (open repair, 99.1%; EVAR, 99.8%; P < .001), with 97.4% 1-year survival overall (open repair, 97.3%; EVAR, 97.4%; P = .9). Unadjusted reintervention rates were five (open repair) and seven (EVAR) reinterventions per 100 person-years (P = .8). After propensity weighting, the absolute incidence of perioperative mortality was <1% in both groups (open repair, 0.9%, EVAR, 0.2%; P < .001), and complication rates were low. Propensity-weighted survival (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.38; P = .6) and reintervention rates (open repair, 6; EVAR, 8; reinterventions per 100 person-years; P = .8) did not differ between the two interventions. The analysis of those younger than 70 years showed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of younger patients undergoing repair of infrarenal AAA, 30-day morbidity and mortality for both open surgery and EVAR are low, and the absolute mortality difference is small. The prior published perioperative mortality and 1-year survival benefit of EVAR over open AAA repair is not observed in younger patients. Further studies of long-term durability are needed to guide decision-making for open repair vs EVAR in this population.

Impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on patients with aortic aneurysms: a nationwide retrospective cohort study in Taiwan

OBJECTIVES

Aortic aneurysm (AA) is a leading cause of death worldwide. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a risk factor for AA, and the prognoses of COPD patients with AA who underwent/did not undergo an operation warrant investigation.

DESIGN

A nationwide retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

We included patients with AA older than 18 years who received their first AA diagnosis between 2005 and 2011 in Taiwan.

PARTICIPANTS

This study enrolled 3263 COPD patients with AA before propensity score matching and 2127 COPD patients with AA after propensity score matching.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcomes were all-cause mortality and rehospitalisation for AA or operation. The outcomes of COPD patients with AA and COPD patients without AA during an 8-year follow-up period were examined using Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

In the AA population, patients with COPD showed higher rates of mortality and rehospitalisation than patients without COPD with adjusted HRs of 1.12 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.22) and 1.11 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.23), respectively, after propensity score matching. Analysis of the patients who underwent an operation revealed that the rates of mortality of COPD and non-COPD patients were not significantly different. In contrast, among the patients who did not receive an operation, patients with COPD showed a higher mortality rate than patients without COPD with an adjusted HR of 1.11 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.22).

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of COPD patients with AA undergoing an operation were improved, but the mortality rate of non-COPD patients with AA remained high. An effective treatment to reduce mortality in this group warrants further investigation.

EVAR and OPEN treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm: What is the role of MMP-9 in the follow-up?

INTRODUCTION

The aim of our study is to verify the role of metalloproteinases in endovascular repair (EVAR) and OPEN surgery treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Postoperatively, these enzymes could represent an important biomarker to adapt diagnostic tests and further investigations during follow-up.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

From 2004 to 2008, 55 patients were considered with AAA. Of these, 33 patients (mean age: 70.1 years), (mean AAA diameter: 5.4cm) were treated with OPEN surgery (group A) and 22 (mean age: 74.1 years) (mean AAA diameter: 5.1cm) were treated with EVAR. In 17 of them, there were no signs of endoleak (group B1), while in 5 patients, a presence of endoleak (group B2) was detected. Plasma samples were collected in order to determine MMP-9 activity. Enzyme immunoassay was performed preoperatively at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. Patients treated conventionally were clinically examined after 1 and 12 months by ultrasound. Patients undergoing EVAR treatment were clinically examined by CT scan after 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. The analysis was done by assessing the interaction over time of the MMP-9 value in B1 and B2 groups.

RESULTS

The average values observed for MMP-9 were preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively: in group A 150.8ng/mL (SD=30.5), 252.5ng/mL (SD=25.2), 315.4ng/mL (SD=22.7), 295.3ng/mL (SD=26.8), 210.7ng/mL (SD=30.2); in group B1 105ng/mL (SD=10.8), 125.6ng/mL (SD=18), 85.8ng/mL (SD=19.9), 95ng/mL (SD=20.2), 80.4ng/mL (SD=15.6); in group B2 149ng/mL (29.2), 375.4ng/mL (SD=40.2), 215ng/mL (SD=35.9), 180ng/mL (SD=20.2), 175ng/mL (SD=33.4). The MMP-9 level was higher in group B2 compared to group B1 (P=0.01), suggesting a correlation with the presence of the endoleak.

CONCLUSIONS

This preliminary study shows that MMP-9 may be a biomarker of the presence of endoleak. Other further investigations and larger series are needed to show that metalloproteases could play a role in the follow-up of EVAR treated patients.

A clinical and ethical review on late results and benefits after EVAR

Introduction

The aim of this review is to assess if late mortality after endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is a real problem, and whether it could be an issue in the case of medical litigation.

Material and methods

A review of all English language literature was performed on PubMed web-site, looking for all papers reporting EVAR long-term mortality rate. EVAR performances were reviewed also from an ethical and medico-legal point of view, based on current Italian laws.

Results

Mono-centric studies, and international registers suggest that today EVAR offers similar (if not better) results than open repair (OR) in the treatment of AAAs with standard and complex anatomies, even if performed outside the devices-specific instructions for use. In contrast, large randomized trials, and consequently current guidelines, suggest that EVAR still has an ancillary role compared to OR, only to be used for highly selected patients.

Recently, specific litigation cases on surgical options related to the treatment of aortic aneurysms has developed. The informed consent process needs to include not only mortality and major complications related to the procedure but also the chance of patients' outcomes. For those reasons, the generic nature of informed consent has been criticized.

Conclusions

No conclusive data is currently available to assess the initial question of late mortality after EVAR but results are still improving. In the meantime, widespread use of EVAR as first choice for treating AAA may only be acceptable in high-volume centres validating their results by a strict follow up protocol.

•

The long-term results after endovascular repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) are still considered one of the main limitations of this treatment option.

•

This paper is a comprehensive review of the current literature on long-term mortality after EVAR procedures.

•

An analysis on informed consent for EVAR from a non-surgical point of view is reported for the very first time.

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Results from a Series of Young Patients

Objectives. To compare durability and survival after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open repair (OR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in young patients. Material and Methods. A retrospective study was conducted between 2005 and 2014 on all consecutive patients of 60 years of age or younger. Measures considered for analysis were reintervention related to AAA, laparotomy and access vessel injury during EVAR, and all-cause mortality during hospitalization and follow-up. Results. Seventy out of 119 patients were treated by OR (58.8%) and 49 (41.2%) by EVAR, 9 in off-label fashion (18.3%). Technical success was achieved in all cases. No AAA-related death was recorded. Overall in-hospital mortality was zero and the reintervention rate was 2.5% (3/119: 1/70 OR, 2/49 EVAR, p = 0.36). There is no death at 30-day or 1-year follow-up. Thirty-day reintervention rate was 1.6% (2/119; 0/70 OR, 2/49 EVAR, p = 0.16), while the 1-year rate was 2.5% (3/119; 1/70 OR, 2/49 EVAR, p = 0.36). At the mean follow-up of 56.8 ± 42.7 months, mortality and reintervention rates were 5.8% (7/119; 3/70 OR, 4/49 EVAR, p = 0.38) and 10% (12/119; 8/70 OR, 4/49 EVAR, p = 0.39), respectively. The overall reintervention rate, mortality, and freedom from adverse events did not differ between the two groups. No differences in outcome were recorded between patients treated by EVAR in on-label versus off-label fashion. Conclusion. Our (albeit limited) experience suggests that, in an unselected young patient population undergoing elective AAA repair, OR or EVAR can be performed safely with similar immediate and long term outcomes.

Impact of the first 5 years of a national abdominal aortic aneurysm screening programme

Background

The Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) Screening Programme was introduced by the National Health Service (NHS) in England to reduce the rate of death from ruptured AAA in men. The programme commenced in 2009 and was implemented completely across the country in April 2013. The aim was to review the first 5 years of the programme, looking specifically at compliance and early outcome.

Methods

Men aged 65 years were invited for a single abdominal ultrasound scan. Data were entered into a bespoke database (AAA SMaRT). This was a planned analysis after the first 5 years of the programme.

Results

The summation analysis involved the first 700 000 men screened, and the first 1000 men with a large AAA referred for possible treatment. The prevalence of AAA (aortic diameter larger than 2·9 cm) in 65-year-old men was 1·34 per cent. Mean uptake was 78·1 per cent, but varied from 61·7 to 85·8 per cent across the country. Based on the Index of Multiple Deprivation, uptake was 65·1 per cent in the most deprived versus 84·1 per cent in the least deprived areas. Of the first 1000 men referred for possible treatment of a large AAA (greater than 5·4 cm), the false-positive rate was 3·2 per cent. Some 870 men underwent a planned AAA intervention (non-intervention rate 9·2 per cent), with seven deaths (perioperative mortality rate 0·8 per cent).

Conclusion

The processes in the NHS AAA Screening Programme are effective in detecting and treating men with AAA.

Re-interventions after endovascular aortic repair for infrarenal abdominal aneurysms: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Early morbidity and mortality are generally lower after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), than after open repair but re-interventions and late complications are more common. The aim of the present study was to make a detailed description of re-interventions after EVAR-including incidence, indications, procedures, and outcome-with special reference to non-access-related re-interventions.

Methods

This is a retrospective single-center cohort study of re-interventions after standard EVAR with special reference to non-access-related re-interventions. Consecutive patients (n = 405) treated with standard EVAR for non-ruptured (n = 337) or ruptured (n = 68) infrarenal aneurysms between 2005 and 2013 were analysed. Median follow-up was 29 months (range 0–108).

Results

Eighty-nine patients (22 %) underwent 113 re-interventions during follow-up. Twenty-seven patients (7 %) had 28 access related re-intervention, 65 patients (16 %) had 85 non-access related reinterventions. Non-access related re-interventions were more common in ruptured aneurysms than in unruptured aneurysms (22 vs. 15 %, p = 0.002). The most frequent indications were endoleak type I (n = 19), type II (n = 21), or type III (n = 5); stent graft migration (n = 9); and thrombosis (n = 14). The most frequent procedures were embolization of endoleak type II (n = 21), additional iliac stent graft (n = 19), proximal extension (n = 12), thrombolysis (n = 8), iliac limb bare-metal stenting (n = 6), and stent graft relining (n = 7). Endovascular technique was used in 83 % of re-interventions.

Thirty-day mortality after non-access-related re-interventions was 15 % when initiated from symptoms (rupture or infection) and 0 % when initiated from follow-up findings (p = 0.014). Cumulative survival five years after EVAR was 72 % in patients with a re-intervention and 59 % in patients without (p = 0.21).

Conclusions

Non-access-related re-intervention rates are still considerable after EVAR and more frequent after ruptured aneurysms. Endoleak embolization is the most frequent procedure, followed by additional iliac stent grafts. Outcomes after re-interventions are generally good, except when initiated by rupture or infection.

Comparison of outcomes after endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in low-risk patients

Background

In randomized trials endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been shown to have superior perioperative outcomes compared with open aneurysm repair (OAR). However, outcomes in patients at low risk of complications are unclear and many surgeons still prefer OAR in this cohort. The objective was to analyse perioperative and longer-term outcomes of OAR and EVAR in this low-risk group of patients.

Methods

All elective infrarenal EVARs and OARs in the Vascular Study Group of New England database were reviewed from 2003 to 2014. The Medicare scoring system was used to identity patients at low risk of perioperative complications and death. Perioperative and longer-term outcomes were analysed in this cohort. A Kaplan–Meier plot was constructed for evaluation of longer-term survival. Further propensity matching and multivariable analysis were performed to analyse additional differences between the two groups.

Results

Some 1070 patients who underwent EVAR and 476 who had OAR were identified. Mean(s.d.) age was 67·3(5·7) and 65·1(6·3) years respectively (P &lt; 0·001). EVAR was associated with a lower overall perioperative complication rate (4·2 versus 26·5 per cent; P &lt; 0·001). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (0·4 versus 0·6 per cent; P = 0·446). Overall survival at 3 years was similar after EVAR and OAR (92·5 versus 92·1 per cent respectively; P = 0·592). In multivariable analyses there was no difference in freedom from reintervention (odds ratio 1·69, 95 per cent c.i. 0·73 to 3·90; P = 0·220) or survival (hazard ratio 0·85, 0·61 to 1·20; P = 0·353).

Conclusion

In patients predicted to be at low risk of perioperative death following aneurysm repair, EVAR resulted in fewer perioperative complications than OAR. However, perioperative mortality, reinterventions and survival rates in the longer term appeared similar between endovascular and open repair.

Endovascular vs Open Aneurysm Repair in the Young

Purpose: To examine the results of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in young patients (<70 years old) and compare the outcome of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) techniques. Methods: The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and OpenGray databases were searched from January 2000 to March 2015. Periprocedural (30-day mortality and morbidity, length of hospitalization) and long-term outcomes (long-term mortality, rate of secondary procedures) were compared between young patients undergoing EVAR and OSR. For the meta-analysis of comparative studies, the random effects model was used to calculate combined overall effect sizes of pooled data. One randomized control trial and 8 observational studies were included in the analysis. Data are presented as the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: EVAR was associated with a decreased risk of 30-day mortality (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.42, p<0.001) and 30-day morbidity (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.58, p<0.001) and shorter length of hospitalization (MD −4.28 days, 95% CI −4.86 to −3.70, p<0.001). Moreover, a potential long-term survival benefit did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.34, p=0.16), whereas the need for reintervention was similar between EVAR and OSR groups (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.54, p=0.89). Conclusion: There are insufficient data for definite conclusions to be drawn regarding the relative effectiveness of EVAR and OSR in young subjects. Contemporary evidence suggests that EVAR should not be discouraged in this cohort of patients based solely on the age criterion.

Fate of Aneurysmal Common Iliac Artery Landing Zones Used for Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

PURPOSE

To determine outcomes of aneurysmal common iliac arteries (aCIA) used for landing zones (LZs) during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

This single-center study retrospectively compared 57 EVAR patients (mean age 72±8 years; 56 men) with 70 aCIAs (diameter ≥20 mm) to 25 control EVAR subjects (mean age 73±7 years; 20 men) with 50 normal (≤15-mm) CIA LZs treated consecutively during the same time interval. The CIA LZ measurements were analyzed using random effects linear mixed models to determine diameter change over time. Life tables were used to estimate freedom from endoleak, reintervention, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

The mean maximum preoperative CIA diameter in the aCIA LZ group was 24.8±4.5 mm (range 20.0-47.3, median 23.9) vs 13.6±1.5 mm (range 9.2-15.0, median 13.9; p<0.001) in the controls. Nineteen aCIA LZs were treated outside the instructions for use of the device. Median follow-up in the aCIAs LZ cohort was 39.2 months [interquartile range (IQR) 15, 61] vs 49.3 months (IQR 36, 61) in the controls (p=0.06). The rate of aCIA LZ change (0.09 mm/mo, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.1) was significantly greater than controls (0.03 mm/mo, 95% CI -0.009 to 0.07; p<0.0001). No type Ib endoleaks developed in either group; however, aCIA LZ patients had 6 (11%) iliac limb-related reinterventions. There were significantly more endograft-related reinterventions in the aCIA LZ patients (n=10, 14%) compared with controls (n=2, 4%; p=0.06). There was no difference in mortality or freedom from any post-hospital discharge endoleak.

CONCLUSION

Aneurysmal CIA LZs used during EVAR experience greater dilatation compared with normal LZs, but no significant difference in outcome was noted in midterm follow-up. However, an increased incidence of graft limb complications or endograft-related reintervention may be encountered. Use of aCIA LZs appears to be safe; however, greater patient numbers and longer follow-up are needed to understand the clinical implications of morphologic changes in these vessels when used during EVAR.

The Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm and Intraluminal Thrombus: Current Concepts of Development and Treatment

The pathogenesis of the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) shows several hallmarks of atherosclerotic and atherothrombotic disease, but comprises an additional, predominant feature of proteolysis resulting in the degradation and destabilization of the aortic wall. This review aims to summarize the current knowledge on AAA development, involving the accumulation of neutrophils in the intraluminal thrombus and their central role in creating an oxidative and proteolytic environment. Particular focus is placed on the controversial role of heme oxygenase 1/carbon monoxide and nitric oxide synthase/peroxynitrite, which may exert both protective and damaging effects in the development of the aneurysm. Treatment indications as well as surgical and pharmacological options for AAA therapy are discussed in light of recent reports.