Open surgical repair of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms in the elderly is not associated with increased thirty-day mortality compared with fenestrated endovascular grafting

Outcomes of advanced EVAR versus open surgery in the management of complex abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Open surgery is still acknowledged as the gold standard for complex abdominal aortic aneurysm (c-AAA). Recently, advanced-endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) for c-AAA has been developed, but its effectiveness compared to open surgery is still unclear.

METHOD

A systematic search was performed on the MEDLINE through PubMed and ScienceDirect databases. The search was aimed to investigate outcomes of both fenestrated- and chimney-EVAR (consider as advanced EVAR) compared to open surgery in c-AAA. Outcomes included postoperative complications, 30-day mortality, long-term mortality, and reintervention rate. Data were collected using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed effects model with relative risk (RR) as the effect size with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies (n = 12,845 patients) were included in our study. The results demonstrated that advanced-EVAR correlated with diminished postoperative complications (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.49-0.57; p < 0.001) compared to open surgery. Advanced-EVAR was associated with lower 30-day mortality compared to open surgery (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53-0.82; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed that fenestrated-EVAR resulted in superior outcomes (p < 0.001), whereas the chimney-EVAR subgroup did not show significant differences (p = 0.79), compared to open surgery in terms of 30-day mortality. Unfortunately, advanced-EVAR was associated with a higher long-term mortality rate (RR 1.46; 95% CI 1.20-1.78; p < 0.001) and a higher reintervention rate (RR 1.26; 95% CI 1.01-1.59; p = 0.04) compared to open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Advanced EVAR, especially fenestrated-EVAR, presented better short-term outcomes compared to open surgery; however, it failed to demonstrate superiority over open surgery in improving long-term outcomes.

Endosutured Aneurysm Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms with Short Necks Achieves Acceptable Midterm Outcomes-Results from the Peru Registry

BACKGROUND

The study aims to describe midterm outcomes following treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with short necks by endosutured aneurysm repair using the Heli-FX EndoAnchor system.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from 9 vascular surgery departments between June 2010 and December 2019, including treated AAAs with neck lengths ≤10 mm. The decision for the use of EndoAnchors was made by the treating surgeon or multidisciplinary aortic committee according to each center's practice. There were 2 Groups further assessed according to neck length, A (≥4 and <7 mm) and B (≥7 and ≤10 mm). The main outcomes analyzed were technical success, freedom from type Ia endoleaks (TIaELs), sac size increase, all-cause and aneurysm-related mortality.

RESULTS

Seventy-six patients were included in the study, 17 fell into Group A and 59 into Group B. Median follow-up for the cohort was 40.5 (interquartile range 12-61) months. A median of 6 (interquartile range 3) EndoAnchors were deployed in each subject. Technical success was 86.8% for the total group, 82.4% and 88.1% (P = 0.534) for Groups A and B respectively. Six out of 10 (60%) of TIaELs at the completion angiographies showed spontaneous resolution. Cumulative freedom from TIaEL at 3 and 5 years for the total group was 89% and 84% respectively; this was 93% and 74% for Group A and 88% at both intervals in Group B (P = 0.545). In total, there were 7 (9.2%) patients presenting with TIaELs over the entire study period. Two (11.8%) in Group A and 5 (8.5%) in Group B (P = 0.679). There were more patients with sac regression in Group B (Group A = 6-35.3% vs. Group B = 34-57.6%, P = 0.230) with no statistical significance. All-cause mortality was 19 (25%) patients, with no difference (4-23.5% vs. 15-25.4%, P = 0.874) between groups; whereas aneurysm-related mortality occurred in 1 patient from Group A and 3 from Group B.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates reasonable outcomes for patients with short-necked AAAs treated by endosutured aneurysm repair in terms of TIaELs up to 5-year follow-up. EndoAnchor use should be judiciously evaluated in short necks and may be a reasonable option when anatomical constraints are encountered, mainly for those with 7-10 mm neck lengths. Shorter neck length aspects, as indicated by the results from Group A, may be an alternative when no other options are available or feasible.

Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Using Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Grafts for High-Risk Patients: Evolving yet Safe

PURPOSE

The purpose was to investigate outcomes of high-risk patients undergoing thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair using fenestrated or branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) devices at a single center in Canada.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients undergoing endovascular TAAA repair with F/BEVAR from June 2007 to July 2020. Imaging and clinical endpoints of interest including death, reintervention, and target vessel patency were reported.

RESULTS

Ninety-five consecutive patients underwent endovascular TAAA repair using F/BEVAR stent grafts (63 males, median age 74 [interquartile range 70, 78] years). Repairs included 81 elective and 14 urgent/emergent cases (6 ruptures and 8 symptomatic). Graft deployment was 100% successful. Intraoperative target vessel revascularization was successful in 336/355 (94.6%) vessels with the celiac having the lowest success rate 72/82 (87.8%). In-hospital mortality was 9.5% (7.4% elective and 21.4% urgent/emergent, p=0.125) and permanent paraplegia was 4.2% (3.7% elective and 7.1% urgent/emergent, p=0.458). In-hospital complications included stroke in 5.3%, acute myocardial infarction in 8.4%, and bowel ischemia in 5.3%. No patients required permanent dialysis or tracheostomy during their hospital stay. However, 22 (23.2%) patients required additional unplanned procedures for various indications (branch occlusion, endoleaks, realignment) during their hospital stay. Patients were followed up for a mean of 3.6 ± 3.0 years. Clinical follow-up was 100%, with 80/86 (93%) having surveillance imaging. On follow-up imaging, 43 (50%) patients had at least 1 endoleak identified and 337/341 (98.8%) of the target vessels were found to be patent. At 5 years, cumulative probability of reintervention was 46.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.1-56.4). Survival at 5 and 8 years was 50.1% (95% CI, 38.4-65.4) and 34.4% (95% CI, 22.5-52.8), respectively. Progression of aneurysmal disease leading to rupture on follow-up was confirmed in 1 patient at 10 years.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular TAAA repair provides a safe treatment option with a high technical success rate and low pulmonary and renal complications. Long-term survival is similar to previous literature; however, high rates of secondary reintervention reaffirm the need for ongoing patient follow-up and further technical improvements.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This study demonstrates that endovascular repair of TAAAs can be performed in a high-risk elderly population with acceptable rates of mortality, TALE and SCI, using evolving technology. The incidences of post-operative respiratory failure and renal dysfunction were lower in patients who underwent endovascular repair compared with open repair. Future technical and procedural refinements in addition to increasing surgical experience are expected to lead to further improvements in short- and long-term outcomes exceeding those of open repair.

Impact of Previous Open Abdominal Surgery on Open Abdominal Aortic Repair: A Study from the NSQIP Database

BACKGROUND

While endovascular aneurysm repair has become a first-line strategy in many centers, open surgical repair (OSR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is still the best option for certain patients. A significant number of patients who are offered OSR for AAA have been previously submitted to other open abdominal surgeries (PAS). It is unclear, however, how this may impact their outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is an association between PAS and outcomes of OSR of AAA.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study based on clinical data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, including all patients undergoing elective OSR for AAA between 2011 and 2017. Excluded were patients with missing data on prior abdominal surgery, supramesenteric clamping, or urgent repairs. Patients with prior abdominal surgery (PAS) and patients without prior abdominal surgeries (nonPAS) were compared. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. Secondary outcomes were operating time, ischemic colitis, postoperative complications, and lengths of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Of the 2034 patients included, 27% had previous open abdominal surgery and 73% did not. Overall, the median age was 71(interquartile range 65-76), 72% of patients were male, 44% were smokers, and the average body mass index was 27 kg/m2. Univariate analysis showed no difference in postoperative 30-day mortality (4.0% PAS vs. 4.1% nonPAS, P = 0.91) or overall postoperative complication rates (33% PAS vs. 29% nonPAS, P = 0.07). Previous open abdominal surgery was significantly associated with longer operating times (P = 0.032) and an almost doubled rate of ischemic colitis (4.7% PAS vs. 2.6% nonPAS, P = 0.02). Postoperative intensive care unit and hospitalization were also significantly longer in patients with prior abdominal surgery (P = 0.005 and P = 0.014, respectively). Finally, there were significantly less patients discharged home, as opposed to institutionalized care (75.7% PAS down from 82.4% nonPAS, P = 0.001). Despite these initial univariate analysis results, on multivariate analysis, PAS actually did not prove to be a statistically significant independent risk factor for 30-day mortality, ischemic colitis, or longer operating times.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that patients who have undergone PAS may have some disadvantages in OSR of AAA. However, these negative trends do not go so far as to statistically significantly identify PAS as an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality, ischemic colitis, or longer operating times. As such, we suggest that a history of previous open abdominal surgery, in and of its own, should not exclude patients from consideration for open aortic abdominal aneurysm repair.

Brazilian Society for Angiology and Vascular Surgery guidelines on abdominal aortic aneurysm

The Brazilian Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery, through the Guidelines Project, presents new Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Guidelines, on the subject of care for abdominal aortic aneurysm patients. Its development prioritized descriptive guidelines, using the EMBASE, LILACS, and PubMed databases. References include randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and cohort studies. Quality of evidence was evaluated by a pair of coordinators, aided by the RoB 2 Cochrane tool and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale forms. The subjects include juxtarenal aneurysms, infected aneurysms, and new therapeutic techniques, especially endovascular procedures. The current version of the guidelines include important recommendations for the primary topics involving diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up for abdominal aortic aneurysm patients, providing an objective guide for medical practice, based on scientific evidence and widely available throughout Brazil.

Impact of Medicaid expansion on outcomes after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Lack of insurance has been independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, possibly due to worse control of comorbidities and delays in diagnosis and treatment. Medicaid expansion has improved insurance rates and access to care, potentially benefiting these patients. We sought to assess the association between Medicaid expansion and outcomes after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases data from 14 states between 2012 and 2018 was conducted. The sample was restricted to first-record abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs in adults under age 65 in states that expanded Medicaid on January 1, 2014 (Medicaid expansion group) or had not expanded before December 31, 2018 (non-expansion group). The Medicaid expansion and non-expansion groups were compared between pre-expansion (2012-2013) and post-expansion (2014-2018) time periods to assess baseline demographic and operative differences. We used difference-in-differences multivariable logistic regression adjusted for patient factors, open vs endovascular repair, and standard errors clustered by state. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Outcomes were stratified by insurance type.

RESULTS

We examined 8995 patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, including 3789 (42.1%) in non-expansion states and 5206 (57.9%) in Medicaid expansion states. Rates of Medicaid insurance were unchanged in non-expansion states but increased in Medicaid expansion states post-expansion (non-expansion: 10.9% to 9.8%; P = .346; expansion: 9.7% to 19.7%; P < .001). One in 10 patients from both non-expansion and Medicaid expansion states presented with ruptured aneurysms, which did not change over time. Rates of open repair decreased in both non-expansion and Medicaid expansion states over time (non-expansion: 25.1% to 19.2%; P < .001; expansion: 25.2% to 18.4%; P < .001). On adjusted difference-in-differences analysis between expansion and non-expansion states pre-to post-expansion, Medicaid expansion was associated with a 1.02% absolute reduction in in-hospital mortality among all patients (95% confidence interval, -1.87% to -0.17%; P = .019). Additionally, among patients who were either on Medicaid or were uninsured (ie, the patients most likely to be impacted by Medicaid expansion), a larger 4.17% decrease in in-hospital mortality was observed (95% confidence interval, -6.47% to -1.87%; P < .001). In contrast, no significant difference-in-difference in mortality was observed for privately insured patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicaid expansion was associated with decreased in-hospital mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair among all patients and particularly among patients who were either on Medicaid or were uninsured. Our results provide support for improved access to care for patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair through Medicaid expansion.

Fenestrated Physician-Modified Endografts for Preservation of Main and Accessory Renal Arteries in Juxtarenal Aortic Aneurysms

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of reporting outcomes of complex aortic aneurysm treatment such as juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms, where additional techniques to preserve renal artery perfusion are required.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent emergent and elective aortic repair with fenestrated PMEGs between March 2019 and January 2023. Endpoints were technical success, reinterventions, secondary reinterventions and target vessel patency.

RESULTS

Forty-seven target vessels in 37 patients (23 male, median age 75 years) were targeted, of which 44 were renal arteries (RAs) with a mean diameter of 5.4 ± 1.0 mm. Thirteen were accessory RAs and six had a diameter ≤ 4 mm. Technical success rate was 87% overall; 97% for main and 62% for accessory RAs respectively. Target vessel patency and freedom from secondary reintervention was 100% and 97% at 30 days and 96% and 91% at one year, respectively. There was no 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

Fenestrated physician-modified endografts are safe and effective for the treatment of patients with juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms when incorporating main renal arteries. Limited technical success may be expected when targeting accessory renal arteries, especially when small in diameter. Long-term follow-up is needed to confirm durability of PMEGs for renal artery preservation.

Midterm Outcomes of Antegrade In Situ Laser Fenestration of Polyester Endografts for Urgent Treatment of Aortic Pathologies Involving the Visceral and Renal Arteries

OBJECTIVE

Aortic endografting and antegrade in situ laser fenestration of visceral arteries (LFEVAR) may be considered as an alternative to open surgery for the emergency repair of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) in fragile patients. The aim of this article was to evaluate the midterm results of LFEVAR performed with polyester endografts.

METHODS

From August 2015 to December 2020, all consecutive LFEVAR performed for non-deferrable treatment of complex AAA were analysed. Polyester endografts were deployed and subsequently fenestrated using an atherectomy laser probe; the fenestrations were enlarged using cutting and semicompliant balloons before implantation of balloon expandable bridging stents into the target vessels. Prospectively collected midterm survival, patency, and re-intervention rates were analysed.

RESULTS

Forty four procedures were performed for 11 type 1a endoleaks, five thoraco-abdominal aneurysms, 20 pararenal aneurysms, four segmental renal artery (RA) preservations, three anastomotic aneurysms, and one aortic dissection. One hundred and eight laser fenestrations were performed (26 for the superior mesenteric artery [SMA], 13 for the coeliac trunk, 33 and 31 for the right and left RA, respectively). The median ischaemia duration was 7, 48, 48, and 45 minutes, respectively. The technical success rate was 97%, with no open surgical conversions. The 30 day mortality was 4.5% (n = 2). No spinal cord ischaemia events were observed nor early stent related complications. Kaplan-Meier overall survival at two years was 73%, the aortic related re-intervention free survival was 70%, and the stent related re-intervention free survival was 90.6%. Four target vessel thromboses were detected, of which three were rescued. Three type IIIc endoleaks, one RA false aneurysm, and one SMA stenosis, required re-intervention during a median follow up of 24.7 months.

CONCLUSION

Antegrade LFEVAR is feasible, safe, and provides satisfactory early and midterm outcomes for non-deferrable treatment of aortic pathologies involving the visceral segment. Long term data are mandatory to confirm the usefulness of this promising off label technique.

Chimney Versus Fenestrated Endovascular Versus Open Repair for Juxta/Pararenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of the Short-term Results

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to compare the short-term results of fenestrated endovascular repair (FEVAR), chimney endovascular repair (ChEVAR), and open surgery (OS) for patients with juxta/pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (JAAA/PAAA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science were searched from inception to 1 July 2022. Any comparative studies investigating the results of two or three treatment strategies (ChEVAR, FEVAR, or OS) on clinical outcomes for patients with JAAA/PAAA were included. Analysed outcomes were 30-day mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and bowel ischaemia (BI).

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies with 8853 patients were included in the analysis. FEVAR (OR = 0.58, 95%CrI 0.36-0.82) and ChEVAR (OR = 0.56, 95%CrI 0.28-1.02) were associated with lower 30-day mortality than OS. FEVAR (OR = 0.54, 95%CrI 0.33-0.85) was associated with lower risk of AKI than OS. FEVAR (OR = 0.43, 95%CrI 0.20-0.89) and ChEVAR (OR = 0.34, 95%CrI 0.10-0.93) compared to OS were associated with lower rates of BI. FEVAR (OR = 0.67, 95%CrI 0.49-0.90) and ChEVAR (OR = 0.61, 95%CrI 0.35-1.02) were associated with lower 30-day MACE risk than OS. FEVAR was associated with a higher rate of SCI compared to OS (OR = 4.90, 95%CrI 1.55-19.17).

CONCLUSION

We found a clear benefit for FEVAR and ChEVAR versus OS in terms of reduced 30-day mortality, BI, and MACE, as well as AKI for FEVAR. This suggests that higher-risk patients might benefit from endovascular treatment of JAAA/PAAA; however, should be applied in clinical practice with caution, since long-term outcomes were outside of the scope of this review.