Time-to-event data meta-analysis of late outcomes of endovascular versus open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

[Long-term Results after Endovascular and Open Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm - a Propensity Score Matched Analysis]

BACKGROUND

This retrospective propensity score matched study presents the perioperative mortality and long-term survival up to 9 years after endovascular (EVAR) and open (OAR) repair of patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) in Germany using health insurance data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

2170 patients treated between January 1st, 2010 and December 31st, 2016, for rAAA within 24 hours of hospital admission and receiving blood transfusions were enrolled in the study and tracked until December 31st, 2018. For better comparability of EVAR and OAR, a 1:1 propensity score matching with 624 pairs according to patient age, sex and comorbidities was carried out using the R program (Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

RESULTS

In the unadjusted groups, 29.1% (631/2170) of the patients were treated with EVAR and 70.9% (1539/2170) with OAR. EVAR patients had a significantly higher overall rate of comorbidities. After adjustment, EVAR patients showed significantly better perioperative survival (EVAR 35.7%, OAR 51.0%, p = 0.000). Perioperative complications occurred in 80.4% of EVAR patients and 80.3% of OAR patients (p = 1.000). At the end of follow-up, Kaplan-Meier estimated that 15.2% of patients survived after EVAR vs. 19.5% after OAR (p = 0.027). In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, OAR, age ≥ 80 years, diabetes mellitus type 2 and renal failure stages 3 to 5 had a negative impact on overall survival. Patients treated on weekdays had a significantly lower perioperative mortality than patients treated during the weekend (perioperative mortality on weekdays 40.6% vs. 53.4% during the weekend; p = 0.000) and a better overall survival as estimated by Kaplan-Meier.

CONCLUSION

Significantly better perioperative and overall survival was observed with EVAR than with OAR in patients with rAAA. The perioperative survival benefit of EVAR was also found in patients older than 80 years. Female gender had no significant influence on perioperative mortality and overall survival. Patients treated on weekends had a significantly poorer perioperative survival than patients treated on weekdays, and this lasted through the end of follow-up. The extent to which this was dependent on hospital structure was unclear.

Outcomes of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) Compared to Open Repair in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: An Umbrella Meta-Analysis

This umbrella meta-analysis aims to investigate two surgical treatments for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA): endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgery repair (OSR). Our study aims to elucidate the 30-day mortality rate, reintervention rates, and aneurysm-related mortality in EVAR versus OSR for AAA.  We conducted a comprehensive assessment of meta-analyses (n = 34 articles) comparing EVAR and OSR for AAA. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol and considered statistical significance at P ≤ 0.05. For the 30-day mortality rate, a pooled odds ratio (pOR) of 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.77, P = 0.0001, and I2 = 98%) indicates that EVAR was associated with a lower risk of mortality compared to OSR. For reintervention rates, a pOR of 1.33 (95% CI = 0.98-1.82, P = 0.11, and I2 = 90%). In aneurysm-related mortality, a pOR of 0.78 (95% CI = 0.63-0.97, P = 0.03, and I2 = 43%). In postoperative rupture of aneurysm, a pOR of 3.28 (95% CI = 2.16-4.98, P < 0.00001, and I2 = 50%). Furthermore, when analyzing systemic complications, only for visceral ischemia, significant results showed lower odds for EVAR, with a pOR of 0.57 (95% CI = 0.40-0.80, P = 0.001, and I2 = 0%) was found.  EVAR is better in terms of short-term mortality rate and aneurysm-related mortality. Furthermore, EVAR is still a safer procedure in elective settings, as the studies we included recruited patients for this setting. However, given the high reintervention rates and recent developments in surgical techniques and materials, more recent data and extensive research are needed.

Editor's Choice -- European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2024 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-Iliac Artery Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries in succession to the 2011 and 2019 versions, with the aim of assisting physicians and patients in selecting the best management strategy.

METHODS

The guideline is based on scientific evidence completed with expert opinion on the matter. By summarising and evaluating the best available evidence, recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients have been formulated. The recommendations are graded according to a modified European Society of Cardiology grading system, where the strength (class) of each recommendation is graded from I to III and the letters A to C mark the level of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 160 recommendations have been issued on the following topics: Service standards, including surgical volume and training; Epidemiology, diagnosis, and screening; Management of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), including surveillance, cardiovascular risk reduction, and indication for repair; Elective AAA repair, including operative risk assessment, open and endovascular repair, and early complications; Ruptured and symptomatic AAA, including peri-operative management, such as permissive hypotension and use of aortic occlusion balloon, open and endovascular repair, and early complications, such as abdominal compartment syndrome and colonic ischaemia; Long term outcome and follow up after AAA repair, including graft infection, endoleaks and follow up routines; Management of complex AAA, including open and endovascular repair; Management of iliac artery aneurysm, including indication for repair and open and endovascular repair; and Miscellaneous aortic problems, including mycotic, inflammatory, and saccular aortic aneurysm. In addition, Shared decision making is being addressed, with supporting information for patients, and Unresolved issues are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines provide the most comprehensive, up to date, and unbiased advice to clinicians and patients on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms.

The Comparison of Endovascular and Open Surgical Treatment for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in Terms of Safety and Efficacy on the Basis of a Single-Center 30-Year Experience

OBJECTIVE

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) is a critical condition with a high mortality rate. Over the years, endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has evolved as a viable treatment option in addition to open repair (OR). The primary objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of EVAR and OR for the treatment of rAAA based on a comprehensive analysis of our single-centre 30-year experience.

METHODS

Patients treated for rAAA at the Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Germany from 1 January 1993 to 31 December 2022 were included. Relevant information was retrieved from archived medical records. Patient survival and surgery-related complications were analysed.

RESULTS

None of the patient-specific markers, emergency department-associated parameters, and co-morbidities were associated with patient survival. The 30-day and in-hospital mortality was higher in the OR group vs. in the EVAR group (50% vs. 8.7% and 57.1% vs. 13%, respectively). OR was associated with more frequent occurrence of more severe complications when compared to EVAR. Overall patient survival was 56 ± 5% at 12 months post-surgery (52 ± 6% for OR vs. 73 ± 11% for EVAR, respectively) (p < 0.05). Patients ≥70 years of age showed poorer survival in the OR group, with a 12-month survival of 42 ± 7% vs. 70 ± 10% for patients <70 years of age (p < 0.05). In the EVAR group, this age-related survival advantage was not found (12-month survival: ≥70 years: 67 ± 14%, <70 years: 86 ± 13%). Gender-specific survival was similar regardless of the applied method of care.

CONCLUSION

OR was associated with more severe complications in our study. EVAR initially outperformed OR for rAAA regarding patient survival while re-interventions following EVAR negatively affect survival in the long-term. Elderly patients should be treated with EVAR. Gender does not seem to have a significant impact on survival.

Characterization of multiple organ failure after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Multiple organ failure (MOF) is associated with poor outcomes and increased mortality in sepsis and trauma. There are limited data regarding MOF in patients after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) repair. We aimed to identify the contemporary prevalence and characteristics of patients with rAAA with MOF.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients with rAAA who underwent repair (2010-2020) at our multihospital institution. Patients who died within the first 2 days after repair were excluded. MOF was quantified by modified (excluding hepatic system) Denver, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, and Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score (MODS) for postoperative days 3 to 5 to determine the prevalence of MOF. MOF was defined as a Denver score of >3, dysfunction in two or more organ systems by SOFA score, or a MODS score of >8. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank testing were used to evaluate differences in 30-day mortality between multiple organ failure and patients without MOF. Logistic regression was used to assess predictors of MOF.

RESULTS

Of 370 patients with rAAA, 288 survived past two days (mean age, 73±10.1 years; 76.7% male; 44.1% open repair), and 143 had data for MOF calculation recorded. From postoperative days 3 to 5, 41 (14.24%) had MOF by Denver, 26 (9.03%) by SOFA, and 39 (13.54%) by MODS criteria. Among these scoring systems, pulmonary and neurological systems were impacted most commonly. Among patients with MOF, pulmonary derangement occurred in 65.9% (Denver), 57.7% (SOFA), and 56.4% (MODS). Similarly, neurological derangement occurred in 92.3% (SOFA) and 89.7% (MODS), but renal derangement occurred in 26.8% (Denver), 23.1% (SOFA), and 10.3% (MODS). MOF by all three scoring systems was associated with increased 30-day mortality (Denver: 11.3% vs 41.5% [P < .01]; DOFA: 12.6% vs 46.2% [P < .01]; MODS: 12.5% vs 35.9% [P < .01]), as was MOF by any criteria (10.8% vs 35.7 %; P < .01). Patients with MOF were more likely to have a higher body mass index (55.9±26.6 vs 49.0±15.0; P = .011) and to have had a preoperative stroke (17.9% vs 6.0%; P = .016). Patients with MOF were less likely to have undergone endovascular repair (30.4% vs 62.1%; P < .001). Endovascular repair was protective against MOF (any criteria) on multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.64; P = .019) after adjusting for age, gender, and presenting systolic blood pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

MOF occurred in only 9% to 14% of patients after rAAA repair, but was associated with a three-fold increase in mortality. Endovascular repair was associated with a reduced MOF incidence.

Urgent and emergent repair of complex aortic aneurysms using an off-the-shelf branched device

Introduction

Endovascular repair using off-the-shelf endografts is a viable solution in patients with ruptured or symptomatic complex aortic aneurysms. This analysis aimed to present the peri-operative and follow-up outcomes in urgent and emergent cases managed with the t-Branch multibranched thoracoabdominal endograft.

Methods

Prospectively collected data from all consecutive urgent and emergent cases managed in two aortic centers between January 1st, 2014, to November 30th, 2022, using the t-Branch device (Cook Medical Inc., Bjaeverskov, Denmark) were analyzed. Patients presenting with ruptured aortic complex aneurysms were characterized as emergent and patients with aneurysms >90 mm of diameter, or symptomatic aneurysms were characterized as urgent. Technical success, 30-day mortality, major adverse events (MAE) and spinal cord ischemia (SCI) rates were assessed.

Results

225 patients (36.5% females, 72.5 ± 2.8 years) were included; 73.0% were urgent. The mean aneurysm diameter was 109 ± 3.9 mm and 44.4% were type I-III TAAAs. Females (p = .03), para-renal aneurysms (p = .02) and ASA score IV (p < .001) were more common in emergent cases. Technical success was 97.8%. Thirty-day mortality and MAE rates were 17.8% and 30.6%, respectively. SCI rate was 14.7%, (4.8% paraplegia rate) with 22.2% of patients receiving prophylactic cerebrospinal drainage. Thirty-day mortality (13.3% vs. 26.7%, p = .04) and MAE (26.0% vs. 43.0%, p = .02) were more common among emergent cases while technical success (97.6% vs. 98.3%, p = .9), and SCI (13.3% vs. 18.3%, p = .4) were similar. Survival at 12-months was 83.5% (SE 5.9%) for the urgent and 77.1% (SE 8.2%) for the emergent group (log rank, p = 0.96).

Conclusion

T-Branch represents an effective and safe solution for the management of urgent and emergent cases with complex aortic aneurysms, with high technical success, promising early mortality and SCI rates.

Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of 10-Year Follow-Up after Endovascular and Open Repair for Ruptured Abdominal AorticAneurysms

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has conferred an early survival advantage compared to an open surgical repair (OSR) in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA). However, the long-term survival benefit after EVAR was not displayed among randomized controlled trials (RCTs), whereas many non-RCTs have provided conflicting results. We conducted a time-to-event individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis on long-term rAAA data.

METHODS

All studies comparing mortality after EVAR versus OSR for rAAA were included. We used restricted mean survival times (RMSTs) as a measure of life expectancy for EVAR and OSR.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies, including 12,187 patients (4952 EVAR and 7235 OSR) were finally deemed eligible. A secondary IPD analysis included 725 (372 EVAR and 353 OSR) patients only from the 3 RCTs (Immediate Management of the Patient With Rupture : Open Versus Endovascular Repair, Endovasculaire ou Chirurgie dans les Anévrysmes aorto-iliaques Rompus and Amsterdam Acute Aneurysm Trial trials). Among all studies, the median survival was 4.20 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.70-4.58) years for EVAR and 1.91 (95% CI: 1.57-2.39) years for OSR. Although EVAR presented with increased hazard risk from 4 to 7 years, which peaked at 6 years after the operation, the RMST difference was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.35-0.73; P < 0.001) years gained with EVAR at the end of the 10-year follow-up. IPD meta-analysis of RCTs did not demonstrate significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

At 10-years follow-up, EVAR was associated with a 6.5 month increase in life expectancy when compared to OSR after analyzing all eligible studies. Evidence from our study suggests that a strict follow-up program would be desirable, especially for patients with long-life expectancy.

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.