Selection criterion for endovascular aortic repair in those with chronic kidney disease

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.

In-hospital cost-effectiveness analysis of open versus staged fenestrated/branched endovascular elective repair of thoracoabdominal aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

To compare costs and effectiveness of elective open (OR) versus fenestrated/branched endovascular (ER) repair of thoracoabdominal aneurysms (TAAA) in a high-volume center.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective observational study (PRO-ENDO TAAA Study, NCT05266781) was designed as part of a larger Health Technology Assessment analysis. All electively treated TAAAs between 2013 and 2021 were analyzed and propensity-matched. Endpoints were clinical success, major adverse events (MAE), hospital direct costs, and freedom from all causes and aneurysm-related mortality and reinterventions. Risk factors and outcomes were homogeneously classified according to the Society of Vascular Surgery reporting standards. Cost-effectiveness value (CEV) and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) were calculated, considering the absence of MAEs as a measure of effectiveness.

RESULTS

Propensity matching identified 102 pairs of patients out of 789 TAAAs. Mortality, MAE, permanent spinal cord ischemia rates, respiratory complications, cardiac complications, and renal injury were higher for OR (13% vs 5%, p=.048; 60% vs 17%, p<.001; 10% vs 3%, p=.045; 91% vs 18%, p<.001; 16% vs 6%, p=.024; 27% vs 6%, p<.001; respectively). Access complication rate (6% vs 27%; p<.001) was higher in the ER group. Intensive Care Unit stay was longer (p<.001) for OR and ER patients were discharged home more frequently (3% vs 94%; p<.001). No differences in mid-term endpoints were observed at 2 years. Despite ER reducing all the hospital cost items (-42% to -88%, p<.001), the higher expenses (p<.001) of the endovascular devices increased the overall cost of ER by 80%. CEV for ER was favorable to OR (56 365 vs 64 903 €/patient) with an ICER of 48 409 € per MAE saved.

CONCLUSIONS

ER of TAAA reduces perioperative mortality and morbidity compared to OR, with no differences in reinterventions and survival rates at midterm follow-up. Despite the expenses for endovascular grafts, ER resulted more cost-effective in preventing MAEs.