Endovascular versus open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

Treatment of Aortocaval Fistula Secondary to Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Aortocaval fistula (ACF) secondary to an abdominal aortic aneurysm is a rare complication, inadvertently caused by a rupture into the inferior vena cava. Different treatment modalities have been applied toward the repair of such lesions, including open surgical and endovascular repair. The aim of this study was to report on ACF treatment and to analyze its early and mid-term outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic search of the English medical literature published between 2000 and 2022 was undertaken, using PubMed, SCOPUS, and CENTRAL databases as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis 2020 guidelines. A study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022329058). Studies reporting on primary ACF outcomes following open surgical or endovascular repair were included. The ROBINS-I tool was applied for risk of bias assessment. Outcomes included technical success, 30-day and mid-term survival, endoleak following endovascular repair, and reintervention rates.

RESULTS

In total, 110 case studies, incorporating 196 patients (mean age; 66.2 years, males 96%) were included. Open surgical repair was applied in 78% (153/196). From the available data, technical success rate for each modality was 99% (152/153) and 100% (43/43), respectively. Open and endovascular repair demonstrated 87.5% (126/144) and 97.6% (42/43) 30-day survival, respectively, while mid-term survival was 86% (74/86) and 95.2% (20/21), respectively (medial follow-up: 14 months [1-54 months]). Endoleaks were reported in 19 endovascular cases (39.5%). Type II endoleak was the most frequent with a rate at 32.5% (14/43). Reintervention rates were 2.5% (4/151) and 35.7% (15/42) for open and endovascular repair, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Only few case studies were published on the treatment of this rare condition, while almost all invasive procedures were performed in males. Management of ACF repair with both open and endovascular approach was associated with excellent technical success rate and acceptable early and mid-term survival outcomes. Reintervention remained an issue for patients who were managed endovascularly.

Sex Differences in Outcomes Following Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

IMPORTANCE

Sex differences in aortic surgery outcomes are commonly reported. However, data on ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) repair outcomes in women vs men are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To assess differences in perioperative and long-term mortality following rAAA repair in women vs men.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Vascular Quality Initiative database, which prospectively captures information on patients who undergo vascular surgery across 796 academic and community hospitals in North America. All patients who underwent endovascular or open rAAA repair between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2019, were included. Outcomes were assessed up to January 1, 2020.

EXPOSURES

Patient sex.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Demographic, clinical, and procedural characteristics were recorded, and differences between women vs men were assessed using independent t test and χ2 test. The primary outcomes were in-hospital and 8-year mortality. Associations between sex and outcomes were analyzed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1160 (21.9%) women and 4148 (78.1%) men underwent rAAA repair during the study period. There was a similar proportion of endovascular repairs in women and men (654 [56.4%] vs 2386 [57.5%]). Women were older (mean [SD] age, 75.8 [9.3] vs 71.7 [9.6] years), more likely to have chronic kidney disease (718 [61.9%] vs 2184 [52.7%]), and presented with ruptured aneurysms of smaller diameters (mean [SD] 68 [18.2] vs 78 [30.2] mm). In-hospital mortality was higher in women (34.4% vs 26.6%; odds ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.25-1.66), which persisted after adjusting for demographic, clinical, and procedural characteristics (adjusted odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.12-1.66; P = .002). Eight-year survival was lower in women (36.7% vs 49.5%; hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04-1.50; P = .02), which persisted when stratified by endovascular and open repair. This survival difference existed in both the US and Canada. Variables associated with long-term mortality in women included older age and chronic kidney disease.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Women who underwent rAAA repair had higher perioperative and 8-year mortality rates following both endovascular and open repair compared with men. Older age and higher rates of chronic kidney disease in women were associated with higher mortality rates. These findings suggest that future studies should assess the reasons for these disparities and whether opportunities exist to improve AAA care for women.

Association of Operative Repair Type and Trauma Center Designation With Outcomes in Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

Open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) has shown improved outcomes at trauma centers. Whether the benefit of trauma center designation extends to endovascular repair of rAAA is unknown.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development 2007 to 2014 discharge database to identify patients with rAAA. Data included demographic and admission factors, discharge disposition, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes, and hospital characteristics. Hospitals were categorized by trauma center designation and teaching hospital status. The effect of repair type and trauma center designation (level I, level II, or other-other trauma centers and nondesignated hospitals) was evaluated to determine rates and risks of 9 postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day postdischarge mortality.

RESULTS

Of 1941 rAAA repair patients, 61.2% had open and 37.8% had endovascular; 1.0% had both. Endovascular repair increased over the study interval. Hospitals were 12.0% level I, 25.0% level II, and 63.0% other. A total of 48.7% of hospitals were teaching hospitals (level I, 100%; level II, 42.2%; and other, 41.8%). Endovascular repair was significantly more common at teaching hospitals (41.5% vs 34.3%, P < .001) and was the primary repair method at level I trauma centers (P < .001). Compared with open repair, endovascular repair was protective for most complications and in-hospital mortality. The risk for in-hospital mortality was highest among endovascular patients at level II trauma centers (hazard ratio 1.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-2.92) and other hospitals (hazard ratio 1.66, 95% CI: 1.01-2.72).

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular repair overall was associated with a lower risk of adverse outcomes. Endovascular repair at level I trauma centers had a lower risk of in-hospital mortality which may be a result of their teaching hospital status, organizational structure, and other factors. The weight of the contributions of such factors warrants further study.

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.

Low mortality rates after endovascular aortic repair expand use to high-risk patients

OBJECTIVE

The 2010 endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) trial 2 (EVAR 2) reported that patients with comorbidity profiles rendering them unfit for open aneurysm repair who underwent EVAR did not experience a survival advantage compared with those who did not undergo intervention. These patients experienced a 30-day mortality of 7.3%, whereas reports from similar cohorts reported far lower mortality rates. The primary objective of our study was to compare the incidence of 30-day mortality in low- and high-risk patients undergoing EVAR in a contemporary data set, using patient risk stratification criteria from EVAR 2. Secondarily, we sought to identify risk factors associated with a disproportionate contribution to 30-day mortality risk.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the 2005 to 2013 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) Participant Use Data Files (N = 24,813). Patients were included in the high-risk cohort with the presence of renal, respiratory, or cardiac preoperative criteria alone or in combination. Renal impairment criteria were defined as dialysis and creatinine concentration >2.26 mg/dL. Respiratory impairment criteria included history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and preoperative ventilator support. Cardiac impairment criteria included history of myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, angina, and prior coronary intervention. Patient and procedural characteristics and 30-day postoperative outcomes were compared using Pearson χ2 tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum tests for continuous variables.

RESULTS

Among 24,813 patients undergoing EVAR, 12,043 (48%) patients were characterized as high risk (at least one impairment criterion); 12,770 (52%) patients were stratified as low risk. The 30-day mortality rate was 1.9% in the high-risk cohort compared with the 7.3% reported by EVAR 2, and it was higher in the high-risk cohort compared with the low-risk cohort (1.9% vs 0.9%; P < .001). Whereas the presence of each comorbidity increased the odds of 30-day mortality (respiratory odds ratio [OR], 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-2.26; P = .005; cardiac OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.14-2.10; P = .005), the presence of renal criteria disproportionately increased the odds of mortality threefold (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 2.31-5.09; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary 30-day mortality after EVAR in high-risk patients is substantially lower than that reported in the EVAR 2 trial. Whereas low- and high-risk stratification by current comorbidity criteria is appropriate, attention needs to be paid to disproportionate risk contribution from renal disease to mortality compared with cardiac and pulmonary comorbidities. Given the lower mortality risk than previously described, patients stratified as high risk should be thoughtfully considered for definitive EVAR.

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.