Repair of infrarenal aortic aneurysm—the debate is OVER

Review and current update of robotic-assisted laparoscopic vascular surgery

The field of vascular surgery is constantly evolving and is unsurpassed in its innovation and adoption of new technologies. Endovascular therapy has fundamentally changed the treatment paradigms for aneurysm and occlusive disease. As we continue to make advances in not only endovascular therapy, but also robotic surgery, artificial intelligence, and minimally invasive surgery, it is important that the vascular community stay at the forefront. Topics include the advantages of laparoscopic and robotic surgery over open surgery for aortic procedures, robotic versus laparoscopic aortic surgery, patient candidacy for robotic-assisted aortic surgery, and how to increase training and adoption of robotic-assisted laparoscopic aortic surgery. Future growth includes the development of new platforms and technologies, creation and validation of curriculum and virtual simulators, and conduction of randomized clinical trials to determine the best applications of robotics in vascular surgery.

The Protective Effect of Metformin on Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients have a lower risk of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and its comorbidities, which might be associated with the usage of metformin. The objective of the study was to evaluate the role of metformin in the process of AAA development.

METHOD

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched up to May 15^th, 2021. We implemented several methods including the risk of bias graph, GRADE system and funnel plot to assess the quality and possible bias of this study. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were applied to address quality differences and validate the robustness of the final results.

RESULT

Ten articles were enrolled after screening 151 articles searched from databases. The pooled results showed that, compared with T2DM patients without metformin, metformin prescription was associated with a slower annual growth rate of the aneurysm (mean difference (MD) -0.67 cm [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.20 ~ -0.15 cm]). Besides, metformin exposure was associated with a lower frequency of AAA events (odds ratio (OR) 0.61 [95% CI 0.41-0.92]).

CONCLUSION

Metformin alleviated both annual expansion rate and aneurysm rupture frequency in AAA patients with T2DM.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, identifier https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=217859 (CRD42020217859).

Regional anesthesia for vascular surgery: does the anesthetic choice influence outcome?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Outcomes following surgery are of major importance to clinicians, institutions and most importantly patients. This review examines whether regional anesthesia and analgesia influence outcome after vascular surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Large database analyses of contemporary practice suggest that utilizing regional anesthesia for both open and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, lower limb revascularization and carotid endarterectomy reduces morbidity, length of stay and possibly even mortality. Results from such analyses are limited by an inherent risk of bias but are nevertheless important given the number of patients required in randomized trials to detect differences in rare outcomes. There is minimal evidence that regional anesthesia influences longer term outcomes except for arteriovenous fistula surgery where brachial plexus blocks appear to improve 3-month fistula patency.

SUMMARY

Patients undergoing vascular surgery often have multiple comorbidities and it is important to be able to outline both benefits and risks of regional anesthesia techniques. Regional anesthesia in vascular surgery allows avoidance of general anesthesia and does provide short-term benefits beyond superior analgesia. Evidence of long-term benefits is lacking in most procedures. Further work is required on newer patient centered outcomes.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Long-term survival After Elective Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair 1969-2011: 5 Year Survival Remains Poor Despite Advances in Medical Care and Treatment Strategies

Background

Improved critical care, pre-operative optimization, and the advent of endovascular surgery (EVAR) have improved 30 day mortality for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. It remains unknown whether this has translated into improvements in long-term survival, particularly because these factors have also encouraged the treatment of older patients with greater comorbidity. The aim of this study was to quantify how 5 year survival after elective AAA repair has changed over time.

Methods

A systematic review was performed identifying studies reporting 5 year survival after elective infrarenal AAA repair. An electronic search of the Embase and Medline databases was conducted to January 2014. Thirty-six studies, 60 study arms, and 107,814 patients were identified. Meta-analyses were conducted to determine 5 year survival and to report whether 5 year survival changed over time.

Results

Five-year survival was 69% (95% CI 67 to 71%, I² = 87%). Meta-regression on study midpoint showed no improvement in 5 year survival over the period 1969–2011 (log OR −0.001, 95% CI −0.014–0.012). Larger average aneurysm diameter was associated with poorer 5 year survival (adjusted log OR −0.058, 95% CI −0.095 to −0.021, I² = 85%). Older average patient age at surgery was associated with poorer 5 year survival (adjusted log OR −0.118, 95% CI −0.142 to −0.094, I² = 70%). After adjusting for average patient age, an improvement in 5 year survival over the period that these data spanned was obtained (adjusted log OR 0.027, 95% CI 0.012 to 0.042).

Conclusion

Five-year survival remains poor after elective AAA repair despite advances in short-term outcomes and is associated with AAA diameter and patient age at the time of surgery. Age-adjusted survival appears to have improved; however, this cohort as a whole continues to have poor long-term survival. Research in this field should attempt to improve the life expectancy of patients with repaired AAA and to optimise patient selection.

Cardiac rehabilitation versus standard care after aortic aneurysm repair (Aneurysm CaRe): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Abdominal and thoracic aortic aneurysms (A/TAA) are an important cause of mortality amongst the older population. Although A/TAA repair can be performed with low peri-operative risk, overall life expectancy remains poor in the years that follow surgery. The majority of deaths are caused by heart attack or stroke, which can both be prevented by cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in patients with clinically-manifest coronary artery disease. A Cochrane review has urged researchers to widen the use of CR to other populations with severe cardiovascular risk, and patients surviving A/TAA repair appear ideal candidates. However, it is unknown whether CR is feasible or acceptable to A/TAA patients, who are a decade older than those currently enrolling in CR. Aneurysm-CaRe is a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) that will address these issues.

Methods and design

Aneurysm-CaRe is a pilot RCT of CR versus standard care after A/TAA repair, with the primary objectives of estimating enrolment to a trial of CR after A/TAA repair and estimating compliance with CR amongst patients with A/TAA. Aneurysm-CaRe will randomise 84 patients at two sites. Patients discharged from hospital after elective A/TAA repair will be randomised to standard care or enrolment in their local CR programme with a protocolised approach to medical cardiovascular risk reduction. The primary outcome measures are enrolment in the RCT and compliance with CR. Secondary outcomes will include phenotypic markers of cardiovascular risk and smoking cessation, alongside disease-specific and generic quality-of-life measures.

Trial registration

ISRCTN 65746249 5 June 2014

A systematic review and meta-analysis indicates underreporting of renal dysfunction following endovascular aneurysm repair

Deterioration in renal function has been described after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVRs). The etiology is multifactorial and represents an important therapeutic target. A need exists to quantitatively summarize incidence and severity of renal dysfunction after EVR to allow better-informed attempts to preserve renal function and improve life expectancy. Here a systematic search was performed using Medline and Embase for renal function after EVR applying PRISMA statements. Univariate and multivariate random-effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate pooled postoperative changes in serum creatinine and creatinine clearance at four time points after EVR. Clinically relevant deterioration in renal function was also estimated at 1 year or more after EVR. Pooled probability of clinically relevant deterioration in renal function at 1 year or more was 18% (95% confidence interval of 14-23%, I2 of 82.5%). Serum creatinine increased after EVR by 0.05 mg/dl at 30 days/1 month, 0.09 mg/dl at 1 month to 1 year, and 0.11 mg/dl at 1 year or more (all significant). Creatinine clearance decreased after EVR by 5.65 ml/min at 1 month-1 year and by 6.58 ml/min at 1 year or more (both significant). Thus, renal dysfunction after EVR is common and merits attention.

Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

An abnormal dilatation of the abdominal aorta is referred to as an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Due to the risk of rupture, surgical repair is offered electively to individuals with aneurysms greater than 5.5 cm in size. Traditionally, conventional open surgical repair (OSR) was considered the first choice approach. However, over the past two decades endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has gained popularity as a treatment option. This article intends to review the role of EVAR in the management of elective AAA.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of EVAR versus conventional OSR in individuals with AAA considered fit for surgery, and EVAR versus best medical care in those considered unfit for surgery. This was determined by the effect on short, intermediate and long-term mortality, endograft related complications, re-intervention rates and major complications.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (January 2013) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2012, Issue 12). The TSC also searched trial databases for details of ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EVAR with OSR in individuals with AAA considered fit for surgery. and comparing EVAR with best medical care in individuals considered unfit for surgery. We excluded studies with inadequate data or using an inadequate randomisation technique.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three reviewers independently evaluated trials for appropriateness for inclusion and extracted data using pro forma designed by the Cochrane PVD Group. We assessed the quality of trials using The Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool. We entered collected data in to Review Manager (version 5.2.3) for analysis. Where direct comparisons could be made, we determined odds ratios (OR). We tested studies for heterogeneity and, when present, we used a random-effects model; otherwise we used a fixed-effect model. We tabulated data that could not be collated.

MAIN RESULTS

Four high-quality trials comparing EVAR with OSR (n = 2790) and one high-quality trial comparing EVAR with no intervention (n = 404) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In individuals considered fit for surgery, a pooled analysis, including 1362 individuals randomised to EVAR and 1361 randomised to OSR, found short-term mortality (including 30-day or inhospital mortality, excluding deaths prior to intervention) with EVAR to be significantly lower than with OSR (1.4% versus 4.2%, OR 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.55; P < 0.0001). Using intention-to-treat analysis (ITT) there was no significant difference in mortality at intermediate follow-up (up to four years from randomisation), with 221 (15.8%) and 237 (17%) deaths in the EVAR (n = 1393) and OSR (n = 1390) groups, respectively (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.12; P = 0.40). There was also no significant difference in long-term mortality (beyond four years), with 464 (37.3%) deaths in the EVAR and 470 (37.8%) deaths in the OSR group (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.15; P = 0.78). Similarly, there was no significant difference in aneurysm-related mortality between groups, either at the intermediate- or long-term follow up.Studies showed that both EVAR and OSR were associated with similar incidences of cardiac deaths (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.52; P = 0.36) and fatal stroke rate (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.55; P = 0.52). The long-term reintervention rate was significantly higher in the EVAR group than in the OSR group (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.51; P = 0.02; I(2) = 85%). Results of the reintervention analysis should be interpreted with caution due to significant heterogeneity. Operative complications, health-related quality of life and sexual dysfunction were generally comparable between the EVAR and OSR groups. However, there was a slightly higher incidence of pulmonary complications in the OSR group compared with the EVAR group (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75; P = 0.006).In individuals considered unfit for conventional OSR, the one included trial found no difference between the EVAR and no-intervention groups with regard to all-cause mortality at final follow up, with 21.0 deaths per 100 person-years in the EVAR group and 22.1 deaths per 100 person years in the no-intervention group (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with EVAR 0.99, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.27; P = 0.97). Aneurysm-related deaths were, however, significantly higher in the no-intervention group than in the EVAR group (adjusted HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.89; P = 0.02). There was no difference in myocardial events (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.91) between the groups in this study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In individuals considered fit for conventional surgery, EVAR was associated with lower short-term mortality than OSR. However, this benefit from EVAR did not persist at the intermediate- and long-term follow ups. Individuals undergoing EVAR had a higher reintervention rate than those undergoing OSR. Most of the reinterventions undertaken following EVAR, however, were catheter-based interventions associated with low mortality. Operative complications, health-related quality of life and sexual dysfunction were generally comparable between EVAR and OSR. However, there was a slightly higher incidence of pulmonary complications in the OSR group than in the EVAR group.In individuals considered unfit for open surgery, the results of a single trial found no overall short- or long-term benefits of EVAR over no intervention with regard to all-cause mortality, but individuals may differ and individual preferences should always be taken into account.

Abdominal aortic aneurysms: endovascular options and outcomes - proliferating therapy, but effective?

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has a reported prevalence rate of 1.4% in the US. AAA rupture accounts for an estimated 15,000 deaths per year, rendering it the 10th leading cause of death in men over the age of 55. Endovascular repair (EVR) has proliferated in the last two decades as an increasingly popular alternative to traditional open surgery, and is now the default treatment in the majority of centres worldwide. This review article outlines the evidence supporting this stance. The development of EVR is reviewed, alongside trends in utilisation of this therapy over time. The evidence for the relative short-term and long-term outcomes of EVR and open AAA repair is discussed, and ongoing controversies surrounding the use of EVR are considered.