Endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm--a challenge to open repair? Results of a single centre experience in 20 patients

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.

A Comparison of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair and Open Repair for Ruptured Aortic Abdominal Aneurysms

Management modalities of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) include ruptured open aneurysm repair (rOAR) and ruptured endovascular aneurysm repair (rEVAR). In this study, we aim to systematically review all the previously published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared rOAR and rEVAR. A systematic search was performed in the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Clinical trials, and others with all the potentially relevant keywords that were adjusted to meet the search strategy for each database to collect all the relevant studies that were published up to January 2021. A total of 11 studies were identified through our comprehensive search. Among these studies, seven represented the IMPROVE trial, two represented the AJAX trial, and two represented the Nottingham and ECAR trials, each, while the remaining four studies were not RCTs; however, these were included in the discussion as they obtained data from the IMPROVE trial. The IMPROVE trials preferred EVAR use due to the potential survival benefit and improved quality of life, although the EVAR and OAR had similar mortality rates. In the AJAX and ECAR, the mortality rates favored EVAR over OAR with no significance while the opposite was noticed in the Nottingham trial with no significance also. Similar rates of re-interventions and complications were also noticed and some studies reported that EVAR is cost-effective. Overall evidence slightly favors EVAR over OAR and further studies are needed.

MicroRNA-29a-3p regulates abdominal aortic aneurysm development and progression via direct interaction with PTEN

Various research studies have been conducted in deducing the role of microRNAs (miRNAs) in the pathogenesis and physiological processes of various systematic diseases. This study aims at demonstration of the important role played by miR-29a-3p, through association with phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), in the regulation of abdominal aortic aneurysm development and progression. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) examined miRNA-19a-3p and PMEPA1 expression in multiplied vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMCs). Cell transfection upregulated or downregulated the genes and cell counting kit-8 assay determined cellular viability. RT-qPCR detected cellular proliferation and cell death using the cell proliferation and apoptosis biomarkers Ki87 and proliferating cell nuclear antigen, caspase-8 and caspase-3, respectively. Furthermore, luciferase assay analyzed the luciferase activity and western blot analysis determined miRNA-19a-3p and PMEPA1 protein expression in proliferation and apoptosis biomarkers. TargetScan 4.2 online software (www.targetscan.org) was used to perform the bioinformatics analysis so as to forecast the putative targets of miR-29a-3p and PTEN. The results inferred that there was an increased expression of miRNA-29a-3p found in AAA-mimic cells with increased cellular viability and significant pathological apoptosis. Further, when the expression of miRNA-29a-3p was downregulated, it reduced the cell viability of AAA cells. On the basis of the gene interplays, it can be understood that the PTEN was directly targeted by miRNA-29a-3p so as to regulate the AAA progression. Thus, PTEN was found to strengthen the proliferation effect of miRNA-29a-3p in AAA cells. The current study thus shed more insights about the molecular mechanistic roles of miRNA-29a-3p and PTEN, opening doors for novel therapeutic approach to AAA.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in the management of major exsanguination

BACKGROUND

Circulatory collapse is a leading cause of mortality among traumatic major exsanguination and in ruptured aortic aneurysm patients. Approximately 40% of patients die before hemorrhage control is achieved. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is an adjunct designed to sustain the circulation until definitive surgical or endovascular repair. A systematic review was conducted for the current clinical use of REBOA in patients with hemodynamic instability and to discuss its potential role in improving prehospital and in-hospital outcome.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis (1900-2017) using MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, Web of Science and Central and Emcare using the keywords "aortic balloon occlusion", "aortic balloon tamponade", "REBOA", and "Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion" in combination with hemorrhage control, hemorrhage, resuscitation, shock, ruptured abdominal or thoracic aorta, endovascular repair, and open repair. Original published studies on human subjects were considered.

RESULTS

A total of 490 studies were identified; 89 met criteria for inclusion. Of the 1436 patients, overall reported mortality was 49.2% (613/1246) with significant differences (p < 0.001) between clinical indications. Hemodynamic shock was evident in 79.3%, values between clinical indications showed significant difference (p < 0.001). REBOA was favored as treatment in trauma patients in terms of mortality. Pooled analysis demonstrated an increase in mean systolic pressure by almost 50 mmHg following REBOA use.

CONCLUSION

REBOA has been used in trauma patients and ruptured aortic aneurysm patients with improvement of hemodynamic parameters and outcomes for several decades. Formal, prospective study is warranted to clarify the role of this adjunct in all hemodynamic unstable patients.

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.

A computational assessment of the hemodynamic effects of crossed and non-crossed bifurcated stent-graft devices for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms

There are several issues attributed with abdominal aortic aneurysm endovascular repair. The positioning of bifurcated stent-grafts (SG) may affect SG hemodynamics. The hemodynamics and geometrical parameters of crossing or non-crossing graft limbs have not being totally accessed. Eight patient-specific SG devices and four pre-operative cases were computationally simulated, assessing the hemodynamic and geometrical effects for crossed (n= 4) and non-crossed (n= 4) configurations. SGs eliminated the occurrence of significant recirculations within the sac prior treatment. Dean's number predicted secondary flow locations with the greatest recirculations occurring at the outlets especially during the deceleration phase. Peak drag force varied from 3.9 to 8.7N, with greatest contribution occurring along the axial and anterior/posterior directions. Average resultant drag force was 20% smaller for the crossed configurations. Maximum drag force orientation varied from 1.4° to 51°. Drag force angle varied from 1° to 5° during one cardiac cycle. 44% to 62% of the resultant force acted along the proximal centerline where SG migration is most likely to occur. The clinician's decision for SG positioning may be a critical parameter, and should be considered prior to surgery. All crossed SG devices had an increased spiral flow effect along the distal legs with reductions in drag forces.

Translumbar Extraperitoneal Decompression for Abdominal Compartment Syndrome after Endovascular Treatment of a Ruptured AAA

Purpose:

To report an unusual case of abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) following endovascular repair of a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) that had been treated with a stent-graft 3 years prior.

Case Report:

A 68-year-old man with a 3-year-old Vanguard bifurcated aortic stent-graft experienced sudden back pain and collapse. Aneurysm rupture documented by computed tomography was due to dislocation of the left graft limb. A Talent aortomonoiliac graft was deployed, followed by a femorofemoral bypass. No endoleak was evident. A few hours later, the patient became oliguric and hemodynamically unstable. Increased intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) was recorded. Abdominal decompression was performed, removing 1500 mL of blood from the retroperitoneum through an 18-cm lumbotomy; the peritoneum was opened, and another 500 mL of blood was aspirated. The IAP fell immediately, followed by diuresis a few hours later. The patient recovered and was discharged after 27 days.

Conclusions:

Some of the perioperative complications seen after conventional rAAA repair are also encountered after endovascular treatment. ACS requires urgent decompression, and less invasive approaches, such as translumbar extraperitoneal decompression, may be a good alternative to a midline laparotomy.

Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Endovascular Repair Does Not Confer Any Long-term Survival Advantage Over Open Repair

Recent studies have suggested that endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) may reduce the perioperative mortality of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Whether EVAR confers any long-term survival advantage over published results for open repair of ruptured AAA has not been established. We conducted a single-center retrospective study over a 10-year period (1994–2004) examining the long-term outcome of patients who have undergone endovascular repair of ruptured AAA. Fifty-four patients underwent endovascular repair of a ruptured AAA. The median age was 75 years (interquartile range 69.5–79.5 years); 42 (78%) patients were male. The perioperative mortality rate was 37%. During a median follow-up of 32 months (range 14–48 months), there were 5 aneurysm-related and 13 non-aneurysm-related deaths. Overall, the 3- and 5-year survival rates were 36% and 26%, respectively. EVAR does not appear to confer any overall survival advantage in the mid- to long term compared with the published results for open repair. The reasons for this remain unclear. Further, larger studies are required to confirm these results.

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.

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm masquerading as isolated hip pain: an unusual presentation

The rupture of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a catastrophic event. Misdiagnosis by first-contact emergency physicians remains a serious concern. Varied and frequently nonspecific presentations lead to erroneous diagnostic impressions and cause significant delays in definitive intervention. We report the case of a 73-year-old man with a ruptured AAA presenting with isolated acute right hip pain without any classical features such as truncal pain or hypotension. Despite major advances in imaging and definitive treatment, a heightened awareness among emergency physicians remains the only effective means of improving detection and thereby survival.

Novel biomarkers of abdominal aortic aneurysm disease: identifying gaps and dispelling misperceptions

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a prevalent and potentially life-threatening disease. Early detection by screening programs and subsequent surveillance has been shown to be effective at reducing the risk of mortality due to aneurysm rupture. The aim of this review is to summarize the developments in the literature concerning the latest biomarkers (from 2008 to date) and their potential screening and therapeutic values. Our search included human studies in English and found numerous novel biomarkers under research, which were categorized in 6 groups. Most of these studies are either experimental or hampered by their low numbers of patients. We concluded that currently no specific laboratory markers allow screeing for the disease and monitoring its progression or the results of treatment. Further studies and studies in larger patient groups are required in order to validate biomarkers as cost-effective tools in the AAA disease.

Endovascular versus open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

Although major improvement has occurred to make elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms a safe procedure, the incidence of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms and mortality rates are still disappointing. Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair has produced quantum changes in aneurysm treatment. The successful application of the endovascular approach for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the elective setting has prompted a strong interest regarding its possible use in dealing with the long-standing challenge of a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Since the first report, several centers have reported results and a wide spectrum of opinion regarding its application, with special consideration to logistical and practical barriers for appropriate utilization. The purpose of this article is to review all the available literature on the endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms and to analyze the most recent trends in their management, with special consideration given to comparing results of conventional and endovascular approaches.

A meta-analysis and metaregression analysis of factors influencing mortality after endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

To determine factors that may influence the perioperative mortality after endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAAs) using metaregression analysis.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of all English-language literature with information on mortality rates after endovascular repair of RAAAs was conducted. A metaregression was subsequently performed to determine the impact on mortality of the following 8 factors: patient age; mid-time study point; anaesthesia; endograft configuration; haemodynamic instability; use of aortic balloon; conversion to open repair; and abdominal compartment syndrome.

RESULTS

The pooled perioperative mortality across the 46 studies (1397 patients) was 24.3% (95% CI: 20.7-28.3%). Of the 8 variables, only bifurcated approach was significantly associated with reduced mortality (p = 0.005). A moderate negative correlation was observed between bifurcated approach and haemodynamic instability (-0.35). There was still a strong association between bifurcated approach and mortality after simultaneously adjusting for haemodynamic instability, indicating that the latter was not a major factor in explaining the observed association.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular repair of RAAAs is associated with acceptable mortality rates. Patients having a bifurcated endograft were less likely to die. This may be due to some surgeons opting for a bifurcated approach in patients with better haemodynamic condition. Further studies will be needed to clarify this.

Endovascular treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: aorto-uni-iliac or bifurcated endograft?

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the safety and technical and clinical success rates of positioning endovascular endografts (EG) in ruptured abdominal aneurysms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm confirmed by contrast-enhanced computed tomography angiography (CTA) were eligible for the analysis. Of 67 patients, 42 (62.7%) were treated with EG. Thirteen patients (30.9%) received an aorto-uni-iliac EG (group A) and 29 a bifurcated EG (group B). Patients were divided for comparative analysis according to the configuration of the EG implanted.

RESULTS

The primary technical success rate was 100%; the primary clinical success rate was 95% (40/42). There were two intraoperative deaths (4.7%) related to intractable shock. No patient required conversion to open repair. Overall, 12 patients (28.5%) died within 30 days. The in-hospital death rate was 30.9% (13/42). Hospital mortality rate was statistically higher in group A; the type of EG and intensive care unit admission were the only independent predictors of hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, a higher mortality rate was observed for the aorto-uni-iliac configuration; shock at admission was confirmed as the most important factor for postoperative survival.

Endovascular management of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: an 8-year single-centre experience

We aimed to review our experience with the endovascular treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA). During an 8-year period, 69 patients with a RAAA presented to our department; 67 underwent assessment by computed axial tomography, and 2 died on arrival before any evaluation was possible. A total of 42 patients (63%) were suitable for stent-grafting, and all but 1 (c-arm failure) proceeded to endovascular repair. Of these, 27 underwent surgery with local anaesthesia; 3 did so under general anaesthesia; and a further 11 procedures were commenced with the patient under local anaesthesia and then converted to general anaesthesia. A total of 28 bifurcated and 14 aorto-uni-iliac stent-grafts were implanted. Aortic occlusion balloons were used in 2 (5%) patients. The in-hospital and the 30-day mortality rates were 36% and 41%, respectively. After surgery, 21 complications were encountered in 17 patients. Two patients required reintervention during their hospital stay (1 type I endoleak and 1 limb occlusion). During the follow-up (median 730 days [range 90 to 580 days]), the 1-year and 5-year cumulative survival probabilities were 53% (SE 7.9%) and 50% (SE 8.0%), respectively. Three reinterventions were necessary during follow-up (2 type I endoleaks and 1 graft occlusion). We conclude that endovascular treatment is feasible in the emergency setting, and the early experience is promising. Whether such an approach is superior to open surgery remains to be determined.

Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Systematic Literature Review

Endovascular repair is increasingly used for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAAs). This study estimated the mortality rate for this approach. A review of 307 publications in English was performed. Thirty-four publications representing 1,200 patients with RAAA were deemed appropriate for analysis by weighted least squares regression. Of the 1,200 patients, 531 (44.3%) underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The average age was 74 years, and 13% were female. Aortouni-iliac grafts were used in 49.4% of patients, and 50.6% received bifurcated grafts. The technical success rate was 94.9%, with a mortality rate of 30.2%. The ratio of endovascular cases to the total number of cases strongly predicted the mortality rate (weighted coefficient −0.378, p < .0003). The mortality rate following EVAR of RAAA is 30%. A 3.8% reduction in mortality was found for each 10% increase in the percentage of ruptures repaired endovascularly at each center. These results are suggestive of a learning curve.

A meta-analysis of 21 178 patients undergoing open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm

Background

Several studies have compared outcomes after elective open and endovascular approaches to abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery, with varying results.

Methods

A random-effects meta-analysis was undertaken to compare operative outcomes, postoperative complications, 30-day mortality and long-term patient survival after surgery. Endpoints were compared using odds ratios (ORs), weighted mean differences (WMDs) or log hazard ratios (HRs) as appropriate.

Results

Forty-two studies comprising 21 178 patients (10 855 open; 10 323 endovascular) were included. In the elective setting (20 715 patients), the endovascular method was associated with a shorter stay in intensive care (WMD − 36 h; P &lt; 0·001) and a shorter total postoperative stay (WMD − 5·4 days; P &lt; 0·001). Cardiac (OR 1·76; P = 0·002) and respiratory (OR 4·01; P &lt; 0·001) complications were more common after open surgery. In the endovascular group, 30-day mortality was lower (OR 0·46; P &lt; 0·001). Endovascular surgery was also associated with an improved long-term aneurysm-related mortality (HR 0·39; P &lt; 0·001). For ruptured AAA (463 patients), the less invasive operation was associated with a reduced stay in intensive care (WMD − 100·4 h; P = 0·005) and a significantly lower 30-day mortality (OR 0·45; P = 0·005).

Conclusions

The endovascular repair of AAA offers a clear benefit in terms of reduction in postoperative adverse events and 30-day mortality. In the longer term, it is also associated with a reduction in aneurysm-related mortality, but not in all-cause mortality.

Endovascular aneurysm repair: current and future status

Endovascular aneurysm repair has rapidly expanded since its introduction in the early 1990s. Early experiences were associated with high rates of complications including conversion to open repair. Perioperative morbidity and mortality results have improved but these concerns have been replaced by questions about long-term durability. Gradually, too, these problems have been addressed. Challenges of today include the ability to roll out the endovascular technique to patients with adverse aneurysm morphology. Fenestrated and branch stent-graft technology is in its infancy. Only now are we beginning to fully understand the advantages, limitations, and complications of such technology. This paper outlines some of the concepts and discusses the controversies and challenges facing clinicians involved in endovascular aneurysm surgery today and in the future.

Endovascular Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair (EVRAR): A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

To review evidence supporting the use of endovascular ruptured aneurysm repair (EVRAR) for treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA).

METHODS

A systematic review of the medical literature was performed for relevant studies. We searched a number of electronic databases and hand-searched relevant journals until November 2006 to identify studies for inclusion. We considered studies in which patients with a confirmed ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm were treated with EVRAR, which reported endpoints of mortality and major complications.

RESULTS

There was 1 randomised controlled trial (RCT), 33 non-randomised case series (24 retrospective and 9 prospective) reports were identified comparing EVRAR (n=891) with conventional open surgical repair for the treatment of RAAA. Whilst no benefit in the primary outcome of mortality was noted in the only RCT, evidence from non-randomised studies suggest that EVRAR is feasible in selected patients, where it may be associated with a trend towards reductions in blood loss, duration of intensive care treatment, early complications, and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of symptomatic or ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, emergency endovascular repair (EVRAR) is feasible in selected patients, with early outcomes comparable to best conventional open surgical repair for the treatment of RAAA.

Repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms by endovascular techniques

Emergency EVR for ruptured AAA is now technically feasible, and several reports with small numbers have appeared in the literature from major centers suggesting that the results may be the same as or better than seen with open repair. The immediate priority is avoidance of over-resuscitation together with the rapid transfer of the patient to CT and then to the operating theater. Because of the learning curve involved, these cases should be attempted only by major centers that have extensive elective endovascular experience. The requirement for 24-hour availability of surgeons and radiologists trained in endovascular techniques places an enormous strain on vascular and radiologic staff and is achievable only in major centers with large teams of doctors. These issues raise important questions about the delivery of vascular services and whether all cases of ruptured aortic aneurysm should be transferred to major vascular centers. The operating theater staff and other support persons need training in endovascular techniques and in rapid deployment of an aortic occlusion balloon. A wide selection of devices, guidewires, and catheters must be immediately available in the operating theater. The ideal way to establish the role of EVR for ruptured AAA would be a randomized trial, but there might be logistic difficulties in recruiting sufficient numbers in major vascular centers, particularly as screening for AAA becomes more common and reduces the number of cases. There also are ethical issues as to whether these patients can give informed consent for involvement in such a trial. The alternative is for major centers to continue to develop their endovascular programs, to do more cases, and to compare the results with historical controls undergoing open repair.

Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Endovascular Repair versus Open Surgery—Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review of studies in which endovascular repair was compared with open surgery in the treatment of patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of the English-language literature from January 1994 until March 2006 was performed. Inclusion criteria for studies were that they were about a comparison between patients who underwent endovascular repair and patients who underwent open surgery, that each treatment group included at least five patients, that information about patients' hemodynamic condition at presentation was reported, and that 30-day mortality was reported for each treatment group. Two reviewers independently extracted the data, and discrepancies were resolved by an arbiter. Random-effects models and meta-regression analysis were used to calculate crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for endovascular repair versus open surgery.

RESULTS

Ten studies, in which the results of 478 procedures (n=148 for endovascular repair, n=330 for open surgery) were reported, met the inclusion criteria. All studies were observational; no randomized controlled trials were found. The pooled 30-day mortality was 22% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 16%, 29%) for endovascular repair and 38% (95% CI: 32%, 45%) for open surgery. The pooled rate for total systemic complications was 28% (95% CI: 17%, 48%) for endovascular repair and 56% (95% CI: 37%, 85%) for open surgery. The crude OR for 30-day mortality for endovascular repair compared with open surgery was 0.45 (95% CI: 0.28, 0.72). After adjustment for patients' hemodynamic condition, the OR was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.31, 1.44).

CONCLUSION

In this systematic review, after adjustment for patients' hemodynamic condition at presentation, a benefit in 30-day mortality for endovascular repair compared with open surgery for patients with a ruptured AAA was observed, but it was not statistically significant.

A Modular Aortouniiliac Endovascular Stent-graft is a Useful Device for the Treatment of Symptomatic and Ruptured Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: One-year Results from a Multicentre Study

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular repair (EVAR) of acute symptomatic and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) can be difficult without a large stock of suitable graft sizes. We report a prospective European multicentre study of a modular aortouniiliac stent-graft.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Seven centres, with elective EVAR experience, participated in the study. Sixty-five patients were enrolled from September 2002 - April 2005. Some 45 patients had rAAA and 20 were acutely symptomatic. Their median age was 74 (69-80.3) years, 49 (75%) were men. From a choice of 4 body and 4 limb sizes, stent-grafts were deployed under local or general anaesthesia.

RESULTS

The endovascular delivery system was introduced and the aneurysm excluded from the circulation in a median of 40 (30-60) minutes from the first incision. The median operative duration was 150 (120-190) mins, blood loss 300 ml (200-800). 33 (51%) operations were performed by a vascular surgeon alone. There were a total of 4 (6%) peri-operative re-interventions, endovascular (n=1), open (n=2) and thrombectomy (n=1). The peri-operative mortality in the rupture group was 40% and 10% in the symptomatic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortouniiliac stent-grafts provide rapid exclusion of rAAA. Suitably trained surgeons can do the operation without a radiologist's support. The mortality rate from rAAA treated with EVAR remains high.

Early and Midterm Results After Open and Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in a Comparative Analysis

PURPOSE

To compare early and midterm results of open versus endovascular aortic repair of ruptured abdominal aneurysms (rAAA).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of 58 consecutive patients with rAAA who were treated with open or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) at a single center between January 2000 and December 2005. Patients without definitive signs of rupture (symptomatic patients) were excluded from the study. Twenty-nine patients (21 men; median age 71 years) were treated using endovascular techniques (EVAR group) and 29 (28 men; median age 71 years) with open repair (OR group). The hemodynamic status at the time of admission was evaluated with respect to blood pressure, pulse rate, and hemoglobin level to reduce selection bias. Patients underwent follow-up by clinical examination and computed tomography.

RESULTS

The 30-day mortality rate was 31% (9/29) in each group (p = 1.0); the morbidity rates also did not differ between groups [16 (55.2%) EVAR vs. 18 (62.1%) OR; p = 0.9]. There was 1 (3.4%) primary conversion in the EVAR group and 7 (24.1%) endoleaks [3 (10.3%) primary; 4 (13.8%) secondary]. There was no difference between the groups with regard to intensive care unit stay (4 days for EVAR vs. 3 days for OR, p = 0.98) or total hospital stay (9 days for EVAR vs. 12 days for OR, p = 0.69). After a mean follow-up of 40.25 months (range 1-70), the midterm mortality rates did not differ [5 (17.2%) EVAR vs. 3 (10.3%) OR, p = 0.41].

CONCLUSION

EVAR of rAAAs is feasible, with equal early and midterm mortality rates compared to open repair. When a defined patient selection is used for rupture, including hemodynamic status, there is no evidence of a better outcome with EVAR in emergency cases.

Surgery Insight: advances in endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

Despite improvements in diagnostic and therapeutic methods and an increased awareness of their clinical significance, abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) continue to be a major source of morbidity and mortality. Endovascular repair of AAAs, initially described in 1990, offers a less-invasive alternative to conventional open repair. The technology and devices used for endovascular repair of AAAs have progressed rapidly and the approach has proven to be safe and effective in short to midterm investigations. Furthermore, several large trials have demonstrated that elective endovascular repair is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and mortality than open repair. The long-term benefits of endovascular repair relative to open repair, however, continue to be studied. In addition to elective repair, the use of endovascular repair for ruptured AAAs has been increasing, and has been shown to be associated with reduced perioperative morbidity and mortality. Advances in endovascular repair of AAAs, including the development of branched and fenestrated grafts and the use of implantable devices to measure aneurysm-sac pressures following stent-graft deployment, have further broadened the application of the technique and have enhanced postoperative monitoring. Despite these advances, endovascular repair of AAAs remains a relatively novel technique, and further long-term data need to be collected.

Endovascular treatment for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) (the pathological enlargement of the aorta) can develop in both men and women as they grow older. It is most commonly seen in men over the age of 65 years. Progressive aneurysm enlargement can lead to rupture and massive internal bleeding, a fatal event unless timely repair can be achieved. Despite improvements in perioperative care, mortality remains high (approximately 50%) after conventional open surgical repair. A newer minimally invasive technique, endovascular repair, has been shown to reduce early morbidity and mortality, as compared to conventional open surgery, for planned AAA repair. Emergency endovascular repair (eEVAR) has been used successfully to treat ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA), proving that it is feasible in selected patients. However, it is not yet known if eEVAR will lead to significant improvements in outcomes for these patients or indeed if it can replace conventional open repair as the preferred treatment for this lethal condition.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the advantages and disadvantages of eEVAR in comparison with conventional open surgical repair for the treatment of RAAA.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched their trials register (last searched October 2006) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database (last searched Issue 4, 2006). We searched a number of electronic databases and handsearched relevant journals until March 2006 to identify studies for inclusion.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which patients with a confirmed ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm were randomly allocated to eEVAR, or conventional open surgical repair.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies identified for potential inclusion were independently assessed for eligibility by at least two reviewers, with excluded studies further checked by the agreed arbitrators. As no randomised controlled trials were identified at present no tests of heterogeneity or sensitivity analysis were performed.

MAIN RESULTS

There were no randomised controlled trials identified at present comparing eEVAR with conventional open surgical repair for the treatment of RAAA.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no high quality evidence to support the use of eEVAR in the treatment of RAAA. However, evidence from prospective controlled studies without randomisation, prospective studies, and retrospective case series suggest that eEVAR is feasible in selected patients, with outcomes comparable to best conventional open surgical repair for the treatment of RAAA . Furthermore, endovascular repair in selected patients may be associated with a trend towards reductions in blood loss, duration of intensive care treatment, and mortality.

Inflammatory abdominal aortic aneurysm: Predictors of long-term outcome in a case-control study

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are relatively rare clinical entities. The aim of this study is to ascertain the risk factors in patients with inflammatory AAAs and clarify which feature plays a role in determining the long-term outcome in these patients.

METHODS

Between 1990 and 1997, 238 patients underwent surgery for an AAA at our institution, 17 (7.1%) of whom had the diagnosis of inflammatory type AAA. This group was matched in a case-control fashion to a group of 35 patients with similar characteristics of age, gender, and preoperative risk factors who were operated on for a noninflammatory AAA. All available clinical, pathologic, and postoperative variables were retrospectively reviewed, and the 2 groups were compared. In the inflammatory group, risk factor analysis was performed for poor outcome.

RESULTS

All operations were performed through a standard transperitoneal median laparotomy. The 2 groups did not differ significantly in terms of clinical characteristics and preoperative risk factors Patients with inflammatory AAAs were significantly more symptomatic (100% vs 31%, P = .03) and had larger aneurysm size on admission (8.2 +/- 1.2 cm vs 6.1 +/- 0.4 cm, P = .04). In inflammatory AAAs, preoperative erythrocyte sedimentation rate was found to be significantly elevated (mean, 48 +/- 14 mm/h vs 8 +/- 3 mm/h, P = .01). Surgical morbidity and mortality rates did not differ between 2 groups. The intensive care unit and hospital stay periods were similar in both groups (2.2 days vs 1.8 days, P = .25, and 9.2 days vs 8.1 days, P = .35). Eight-year survival rates of inflammatory and noninflammatory groups were 60% and 74%, respectively (P = .01). Results from Cox proportional hazards model analysis showed that a high sedimentation rate after surgical intervention (P = .02), cardiovascular disease (P = .01), postoperative persisting fibrosis with ureteral entrapment (P = .01), and postoperative chronic renal failure (P = .02) were independent risk factors for death. Other surgical variables did not prove to be risk factors for long-term mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the preoperative characteristics may differ in patients with inflammatory type AAAs, they can be treated today with low morbidity and mortality rates. However, inflammatory process may continue postoperatively because of unknown reasons, and the study documented that persisting, postoperative inflammatory process with or without retroperitoneal fibrosis may place a patient at high risk for poor outcome. This is important information for the long-term management of these patients, and we believe that their follow-up protocols should be more comprehensive to further improve their long-term survival rates.

A single-center experience in open and endovascular treatment of hemodynamically unstable and stable patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

To retrospectively compare a single center's immediate and mid-term outcomes of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm open and endovascular repair (EVAR) for two patient groups-hemodynamically stable and unstable patients-in the same time period.

METHODS

Patients presenting at our center with confirmed rupture of an abdominal aortic aneurysm between December 1999 and April 2006 were considered according to an intention-to-treat model with EVAR. Patients with symptomatic or acute (but not ruptured) AAAs were not included in this study. Thirty-three patients underwent EVAR, and 91 underwent open repair. Seventy-two patients (EVAR, 45%; open, 63%) were classified as hemodynamically unstable at arrival, and 52 were classified as stable (EVAR, 55%; open, 37%). Ninety-seven percent of EVAR procedures commenced under local anesthesia, and 100% of open repairs occurred with general anesthesia. Overall successful graft deployment, 30-day mortality, overall reintervention rate, and complications were the study primary end points.

RESULTS

Overall successful graft deployment for EVAR was 91%; for open repair, it was 96%. Overall 30-day mortality for EVAR was 30% (unstable, 53%; stable, 11%), and the rate was 46% for open repair (unstable, 61%; stable, 21%). The EVAR postoperative reintervention rate (within 30 days) was 15% (unstable, 20%; stable, 11%), and for open repair it was 10% (unstable, 9%; stable, 15%). We recorded a 27% severe complication rate for EVAR patients (unstable, 40%; stable, 17%), and for patients treated with open repair, it was 33% (unstable, 35%; stable, 29%). Our overall EVAR eligibility rate was 52%, and our overall EVAR treatment rate was 27%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study's overall results for EVAR remain encouraging when compared with those of conventional repair, but large randomized trials are required to confirm the efficacy of the procedure.

A Randomised Trial of Endovascular and Open Surgery for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm – Results of a Pilot Study and Lessons Learned for Future Studies

INTRODUCTION

EVAR has the potential to improve outcome after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Published series have been based upon selected populations.

METHODS

An interim analysis of a single centre prospective randomised controlled trial comparing endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with open aneurysm repair (OAR) in patients with ruptured AAA was performed. Patients who had a ruptured AAA and who were considered fit for open repair were randomised to EVAR or OAR after consent had been obtained. Those in the EVAR group had pre-operative spiral computed tomographic angiography (CTA). The primary endpoint was operative (30-day) mortality and secondary endpoints were moderate or severe operative complications, hospital stay and time between diagnosis and operation. A power study calculation required 100 patients to be recruited.

RESULTS

Between September 2002 and December 2004, 103 patients were admitted with suspected ruptured AAA. Only 32 patients were recruited to the study. Of these, four patients died before receiving surgical treatment. On an intention to treat basis the 30-day mortality rate was 53% in the EVAR group and 53% in the OAR group. Moderate or severe operative complications occurred in 77% in the EVAR group and in 80% in the OAR group. Median total hospital stay in the EVAR group was 10 days (inter-quartile range 6-28) and 12 days (4-52) in the OAR group. Median time between diagnosis and operation was 75 minutes (64-126) in the EVAR group and 100 minutes (48-138) in the OAR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the relative high operative mortality in the EVAR group, these preliminary results show that it is possible to recruit patients to a randomised trial of OAR and EVAR in patients with ruptured AAA. CT scanning does not delay treatment.

Is emergency endovascular aneurysm repair associated with higher secondary intervention risk at mid-term follow-up?

OBJECTIVE

The study assessed mid-term outcome of emergency endovascular repair for acute infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms, with special attention to secondary interventions.

METHODS

Between May 1998 and August 2005, 56 patients underwent emergent endovascular repair for a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (n = 34) or an acute nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (n = 22). During the same period, 322 consecutive patients underwent elective endovascular aneurysm repair and were used as control group. Five types of stent grafts were used: Vanguard, Talent, Excluder, Zenith, and Quantum. Follow-up included abdominal radiograph, duplex ultrasound scanning, and computed tomographic angiography. Outcome measures included all-cause and aneurysm-related mortality, complications, and secondary interventions.

RESULTS

Mortality at 30 days was 18%, 5%, and 1% in the ruptured, acute nonruptured, and elective aneurysm groups, respectively. Overall mean follow-up was 38 +/- 26 months. In the ruptured aneurysm group, survival was 67.8% +/- 8.6% at 1 year and 62.1% +/- 9.5% at 2 and 3 years. Seven secondary interventions (4 early and 3 late) were required in five patients (15%), with a cumulative risk of 9.2% +/- 5.1% at 1 year and 16.2% +/- 8.2% at 2 and 3 years. In the acute nonruptured aneurysm group, survival was 90.9% +/- 6.1% at 1 year, 84.8% +/- 8.2% at 2 years, and 76.4% +/- 10.9% at 3 years. Four secondary interventions (1 early and 3 late) were required in four patients (18%), with a cumulative risk of 9.6% +/- 6.5% at 1 and 2 years and 20.9% +/- 12.0% at 3 years. In the elective aneurysm (control) group, survival was 95.2% +/- 1.2% at 1 year, 89.9% +/- 1.8% at 2 years, and 86.2% +/- 2.1% at 3 years. A total of 51 secondary interventions (4 early, 47 late) were required in 38 patients (12%), with a cumulative risk of 4.2% +/- 1.1% at 1 year, 7.6% +/- 1.6% at 2 years, and 12.9% +/- 2.2% at 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

To our surprise, emergency endovascular aneurysm repair did not present with higher secondary intervention rate at mid-term follow-up.

An intention-to-treat by endovascular repair policy may reduce overall mortality in ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

The use of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has been restricted to a small number of specialized units on a selected group of patients. The aim of this study is to assess if the overall mortality in these patients with ruptured AAA may be reduced in a unit where all patients with ruptured AAA are considered first for EVAR.

METHODS

During a 24-month period beginning in July 2002, 51 patients admitted with ruptured AAA were considered for EVAR as the treatment of choice and comprised the study group. EVAR was performed in 17 patients. Open repair was performed in 34 patients: 13 patients had hemodynamic instability and 16 patients had an unsuitable aortic neck anatomy. The study group was compared with a historical control group of 41 patients with ruptured AAA who were treated by open repair from July 2000 to June 2002.

RESULTS

Mortality rate was 39% in the study group compared with 59% in the control group (P = .065). The duration of stay in the intensive care unit was significantly lower in the study group than in the control group (P = .01), although the total in-hospital stay was similar (17 days vs 14 days, P = .83). Within the study group, EVAR patients had a mortality rate of 24% compared with 47% in the open group (P = .14).

CONCLUSION

Although the number of patients was small, offering EVAR to as many patients as possible with ruptured AAA has resulted in a 20% reduction in mortality, albeit statistically insignificant. However, it is in the unstable patients that EVAR will need to improve survival before it may be hailed to supersede the conventional approach.