Long-Term Outcomes Following Elective Repair of Intact Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Comparison Between Open Surgical and Endovascular Repair Using Linked Administrative and Clinical Registry Data

Design and Characterisation of a Read-Out System for Wireless Monitoring of a Novel Implantable Sensor for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Monitoring

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a dilation of the aorta artery larger than its normal diameter (>3 cm). Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a minimally invasive treatment option that involves the placement of a graft in the aneurysmal portion of the aorta artery. This treatment requires multiple follow-ups with medical imaging, which is expensive, time-consuming, and resource-demanding for healthcare systems. An alternative solution is the use of wireless implantable sensors (WIMSs) to monitor the growth of the aneurysm. A WIMS capable of monitoring aneurysm size longitudinally could serve as an alternative monitoring approach for post-EVAR patients. This study has developed and characterised a three-coil inductive read-out system to detect variations in the resonance frequency of the novel Z-shaped WIMS implanted within the AAA sac. Specifically, the spacing between the transmitter and the repeater inductors was optimised to maximise the detection of the sensor by the transmitter inductor. Moreover, an experimental evaluation was also performed for different orientations of the transmitter coil with reference to the WIMS. Finally, the FDA-approved material nitinol was used to develop the WIMS, the transmitter, and repeater inductors as a proof of concept for further studies. The findings of the characterisation from the air medium suggest that the read-out system can detect the WIMS up to 5 cm, regardless of the orientation of the Z-shape WIMS, with the detection range increasing as the orientation approaches 0°. This study provides sufficient evidence that the proposed WIMS and the read-out system can be used for AAA expansion over time.

Propensity score analysis demonstrates no long term survival benefit from contemporary endovascular aneurysm repair compared to open in Aotearoa New Zealand

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines for AAA management are based on landmark trials comparing EVAR and open aneurysm repair (OAR) conducted more than 20 years ago. Important advancements have been made in peri-operative care but the impact of EVAR and OAR on long-term patient survival has not been well reported using contemporary data. The objective of this study was to compare the short and long-term outcomes of OAR and EVAR in the recent era.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study included all patients undergoing intact AAA repair in NZ from 1st of January 2011 until 31st of December 2019. Data was collected from national administrative and clinical vascular databases and matched using unique identifiers. Time-to-event survival analyses was conducted using cox proportional hazard models to adjust for confounders and propensity score matching were used.

RESULTS

Two thousand two hundred and ninety-seven patients had an intact AAA repair with a median (IQR) age of 75 (69-80) years; 494 (21.2%) patients were females and 1206 (53%) underwent EVAR. The 30-day mortality for OAR and EVAR was 4.8% and 1.2%. The median (IQR) follow up was 5.2 (2.3-9.2) years. After propensity matching for co-variates, the study cohort consisted of 835 patients in each matched group. Patients undergoing EVAR had a higher overall mortality (HR 1.48 (95% CI: 1.26-1.74) after adjusting for confounders compared to OAR.

CONCLUSION

Analysis of survival following EVAR and OAR in the current era demonstrates that patients that underwent EVAR had a lower 30-day mortality. However, in the long-term after adjusting for confounders OAR had a better overall survival.

Vascular Registries Contributing to VASCUNET Collaborative Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Outcome Projects: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

Vascular surgery registries report on procedures and outcomes to promote patient safety and drive quality improvement. International registries have contributed significantly to the VASCUNET collaborative abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) outcome projects. This scoping review aimed to outline the national registries in vascular surgery that currently participate in the VASCUNET collaborative AAA projects.

METHODS

A scoping review of all published VASCUNET AAA studies and validation reports between 1997 and 2024 was undertaken. A survey was conducted among representatives of the international vascular registries contributing to VASCUNET collaborative AAA projects.

RESULTS

Currently, vascular registries from 10 countries (Australia, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK) contribute to the current VASCUNET collaborative AAA project, of which eight have national coverage. In the past, three countries (Germany, Malta, and Italy) have participated in previous VASCUNET AAA projects, and a further three countries (Serbia, Greece, and Portugal) have planned participation in future projects. External validity is high for all current registries, with most reporting rates of > 90%. The majority have internal validation processes to assess data accuracy. VASCUNET mediated validation has also been performed by the consortium for five countries to date (Hungary, Sweden, Denmark, Malta, and Switzerland), for which a high degree of external and internal validity was identified. Most registries have established mechanisms for data linkage with national administrative datasets or insurance claims datasets and contribute to quality improvement through regular reporting to participating centres.

CONCLUSION

National vascular registries from nations participating in the VASCUNET collaborative AAA projects are largely comprehensive, with high case ascertainment rates and good quality data with internal quality assurance. This provides a template for new registries wishing to join the VASCUNET collaboration and a benchmark for future research.

Editor's Choice - Comparison of Outcomes for Major Contemporary Endograft Devices Used for Endovascular Repair of Intact Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

To compare rates of mortality, rupture, and secondary intervention following endovascular repair (EVAR) of intact abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) using contemporary endograft devices from three major manufacturers.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using linked clinical registry (Australasian Vascular Audit) and all payer administrative data. Patients undergoing EVAR for intact AAA between 2010 and 2019 in New South Wales, Australia were identified. Rates of all cause death, secondary rupture, and secondary intervention (subsequent aneurysm repair; other secondary aortic intervention) were compared for patients treated with Cook, Medtronic, and Gore standard devices. Inverse probability of treatment weighted proportional hazards and competing risk regression were used to adjust for patient, clinical, and aneurysm characteristics, using Cook as the referent device.

RESULTS

This study identified 2 874 eligible EVAR patients, with a median follow up of 4.1 (maximum 9.5) years. Mortality rates were similar for patients receiving different devices (ranging between 7.0 and 7.3 per 100 person years). There was no statistically significant difference between devices in secondary rupture rates, which ranged between 0.4 and 0.5 per 100 person years. Patients receiving Medtronic and Gore devices tended to have higher crude rates of subsequent aneurysm repair (1.5 per 100 person years) than patients receiving Cook devices (0.8 per 100 person years). This finding remained in the adjusted analysis, but was only statistically significant for Medtronic devices (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.02 - 2.47; HR 1.73, 95% CI 0.94 - 3.18, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Major endograft devices have similar overall long term safety profiles. However, there may be differences in rates of secondary intervention for some devices. This may reflect endograft durability, or patient selection for different devices based on aneurysm anatomy. Continuous comparative assessments are needed to guide evidence for treatment decisions across the range of available devices.

Midterm outcomes of AFX2 endografts used in combination with aortic cuffs

OBJECTIVE

Type III endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with the Endologix unibody endograft remain a major concern, despite fabric, system, and instructional updates. The purpose of this study was to examine real-world outcomes of repairing AAAs using the current version of the AFX2 main body in combination with an aortic cuff, specifically focusing on type III endoleaks and morphological changes of the endograft.

METHODS

We recruited facilities in Japan that used AFX2 combined with an aortic cuff for at least five cases between April 2017 and March 2018. A total of 175 cases in 24 facilities were analyzed. Patients' background information, including anatomic factors, operative findings, device component variations, and midterm outcomes at 3 years after the EVAR were collected. The data on computed tomography scans from cases registered as types I and III endoleaks and migration from each institute were sent to our department for verification.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 74.6 ± 8.1 years, and 48 cases (27%) were saccular aneurysms. The mean fusiform and saccular AAA diameters were 50.5 ± 5.8 mm and 43.5 ± 8.9 mm, respectively. No in-hospital deaths occurred. Data at 3 years, including computed tomography images, of 128 cases were analyzed. Overall survival, freedom from aneurysm-related mortality, and freedom from reintervention rates at 3 years were 85.8%, 99.3%, and 87.3%, respectively. There were three, one, and three cases of types I, IIIa, and IIIb endoleaks without sac dilatations, respectively. Among five migration cases, one case of aortic cuff migration presented as a type Ia endoleak, and four cases demonstrated sideways displacement, one of which presented as a type IIIa endoleak. The sac regression and enlargement rates at 3 years were 41.4% and 20.5% in the fusiform group and 44.2% and 16.7% in the saccular group, respectively. The proximal neck diameter slightly increased from 20.8 ± 2.7 mm before the EVAR to 22.2 ± 4.6 mm after the repair.

CONCLUSIONS

Midterm outcomes of the AFX2 used in combination with an aortic cuff were acceptable, considering the rates of types I and III endoleaks. However, there were cases of sideways displacement that could cause future type IIIa endoleaks. When the AFX2 is used in combination with an aortic cuff, close surveillance for endograft deformations and subsequent adverse events, including type III endoleaks, is needed.

Endovascular versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm: a claims-based data analysis in Japan

Objectives

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) evolved through competition with open aortic repair (OAR) as a safe and effective treatment option for appropriately selected patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Although endoleaks are the most common reason for post-EVAR reintervention, compliance with lifelong regular follow-up imaging remains a challenge.

Design

Retrospective data analysis.

Setting

The Japan Medical Data Center (JMDC), a claims database with anonymous data linkage across hospitals, consists of corporate employees and their families of ≤75 years of age.

Participants

The analysis included participants in the JMDC who underwent EVAR or OAR for intact (iAAA) or ruptured (rAAA) AAA. Patients with less than 6 months of records before the aortic repair were excluded.

Main outcome measures

Overall survival and reintervention rates.

Results

We identified 986 cases (837 iAAA and 149 rAAA) from JMDC with first aortic repairs between January 2015 and December 2020. The number of patients, median age (years (IQR)), follow-up (months) and post-procedure CT scan (times per year) were as follows: iAAA (OAR: n=593, 62.0 (57.0–67.0), 26.0, 1.6, EVAR: n=244, 65.0 (31.0–69.0), 17.0, 2.2), rAAA (OAR: n=110, 59.0 (53.0–59.0), 16.0, 2.1, EVAR: n=39, 62.0 (31.0–67.0), 18.0, 2.4). Reintervention rate was significantly higher among EVAR than OAR in rAAA (15.4% vs 8.2%, p=0.04). In iAAA, there were no group difference after 5 years (7.8% vs 11.0%, p=0.28), even though EVAR had initial advantage. There were no differences in mortality rate between EVAR and OAR for either rAAA or iAAA.

Conclusions

Claims-based analysis in Japan showed no statistically significant difference in 5-year survival rates of the OAR and EVAR groups. However, the reintervention rate of EVAR in rAAA was significantly higher, suggesting the need for regular post-EVAR follow-up with imaging. Therefore, international collaborations for long-term outcome studies with real-world data are warranted.