Systematic review of endovascular stent grafting versus open surgical repair for the elective treatment of arch/descending thoracic aortic aneurysms

Outcomes and survival following thoracic endovascular repair in patients with aortic aneurysms limited to the descending thoracic aorta

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a well-established therapy for descending aortic aneurysms (DTA). There is a paucity of large series reporting the mid- and long-term outcomes from this era. The main aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of TEVAR with regards to the effect of aortic morphology and procedure-related variables on survival, reintervention and freedom from endoleaks.

METHODS

In this retrospective single center study, we evaluated the clinical outcomes among 158 consecutive patients with DTA than underwent TEVAR between 2006 and 2019 at our center. The cohort included 51% patients with device landing zones proximal to the subclavian artery and 25.9% patients undergoing an emergent or urgent TEVAR. The primary outcome was survival, and secondary outcomes were reintervention and occurrence of endoleaks.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 33 months [IQR 12 to 70] while 50 patients (30.6%) had longer than 5-year follow-up. With a median patient age of 74 years, post-operative Kaplan Meyer survival estimates were 94.3% (95%CI 90.8-98.0, SE 0.018%) at 30 days, 76.4% (95%CI 70.0-83.3, SE 0.034%) at one year and, 52.9% (95%CI 45.0-62.2, SE 0.043%) at five years. Freedom from reintervention at 30 days, one year, and five years was 92.9% (95%CI 89.0-97.1, SE 0.021%), 80.0% (95%CI 72.6-88.1, SE 0.039%), and 52.8% (95%CI 41.4-67.4, SE 0.065%), respectively. On cox regression analysis greater aneurysm diameter, and the use of device landing zones in aortic regions 0-1 were associated with an increased probability of all-cause mortality, and with reintervention during follow-up. Independent of aneurysm size undergoing urgent or emergent TEVAR was associated with higher mortality risk for the first three years post-operative but not on long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Larger aneurysms and those requiring stent-graft landing in aortic zones 0 or 1, are associated with higher risk for mortality and reintervention. There remains a need to optimize clinical management and device design for larger proximal aneurysms.

Aorticoesophagal Fistula Combined with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding after Endovascular Dissection of Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm

Aortoesophageal fistula (AEF) is a relatively rare and potentially fatal disease. Secondary AEF is rare but is associated with serious complications and high mortality. There are rare cases of esophageal mediastinal fistula after descending aortic aneurysm stent implantation. We report the case of a 76-year-old man who had upper abdominal distension, without obvious inducement, for 3 months and felt fullness after a meal, accompanied by anorexia. A chest computer tomography (CT) examination of the abdomen was performed with the outside hospital. Descending thoracic aortic aneurysm was discovered and was treated with stent implantation. The patient was transferred to our hospital to continue treatment, mainly because of an esophageal mediastinal fistula. Finally, the thoracic aortic aneurysm was diagnosed as AEF after stent implantation, combined with the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We hope that, through this case, we can explain the possible causes of bronchial mediastinal fistula after stent implantation of descending aortic aneurysm and the mechanism of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Surgical Decision-Making and Outcomes in Open Versus Endovascular Repair for Various Vascular Diseases

Today's vascular surgeon must navigate their practice through a field of ever-advancing technology while maintaining knowledge of open techniques that remain equally important in the care of their patients. In this article, the authors provide insight into the perioperative decision-making that goes into choosing a surgical plan for each patient based on their disease process, anatomy, nonmodifiable risk factors, and other comorbidities.

Endovascular stent grafting and open surgical replacement for chronic thoracic aortic aneurysms: a systematic review and prospective cohort study

Background

The management of chronic thoracic aortic aneurysms includes conservative management, watchful waiting, endovascular stent grafting and open surgical replacement. The Effective Treatments for Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms (ETTAA) study investigates timing and intervention choice.

Objective

To describe pre- and post-intervention management of and outcomes for chronic thoracic aortic aneurysms.

Design

A systematic review of intervention effects; a Delphi study of 360 case scenarios based on aneurysm size, location, age, operative risk and connective tissue disorders; and a prospective cohort study of growth, clinical outcomes, costs and quality of life.

Setting

Thirty NHS vascular/cardiothoracic units.

Participants

Patients aged > 17 years who had existing or new aneurysms of ≥ 4 cm in diameter in the arch, descending or thoracoabdominal aorta.

Interventions

Endovascular stent grafting and open surgical replacement.

Main outcomes

Pre-intervention aneurysm growth, pre-/post-intervention survival, clinical events, readmissions and quality of life; and descriptive statistics for costs and quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months and value of information using a propensity score-matched subsample.

Results

The review identified five comparative cohort studies (endovascular stent grafting patients, n = 3955; open surgical replacement patients, n = 21,197). Pooled short-term all-cause mortality favoured endovascular stent grafting (odds ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.98; no heterogeneity). Data on survival beyond 30 days were mixed. Fewer short-term complications were reported with endovascular stent grafting. The Delphi study included 20 experts (13 centres). For patients with aneurysms of ≤ 6.0 cm in diameter, watchful waiting was preferred. For patients with aneurysms of > 6.0 cm, open surgical replacement was preferred in the arch, except for elderly or high-risk patients, and in the descending aorta if patients had connective tissue disorders. Otherwise endovascular stent grafting was preferred. Between 2014 and 2018, 886 patients were recruited (watchful waiting, n = 489; conservative management, n = 112; endovascular stent grafting, n = 150; open surgical replacement, n = 135). Pre-intervention death rate was 8.6% per patient-year; 49.6% of deaths were aneurysm related. Death rates were higher for women (hazard ratio 1.79, 95% confidence interval 1.25 to 2.57; p = 0.001) and older patients (age 61–70 years: hazard ratio 2.50, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 5.43; age 71–80 years: hazard ratio 3.49, 95% confidence interval 1.26 to 9.66; age > 80 years: hazard ratio 7.01, 95% confidence interval 2.50 to 19.62; all compared with age < 60 years, p < 0.001) and per 1-cm increase in diameter (hazard ratio 1.90, 95% confidence interval 1.65 to 2.18; p = 0.001). The results were similar for aneurysm-related deaths. Decline per year in quality of life was greater for older patients (additional change –0.013 per decade increase in age, 95% confidence interval –0.019 to –0.007; p < 0.001) and smokers (additional change for ex-smokers compared with non-smokers 0.003, 95% confidence interval –0.026 to 0.032; additional change for current smokers compared with non-smokers –0.034, 95% confidence interval –0.057 to –0.01; p = 0.004). At the time of intervention, endovascular stent grafting patients were older (age difference 7.1 years; 95% confidence interval 4.7 to 9.5 years; p < 0.001) and more likely to be smokers (75.8% vs. 66.4%; p = 0.080), have valve disease (89.9% vs. 71.6%; p < 0.0001), have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (21.3% vs. 13.3%; p = 0.087), be at New York Heart Association stage III/IV (22.3% vs. 16.0%; p = 0.217), have lower levels of haemoglobin (difference –6.8 g/l, 95% confidence interval –11.2 to –2.4 g/l; p = 0.003) and take statins (69.3% vs. 42.2%; p < 0.0001). Ten (6.7%) endovascular stent grafting and 15 (11.1%) open surgical replacement patients died within 30 days of the procedure (p = 0.2107). One-year overall survival was 82.5% (95% confidence interval 75.2% to 87.8%) after endovascular stent grafting and 79.3% (95% confidence interval 71.1% to 85.4%) after open surgical replacement. Variables affecting survival were aneurysm site, age, New York Heart Association stage and time waiting for procedure. For endovascular stent grafting, utility decreased slightly, by –0.017 (95% confidence interval –0.062 to 0.027), in the first 6 weeks. For open surgical replacement, there was a substantial decrease of –0.160 (95% confidence interval –0.199 to –0.121; p < 0.001) up to 6 weeks after the procedure. Over 12 months endovascular stent grafting was less costly, with higher quality-adjusted life-years. Formal economic analysis was unfeasible.

Limitations

The study was limited by small numbers of patients receiving interventions and because only 53% of patients were suitable for both interventions.

Conclusions

Small (4–6 cm) aneurysms require close observation. Larger (> 6 cm) aneurysms require intervention without delay. Endovascular stent grafting and open surgical replacement were successful for carefully selected patients, but cost comparisons were unfeasible. The choice of intervention is well established, but the timing of intervention remains challenging.

Future work

Further research should include an analysis of the risk factors for growth/rupture and long-term outcomes.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04044627 and NCT02010892.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Aneurysm growth, survival, and quality of life in untreated thoracic aortic aneurysms: the effective treatments for thoracic aortic aneurysms study

Aims

To observe, describe, and evaluate management and timing of intervention for patients with untreated thoracic aortic aneurysms.

Methods and results

Prospective study of UK National Health Service (NHS) patients aged ≥18 years, with new/existing arch or descending thoracic aortic aneurysms of ≥4 cm diameter, followed up until death, intervention, withdrawal, or July 2019. Outcomes were aneurysm growth, survival, quality of life (using the EQ-5D-5L utility index), and hospital admissions. Between 2014 and 2018, 886 patients were recruited from 30 NHS vascular/cardiothoracic units. Maximum aneurysm diameter was in the descending aorta in 725 (82%) patients, growing at 0.2 cm (0.17–0.24) per year. Aneurysms of ≥4 cm in the arch increased by 0.07 cm (0.02–0.12) per year. Baseline diameter was related to age and comorbidities, and no clinical correlates of growth were found. During follow-up, 129 patients died, 64 from aneurysm-related events. Adjusting for age, sex, and New York Heart Association dyspnoea index, risk of death increased with aneurysm size at baseline [hazard ratio (HR): 1.88 (95% confidence interval: 1.64–2.16) per cm, P < 0.001] and with growth [HR: 2.02 (1.70–2.41) per cm, P < 0.001]. Hospital admissions increased with aneurysm size [relative risk: 1.21 (1.05–1.38) per cm, P = 0.008]. Quality of life decreased annually for each 10-year increase in age [–0.013 (–0.019 to –0.007), P < 0.001] and for current smoking [–0.043 (–0.064 to –0.023), P = 0.004]. Aneurysm size was not associated with change in quality of life.

Conclusion

International guidelines should consider increasing monitoring intervals to 12 months for small aneurysms and increasing intervention thresholds. Individualized decisions about surveillance/intervention should consider age, sex, size, growth, patient characteristics, and surgical risk.

Efficacy and safety of abdominal paracentesis drainage on patients with acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of abdominal paracentesis drainage (APD) in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) when compared with conventional 'step-up' strategy based on percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID), China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Database were electronically searched to collect cohort studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to 25 July 2020. Studies related to comparing APD with conventional 'step-up' strategy based on PCD were included.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were the rate of organ dysfunction, infectious complications, hospitalisation expenses and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Five cohort studies and three RCTs were included in the analysis. Compared with the conventional 'step-up' method, pooled results suggested APD significantly decreased all-cause mortality during hospitalisation (cohort studies: OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.89 and p=0.02), length of hospital stay (cohort studies: standard mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.10 and p=0.005; RCTs: SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.26 and p<0.001) and hospitalisation expenses (cohort studies: SMD -2.49, 95% CI -4.46 to -0.51 and p<0.001; RCTs: SMD -0.67, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.44 and p<0.001). There was no evidence to prove that APD was associated with a higher incidence of infectious complications. However, the incidence of organ dysfunction between cohort studies and RCTs subgroup slightly differed (cohort studies: OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.28 and p=0.22; RCTs: OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.98 and p=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that early application of APD in patients with AP is associated with reduced all-cause mortality, expenses during hospitalisation and the length of stay compared with the 'step-up' strategy without significantly increasing the risk of infectious complications. These results must be interpreted with caution because of the limited number of included studies as well as a larger dependence on observational trials.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020168537.