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.

Management of Endoleaks After Elective Infrarenal Aortic Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: A Review

Importance

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the dominant treatment strategy for abdominal aortic aneurysms, encompassing 80% of all repairs in the United States. Endoleaks are ubiquitous and affect 30% of patients treated by EVAR, potentially leading to sac enlargement and increased risk of rupture. The care of EVAR patients requires long-term surveillance by a multidisciplinary team. Accordingly, physicians should be familiar with the fundamentals of endoleak management to achieve optimal outcomes, including timely referral for remediation or providing counseling and reassurance when needed.

Observations

PubMed and the Cochrane database were searched for articles published between January 2002 and December 2022 in English, addressing epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of endoleaks after EVAR. Endoleaks can be detected intraoperatively or years later, making lifelong surveillance mandatory. Type I and III have the highest risk of rupture (7.5% at 2 years and 8.9% at 1 year, respectively) and should be treated when identified. Intervention should be considered for other types of endoleak when associated with aneurysm sac growth larger than 5 mm based on current guidelines. Type II endoleaks are the most common, accounting for 50% of all endoleaks. Up to 90% of type II endoleaks resolve spontaneously or are not associated with sac enlargement, requiring only observation. Although the risk of rupture is less than 1%, cases that require reintervention are challenging. Recurrence is common despite endovascular treatment, and rupture can occur without evidence of sac growth. Type IV endoleaks and endotension are uncommon, are typically benign, and primarily should be observed.

Conclusions and Relevance

Endoleak management depends on the type and presence of sac expansion. Type I and III endoleaks require intervention. Type II endoleaks should be observed and treated selectively in patients with significant sac expansion. Since endoleaks can appear any time after EVAR, at least 1 contrast-enhanced computed tomographic angiogram or duplex ultrasound by an experienced laboratory is recommended every 5 years.

Incidental extravascular findings in CT angiograms in patients post endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: clinical relevance and frequency

Background

To evaluate the incidence and clinical relevance of extravascular incidental findings (EVIF), particularly malignancies, in planning and follow-up CT angiograms (CTA) of the abdominal aorta in patients who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Retrospective study of 2203 planning and follow-up CTAs of 418 patients who underwent EVAR in a single tertiary centre between 2006 and 2015. CTA reports were scrutinized for EVIFs, which were classified according to clinical relevance, into (I) immediate, (II) potential and (III) no clinical relevance. Clinical follow-up and management were reviewed for significant findings. Follow-up CTAs of patients with incidental malignancies were re-reviewed by two consultant radiologists to evaluate if early missed malignant findings on previous CTAs were present.

Results

In total, 950 EVIFs were noted in 418 patients [31 females (7.4%), 387 males (92.6%); age range 63–93, mean age 79.0 years]. The number of patients with findings in each category were; Category I (115), Category II (165), Category III (304). Incidental malignant findings were reported in 51 patients (12.2%), of which 27 were noted on the initial CTA (6.5%) and 24 on follow-up CTAs (5.7%). Of the 24 patients with malignancies on follow-up CTAs, 13 had early malignant findings missed or misinterpreted on previous CTAs, while 11 had no significant abnormality even on retrospective review.

Conclusion

A high number of significant EVIFs, particularly incidental malignancies, can be identified in follow-up CTAs of patients who undergo EVAR. Specific ‘review areas’ when reporting surveillance CTAs can be recommended based on the findings of our study.

Thoracic Aortic Strain is Irrelevant Regarding Endograft Sizing in Most Young Patients

BACKGROUND

The introduction of electrocardiogram gating in computed tomography (CT) angiography imaging of aortic disease raised questions whether diameters measured on diastolic images can lead to the undersizing of aortic endografts. As previous studies suggested that young patients may have the highest risk of an unintended undersize, the aim of our study was to analyze the strain of the thoracic aorta in a young patient cohort.

METHODS

We assessed the descending aorta of 52 patients (35 men, mean age 41.1 ± 7.3 years) who underwent coronary CT angiography (CCTA) with suspected coronary artery disease. To reduce radiation dose, native calcium score scans triggered on late systole were compared with diastolic phase CCTA images. Cross-section areas were measured, and effective diameters were derived at 3 levels of the visible segment of the descending aorta (P1, P2, and P3) in systole and diastole. Aortic pulsatility (mm, d_systolic-d_diastolic) and strain (%, [d_systolic-d_diastolic]/d_diastolic) were calculated at each level. All measurements were performed 3 times by 2 independent readers to evaluate interreader and intrareader reproducibility.

RESULTS

A total of 936 measurements were performed. Significant differences were found between systolic and diastolic diameters at each location (all P < 0.001). Average aortic pulsatility was 1.5 ± 0.6 mm at P1, 1.6 ± 0.7 mm at P2, and 1.7 ± 0.7 mm at P3, with a corresponding aortic strain of 6.7 ± 3.1% at P1, 7.4 ± 3.5% at P2, and 8.1 ± 3.6% at P3. The differences between the strain of the measurement levels were not significant (P = 0.344). Aortic strain and pulsatility did not show significant correlation with pulse pressure (P = 0.693), patient age (P = 0.649), or other anamnestic data. Intraclass correlation coefficient was in the range of 0.95-0.96 for interobserver and in the range of 0.95-0.97 for intraobserver analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that descending aortic strain can be measured precisely and reliably on images of routine CCTA examinations with native scans acquired during systole. We demonstrated that young adults have an aortic strain of 6.7-8.1%. As the average thoracic aortic strain was still lower than the recommended prosthesis oversize of 10%, routine use of systolic phase imaging cannot be recommended: it has no clinical benefit for the vast majority of the patients but increases the risk of motion artefacts. We also demonstrated that large interindividual differences are present in the scale of thoracic aortic strain, a phenomenon that needs further investigations to be fully understood.