Early and Midterm Outcomes of Chimney Endovascular Aortic Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair using a chimney technique (ch-EVAR) with those of the standard EVAR (st-EVAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We implemented ch-EVAR for juxtarenal RAAA based on obvious anatomical indications after converting the strategy for RAAA from open repair to EVAR. A retrospective, cohort-based study was conducted on patients with RAAA who were treated using EVAR in our hospital between July 2011 and March 2022. EVAR cases were extracted, and outcomes were compared between ch-EVAR and st-EVAR. Patient clinical status, anatomical variables, treatment, and follow-up data were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 56 (82%) and 12 (18%) patients were treated by st-EVAR and ch-EVAR, respectively. Thirty-day mortality rates were comparable between the 2 groups [8.9% in st-EVAR vs 8.3% in ch-EVAR (p= 0.95)]. Short-term outcomes showed that no type Ia endoleak occurred in either group. Midterm outcomes, including sac enlargement [7.5% in st-EVAR vs 0% in ch-EVAR (p= 0.37)], shrinkage [77.5% in st-EVAR vs 80.0% in ch-EVAR (p= 0.86)], and overall survival and freedom from aneurysm-related reintervention at 3 years [64.7% and 96.4% in the EVAR group vs 91.7% and 100% in the ch-EVAR group, respectively (p= 0.30 and 0.52)], were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Ch-EVAR for RAAA showed remarkably excellent outcomes, comparable to those of st-EVAR. Ch-EVAR is considered technically feasible in experienced centers. The indications for EVAR for RAAA may be further expanded using the chimney technique, resulting in overall improved outcomes for RAAA.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This is a retrospective, single-center analysis of 68 patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAAs) treated by endovascular repair (EVAR) to investigate the efficacy of the chimney technique for juxtarenal RAAA. Thirty-day mortality rate was 8.3% for the chimney EVAR group, which was equivalent to that in the standard EVAR group. Mid-term outcomes including sac enlargement/shrinkage, overall survival, and freedom from aneurysm-related reintervention were comparable between the two groups. This report suggests the possibility of broadening the selection criteria of the current endovascular strategy using the chimney technique.

A comparison of endovascular versus open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm - Meta-analysis of propensity score-matched data

BACKGROUND

Optimal management of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA) has been heavily debated in the literature. The aim of this review is to assess comparative outcomes from propensity-matched studies of endovascular versus open for rAAA.

METHODS

Electronic databases (MEDLINE and Embase) were searched in January 2021 using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface. Eligible studies compared endovascular versus open repair for rAAA using propensity-matched cohorts. Pooled estimates of perioperative outcomes were calculated using odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model. Time-to-event data meta-analysis was conducted using the inverse-variance method and reported as summary hazard ratio (HR) and associated 95% CI. The quality of evidence was graded using a system developed by the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group.

RESULTS

Six studies published between 2010 and 2020 were selected for qualitative and quantitative synthesis, reporting a total of 6731 patients. The odds of perioperative mortality after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) were significantly lower than after open surgical repair (OSR) (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.41-0.65). The hazard of overall mortality during follow-up was lower, although not significantly, after EVAR than after OSR (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62-1.01). The odds of acute kidney injury and early aneurysm-related reintervention were both significantly lower after EVAR than after OSR (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.78 and OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33-0.98, respectively). Patients treated with EVAR stayed in hospital for significantly less time than those treated with OSR (MD -5.13, 95% CI -7.94 to -2.32). The certainty of the body of evidence for perioperative mortality was low and for overall mortality was very low.

CONCLUSION

The evidence suggests that EVAR confers a significant benefit on perioperative mortality.

Time-to-event data meta-analysis of late outcomes of endovascular versus open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

We investigated whether the well-documented perioperative survival advantage of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair would be sustained during follow-up.

METHODS

A systematic review conforming to the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) statement standards was conducted to identify studies that had reported the follow-up outcomes of endovascular vs open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Electronic bibliographic sources (MEDLINE [medical literature analysis and retrieval system online], Embase [Excerpta Medica database], CINAHL [cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature], and CENTRAL [Cochrane central register of controlled trials]) were interrogated using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, United Kingdom). A time-to-event data meta-analysis was performed using the inverse variance method, and the results were reported as summary hazard ratios (HRs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Mixed effects regression was applied to investigate the outcome changes over time. The quality of the body of evidence was appraised using the GRADE (grades of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation) system.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials and 22 observational studies reporting a total of 31,383 patients were included in the quantitative synthesis. The mean follow-up duration across the studies ranged from 232 days to 4.9 years. The overall all-cause mortality was significantly lower after EVAR than after open repair (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.86). However, the postdischarge all-cause mortality was not significantly different (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.85-1.43). The aneurysm-related mortality, which was reported by one randomized controlled trial, was not significantly different between EVAR and open repair (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.15). Meta-regression showed the mortality difference in favor of EVAR was more pronounced in more recent studies (P = .069) and recently treated patients (P = .062). The certainty for the body of evidence for overall and postdischarge all-cause mortality was judged to be low and that for aneurysm-related mortality to be high.

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR showed a sustained mortality benefit during follow-up compared with open repair. A wider adoption of an endovascular-first strategy is justified.

Endovascular Treatment of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Since its inception in the 1990s, endovascular aortic repair has quickly replaced traditional open aortic repair (OAR) as the most common method for elective treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). After numerous iterations and failures of different endografts, the technology has undergone dramatic improvements with evidence pointing to this technology serving as a safe and durable modality, albeit with the requirement of routine surveillance. Not surprisingly, the ability to treat patients with AAAs with minimally invasive technology that could theoretically mitigate some of the risks associated with OAR, such as aortic cross clamping and significant blood loss, was also adopted in patients with ruptured AAAs and is now the preferred treatment method if anatomically feasible.

Patient-Specific Rehearsal Feasibility Before Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility of a patient-specific rehearsal (PsR) before emergency endovascular aneurysm repairs (eEVAR) and its influence on the operation. Materials and Methods: From February 2016 to October 2016, 10 consecutive patients (mean age 75±7.4 years; 9 men) presenting with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) suitable for standard EVAR were enrolled in the study. A 3-dimensional (3D) model of the abdominal aorta was generated on a virtual reality simulator based on the patient’s computed tomography (CT) images. Following the patient-specific simulation setup, PsR was conducted during patient admission or in parallel with the preoperative eEVAR workup. Measured outcomes were PsR feasibility only in the first 4 patients and impact on operative performance thereafter (changes in device selection, the planning process, clinical outcomes, perioperative mortality, and complication rates). Technical metrics and timing of system setup, rehearsal, interval from patient arrival to the actual procedure, and eEVAR were recorded. Results: Mean time for 3D model creation was 21.3±7.8 minutes (range 13–37); there was a significant positive relationship between aortic neck diameter and segmentation time (p=0.003). The overall mean time for simulator setup and PsR was 54±14 minutes (range 37–80); PsR alone was completed in a mean 31±40 minutes (95% confidence interval −60 to −2.2). The actual eEVAR procedure duration was 69±16 minutes (range 45–90). No delay in the actual eEVAR procedure was registered owing to the PsR pathway. In 6 patients, preprocedure rehearsal induced changes in operative strategy, including device selection, main body introduction side, and/or deployment configuration. In 4 cases, rehearsal was performed twice to achieve optimal performance. Conclusion: PsR before eEVAR was feasible in all cases and caused no time delays in the actual eEVAR procedure. PsR optimized eEVAR planning by identifying optimal strategy for stent-graft component selection and deployment.

Identifying and addressing the limitations of EVAR technology

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has improved over the last two decades. Approximately 80% of the patients presenting with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is nowadays primarily treated with EVAR.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the differences between endovascular and open repair, the clinical characteristics needed for EVAR, the role of clinical imaging and the developments in EVAR technology will be discussed. Early mortality is lower in EVAR as compared to open repair, whereas this benefit is lost after 3 years postoperatively. EVAR comes with a high reintervention rate, with endoleak being the most important predictive factor for reintervention. Expanding technical possibilities have allowed surgeons to choose from a palate of endovascular approaches in aneurysm patients with challenging anatomies.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Although EVAR has taken a giant leap forward in development, the new developments have seemed to surpass the long-term limitations with older devices. It is important to start focusing on the current limitations of EVAR, in particular the durability of devices in the human variable anatomic and dynamic environment.

Current treatment strategies for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) represents one of the most challenging emergencies in surgery. Open repair (OR) is associated with relevant morbidity and mortality and has not been reduced significantly over the last decade. The introduction of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and its meanwhile common use in the treatment of rAAA has raised the demand for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in order to resolve a potential superiority of either OR or EVAR.

PURPOSE

This review discusses the current treatment strategies in rAAA repair including diagnostics, peri-operative management and results of OR and EVAR, focussing on RCTs comparing both modalities.

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality after OR and EVAR shows no significant difference in published RCTs. In particular with respect to OR, 30-day mortality was much lower than anticipated throughout all RCTs ranging from 18 to 37 %. EVAR for rAAA resulted in reduced in-hospital stay. Limitations of all except one RCT are low patient recruitment and exclusion of haemodynamically unstable patients.

CONCLUSIONS

OR and EVAR need to be provided for rAAA. Despite lacking evidence, EVAR is the first choice treatment in experienced high-volume vascular centres. Low mortality rates in all RCTs raise the question if aortic surgery should be centralised.

Endovascular grafts for abdominal aortic aneurysm

During the last two decades, endovascular technology has revolutionized the management of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Today, endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is the treatment of choice for the majority of patients with an AAA. Randomized controlled trials provide robust evidence for the indication of AAA repair and the rationale for the use of EVAR in selected patients. However, despite that, practice varies and several areas need further elucidation. Important future challenges and areas of research include the role of medical therapy in AAA, whether the indication for repair should be any different in women and in the elderly, and long-term follow-up of patients undergoing complex EVAR with adjuncts, both for elective treatment and for ruptured AAA. Continuous rapid technical and clinical development is to be expected. In this paper, we review the current practice and evidence of stenting in AAA.