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

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.

Patients with a Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Are Better Informed in Hospitals with an "EVAR-preferred" Strategy: An Instrumental Variable Analysis of the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit

BACKGROUND

While several observational studies suggested a lower postoperative mortality after minimal invasive endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA) compared to conventional open surgical repair (OSR), landmark randomized controlled trials have not been able to prove the superiority of EVAR over OSR. Randomized controlled trials contain a selected, homogeneous population, influencing external validity. Observational studies are biased and adjustment of confounders can be incomplete. Instrumental variable (IV) analysis (pseudorandomization) may help to answer the question if patients with an RAAA have lower postoperative mortality when undergoing EVAR compared to OSR.

METHODS

This is an observational study including all patients with an RAAA, registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit between 2013 and 2017. The risk difference (RD) in postoperative mortality (30 days/in-hospital) between patients undergoing EVAR and OSR was estimated, in which adjustment for confounding was performed in 3 ways: linear model adjusted for observed confounders, propensity score model (multivariable logistic regression analysis), and IV analysis (two-stage least square regression), adjusting for observed and unobserved confounders, with the variation in percentage of EVAR per hospital as the IV instrument.

RESULTS

2419 patients with an RAAA (1489 OSR and 930 EVAR) were included. Unadjusted postoperative mortality was 34.9% after OSR and 22.6% after EVAR (RD 12.3%, 95% CI 8.5-16%). The RD adjusted for observed confounders using linear regression analysis and propensity score analysis was, respectively, 12.3% (95% CI 9.6-16.7%) and 13.2% (95%CI 9.3-17.1%) in favor of EVAR. Using IV analysis, adjusting for observed and unobserved confounders, RD was 8.9% (95% CI -1.1-18.9%) in favor of EVAR.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjusting for observed confounders, patients with an RAAA undergoing EVAR had a significant better survival than OSR in a consecutive large cohort. Adjustment for unobserved confounders resulted in a clinical relevant RD. An "EVAR preference strategy" in patients with an RAAA could result in lower postoperative mortality.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of bowel ischemia after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Outcomes after repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA) have improved in the last decade. It is unknown whether this has resulted in a reduction of postoperative bowel ischemia (BI). The primary objective was to determine BI prevalence after RAAA repair. Secondary objectives were to determine its major sequelae and differences between open repair (OR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

This systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42017055920) followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. MEDLINE and Embase were searched for studies published from 2005 until 2018. The methodologic quality of observational studies was assessed with the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool. The quality of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. BI prevalence and rates of BI as cause of death, reoperation, and bowel resection were estimated with meta-analyses with a random-effects model. Differences between OR and EVAR were estimated with pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Changes over time were assessed with Spearman rank test (ρ). Publication bias was assessed with a funnel plot analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 101 studies with 52,670 patients were included; 72 studies were retrospective cohort studies, 14 studies were prospective cohort studies, 12 studies were retrospective administrative database studies, and 3 studies were RCTs. The overall methodologic quality of the RCTs was high, but that of observational studies was low. The pooled prevalence of BI ranged from of 0.08 (95% CI, 0.07-0.09) in database studies to 0.10 (95% CI, 0.08-0.12) in cohort studies. The risk of BI was higher after OR than after EVAR (risk ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.25-2.57). The pooled rate of BI as cause of death was 0.04 (95% CI, 0.03-0.05), and that of BI as cause of reoperation and bowel resection ranged between 0.05 and 0.07. BI prevalence did not change over time (ρ, -0.01; P = .93). The funnel plot analysis was highly suggestive of publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of clinically relevant BI after RAAA repair is approximately 10%. Approximately 5% of patients undergoing RAAA repair suffer from severe consequences of BI. BI is less prevalent after EVAR than after OR.

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.

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.

Open Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: The Suitability of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Does Not Influence Operative Mortality

Purpose:

We analyze the outcomes of open repair (OR) in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA) according to the anatomic suitability for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

Materials and Methods:

We reviewed retrospectively all consecutive RAAA patients who underwent OR from January 2005 to March 2014. All suspected patients underwent preoperative computed tomography (CT). Outcomes were major morbidities and mortality. Multivariate analysis was performed by using logistic regression adjusted by controlled variables; gender, Hardman index, maximal aneurysmal diameter, rupture type, perioperative transfusion requirement, and perioperative urinary output.

Results:

Among 54 consecutive patients with RAAA who underwent OR, 45 patients were included after exclusion of 9 patients (7, suprarenal; 1, infected; 1, inflammatory). Preoperative CT showed 27% (12/45) EVAR-suitable patients. Hostile neck anatomy was found in 88% (29/33) among unsuitable anatomy (UA) (n=33). The maximal aneurysmal diameter was statistically larger (83.1±21.0 mm vs. 68.8±12.3 mm, P=0.032) in the UA group. The 30-day mortality was 28.9% (13/45; 33% vs. 17% in UA group vs. suitable anatomy [SA] group, P=0.460; adjusted P=0.445). UA group had more patients with cardiac morbidity (55% vs. 25%, P=0.079; adjusted P=0.032; odds ratio, 12.914; 95% confidence interval, 1.238–134.675). There was no statistical difference in survival rate between SA and UA groups (74.1%, 74.1%, and 74.1% vs. 60.6%, 55.6%, and 32.4% at 1-, 3- and 5-year, respectively; P=0.145).

Conclusion:

In this study, relatively unfavorable outcomes were found in the EVAR-unsuitable group after OR in RAAA patients. However, unsuitable anatomy did not influence patient survival after OR by multivariate analysis.

Preoperative arterial blood lactate levels as a predictor of hospital mortality in patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

PURPOSE

To establish if preoperative arterial blood lactate (Lac) is a factor related to hospital death for patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA).

METHODS

The subjects were 55 patients who underwent surgery for an rAAA in a single institution between July, 2000 and November, 2009. Patients were divided into a survivor group and a non-survivor group. We compared the preoperative Lac levels and other data between the groups.

RESULTS

There were ten hospital deaths. On univariate analysis, preoperative Lac levels, shock vital, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, Hardman index ≥3, and Glasgow aneurysm score ≥84 were significantly higher and preoperative hemoglobin was significantly lower in the non-survivor group. The postoperative mortality rate tended to increase with preoperative Lac levels. The mortality rate of patients with a preoperative Lac level higher than 9 mmol/l was 86 %. Those factors that had significant association with hospital mortality on univariate analysis were consecutively analyzed using multivariate logistic regression analysis. The multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that a preoperative Lac level >9 mmol/l was the only independent risk factor of hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

The preoperative Lac level of patients with a rAAA may be a predictor of their prognosis.

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.

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: Endovascular treatment

Aim

The elective endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is nowadays a daily routine practice in selected patients. The traditional treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) has a peri-operative mortality of 40–50% that has not changed in the last 20 years. Nowadays, the endovascular repair may reduce mortality, hospitalization and sanitary costs.

Methods

The study included 14 patients affected by AAA who came to the Emergency Department because of hemodynamic shock (nine patients) or back pain (five patients). All patients underwent a CT angiography before surgery. Forty-two percent of the patients presented with shock (systolic pressure ≤70 mm Hg) in the operating room, and they underwent an endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) as an emergency procedure. Five bifurcated endoprotesis and nine uniliac protesis making a femoro-femoral bypass to revascularize the excluded limb were made. Patients underwent a follow up with CT angiography one month and then six months after surgery and if no problems were detected, patients underwent a follow-up every year.

Results

Two cases were immediately converted to open surgery because of failed EVAR. Four patients (28%) died after surgery because of multi-organ failure (MOF). The mean hospitalization was 12 days (range 3–21 days). We observed only one case of first-type endoleak at the 1-month follow up and we successfully treated it with a proximal cuff.

Conclusion

In our experience, the intention-to-treat protocol for rAAA offered acceptable results in terms of mortality rates. Multicenter studies are necessary to establish the role of endovascular treatment in patients with rAAA.