Emergency endovascular aneurysm repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: the way forward?

Abdominal compartment syndrome after r-EVAR: a systematic review with meta-analysis on incidence and mortality

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular aneurysm repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (r-EVAR) sometimes complicates with abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) due to extensive retroperitoneal hematoma, with significant prognostic implications. This systematic review aimed to analyze the incidence of the syndrome and assess the impact of ACS on mortality. Mortality after decompressive laparotomy was also assessed.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Two databases were searched: Medline and Web of Science. The search was conducted through October 2019. The titles and abstracts of the retrieved articles were independently reviewed. All studies reporting on the ACS incidence after r-EVAR were initially included. From each study, eligibility was determined and descriptive, methodological, and outcome data was extracted. The incidence was calculated with summary proportion. Odds ratio was used to compare the mortality rate. Meta-analysis was performed with fixed effect model when calculating the ACS incidence in r-EVAR patients and when assessing the impacts of ACS and DL in the mortality rate.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 46 studies were included, with a cumulative cohort of 3064 patients. Two hundred and fifty-two (8.2%) patients developed ACS. The ACS pooled incidence was 9% with a 95% confidence interval of [0.08; 0.11]. Among the 46 included studies, 19 studies reported data on the mortality rate, corresponding to 1825 of the 3064 patients. Of these, 169 (9.3%) had developed ACS and 94 (55.6%) of them died by multi organ failure. Among the 1656 patients without ACS, 328 died (19.8%). The mortality odds ratio meta-analysis was 6.25 with a 95% confidence interval of [4.44, 8.80]. Decompressive laparotomy was performed in 41 patients, decreasing mortality in 47%.

CONCLUSIONS

ACS affects approximately 9% of patients submitted to r-EVAR, and significantly increases perioperative mortality. Close postoperative surveillance to clinical signs of ACS is vital in these 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.

Innovations in treating aortic diseases: the abdominal aorta

Patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) could benefit from earlier diagnosis to improve long-term outcomes. Candidate serum biomarkers for earlier AAA diagnosis include D-dimer, fibrinogen, low-density lipoprotein, high-density lipoprotein, lipoprotein(a), and the proteolytic enzymes known as matrix metalloproteinases. Furthermore, biomarkers such as brain natriuretic peptide significantly stratify perioperative risk in AAA repair. Statins significantly improve outcomes after AAA repair. They may also significantly slow AAA growth to allow pharmacologic arrest of AAA development. Recent trials have focused attention on fluid management for AAA repair. Although restrictive fluid management may significantly improve clinical outcomes, current evidence does not clearly support crystalloid or colloid for AAA repair. There may be an increased risk of renal dysfunction associated with hetastarch therapy. Endovascular repair has revolutionized the clinical management of AAAs. Recent trials have shown its significant outcome advantages. Furthermore, it is also applicable in high-risk operative cohorts and, in the future, may be suited for earlier AAA repair. This technology continues to advance with the development of branched and fenestrated grafts as well as total percutaneous endovascular AAA repair. Regardless of these advances, the clinical management of endoleaks will remain a major clinical focus. Taken together, these advances in the management of AAAs likely will significantly influence future clinical approaches to this challenging patient cohort.