A new risk-scoring model for predicting 30-day mortality after repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the era of endovascular procedures

Aneurysm severity is suppressed by deletion of CCN4

Patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms are frequently treated with high-risk surgery. A pharmaceutical treatment to reverse aneurysm progression could prevent the need for surgery and save both lives and healthcare resources. Since CCN4 regulates cell migration, proliferation and apoptosis, processes involved in aneurysm progression, it is a potential regulator of aneurysm progression. We investigated the role of CCN4 in a mouse aneurysm model, using apolipoprotein-E knockout (ApoE^-/-) mice fed high fat diet and infused with Angiotensin II (AngII). Blood pressure was similarly elevated in CCN4^-/-ApoE^-/- mice and CCN4^+/+ApoE^-/- mice (controls) in response to AngII infusion. Deletion of CCN4 significantly reduced the number of ruptured aortae, both thoracic and abdominal aortic area, and aneurysm grade score, compared to controls. Additionally, the frequency of vessel wall remodelling and the number of elastic lamina breaks was significantly suppressed in CCN4^-/-ApoE^-/- mice compared to controls. Immunohistochemistry revealed a significantly lower proportion of macrophages, while the proportion of smooth muscle cells was not affected by the deletion of CCN4. There was also a reduction in both proliferation and apoptosis in CCN4^-/-ApoE^-/- mice compared to controls. In vitro studies showed that CCN4 significantly increased monocyte adhesion beyond that seen with TNFα and stimulated macrophage migration by more than threefold. In summary, absence of CCN4 reduced aneurysm severity and improved aortic integrity, which may be the result of reduced macrophage infiltration and cell apoptosis. Inhibition of CCN4 could offer a potential therapeutic approach for the treatment of aneurysms.

Aneurysm severity is suppressed by deletion of CCN4

Patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms are frequently treated with high-risk surgery. A pharmaceutical treatment to reverse aneurysm progression could prevent the need for surgery and save both lives and healthcare resources. Since CCN4 regulates cell migration, proliferation and apoptosis, processes involved in aneurysm progression, it is a potential regulator of aneurysm progression. We investigated the role of CCN4 in a mouse aneurysm model, using apolipoprotein-E knockout (ApoE^-/-) mice fed high fat diet and infused with Angiotensin II (AngII). Blood pressure was similarly elevated in CCN4^-/-ApoE^-/- mice and CCN4^+/+ApoE^-/- mice (controls) in response to AngII infusion. Deletion of CCN4 significantly reduced the number of ruptured aortae, both thoracic and abdominal aortic area, and aneurysm grade score, compared to controls. Additionally, the frequency of vessel wall remodelling and the number of elastic lamina breaks was significantly suppressed in CCN4^-/-ApoE^-/- mice compared to controls. Immunohistochemistry revealed a significantly lower proportion of macrophages, while the proportion of smooth muscle cells was not affected by the deletion of CCN4. There was also a reduction in both proliferation and apoptosis in CCN4^-/-ApoE^-/- mice compared to controls. In vitro studies showed that CCN4 significantly increased monocyte adhesion beyond that seen with TNFα and stimulated macrophage migration by more than threefold. In summary, absence of CCN4 reduced aneurysm severity and improved aortic integrity, which may be the result of reduced macrophage infiltration and cell apoptosis. Inhibition of CCN4 could offer a potential therapeutic approach for the treatment of aneurysms.

Comparison of the Short and Long-Term Outcomes of Endovascular Repair and Open Surgical Repair in the Treatment of Unruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Background

Although the initial results of endovascular repair (EVAR) were promising, a comparison of its long-term efficacy against open surgical repair (OSR) remains largely elusive, and late-onset adverse events have not been systematically evaluated. Since OSR and EVAR are currently the only treatment options available in the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), the main question arising in clinical practice is whether EVAR or OSR confers more favourable short and long-term outcomes for patients presenting with unruptured AAAs.

Aims

The present meta-analysis aims to draw a head-to-head comparison between EVAR and OSR and facilitate the formulation of an evidence-based approach to the clinical management of unruptured AAAs.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted using three databases to identify all relevant studies with comparative data on EVAR vs. OSR. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome. Procedural outcomes, such as stroke, myocardial infarction, renal complications, rupture, and reintervention rates, were determined as secondary outcomes.

Results

Sixteen studies were included for comparative analysis, including four randomised-controlled trials and six non-randomised comparative clinical trials. EVAR conferred a clear perioperative survival advantage as compared to OSR (P < 0.00001). However, this survival advantage did not persist beyond two years post-procedure; all-cause mortality rates were comparable between the two treatment groups at two years (P = 0.09), four years (P = 0.58), and six years (P = 0.88) post-procedure. Although no statistically significant differences in aneurysm-related mortality, postoperative stroke, or myocardial infarction were identified, the OSR group had a statistically significant higher rate of postoperative renal complications. On the other hand, there was a statistically significant higher rate of rupture and reintervention following EVAR.

Conclusion

Whether the initial survival advantage afforded by EVAR is sufficient to justify the long-term risk of rupture, reintervention, and long-term mortality should be determined on a case-by-case basis by the multidisciplinary team overseeing the clinical care of the patient. Currently, it is reasonable to conclude that EVAR is as efficacious as OSR, but it would be invalid to claim it as superior. Ultimately, longer follow-up data must be presented before any definitive conclusions can be established for this potentially revolutionary technique. Presently, one can neither advocate nor refute EVAR over OSR.