Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Retrospective Assessment of Open Versus Endovascular Repair

Aortic stent graft repair has recently been applied as an alternative therapy for infrarenal ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs). We retrospectively assessed outcome in a continuous series at a single institution (an academic tertiary referral center) of patients with infrarenal rAAAs treated by either open or endovascular repair. Between October 1999 and July 2004, 24 patients were treated at the University of Alabama Hospital for infrarenal rAAA. They were treated by either open procedure (n = 15) or endovascular stent graft repair (n = 9). Outcome parameters included mortality, morbidity, procedure time, blood loss, and length of stay. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) was performed whenever the anatomy was deemed suitable and experienced personnel were available. Age (mean 70.8 years for EVAR vs. 72.2 years for open), gender (men 71% vs. women 75%), AAA size (mean 6.7 vs. 6.4 cm), early mortality (22% vs. 26%), and major morbidity (56% vs. 53%) were similar in both groups. Blood loss difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p = 0.0001). Our series supports the feasibility and short-term viability of EVAR for infrarenal rAAA when anatomy is suitable and patient and facility conditions are favorable. Presented at the Fifteenth Annual Winter Meeting of the Peripheral Vascular Surgery Society, Steamboat Springs, CO, January 28-30, 2005.     

Assessing trends,morbidity, and mortality in ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with 9 years of data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

BackgroundThe American College of Surgeons' National Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database can be used to assess trends and outcomes of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) repair. The purpose of this study is to examine the morbidity and mortality for ruptured endovascular (rEVAR) and ruptured open (rOPEN) aneurysm repair compared with elective endovascular (EVAR) and elective open (OPEN) aneurysm repair.MethodsRuptured and nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms were identified from the NSQIP database between 2008 and 2016. Data regarding demographics and comorbidities, 30-day mortality, and postoperative complications were collected for rEVAR, rOPEN, EVAR, and OPEN cases.ResultsThere were 43,105 AAAs, 34,177 (79.28%) EVARs, and 8928 (20.71%) OPENs. There were 3806 rAAAs, 1843 (48.42%) rEVARs, and 1963 (51.58%) rOPENs. The incidence of rEVAR repair lagged behind EVAR considerably. Mortality for rOPEN was 575 (29.29%) and 344 (18.66%) for rEVAR. No difference between the ratio of men to women in rOPEN vs rEVAR was noted. There was a significant increase in mortality for women vs men undergoing rEVAR (P = .0362). No difference in mortality existed between women vs men undergoing rOPEN (P = .0639). There was no difference in the percentage of hypotensive cases undergoing rEVAR vs rOPEN (P =.1873). For all rAAAs with hypotension, rOPEN had an increased mortality compared to rEVAR (P = .0004). There were 20 (3.11%) rEVAR and 40 (8.00%) rOPEN cases with lower extremity ischemia. rOPEN conferred a significant increase in lower extremity ischemia (P = .0002). There were 46 (7.15%) rEVAR and 60 (12.00%) rOPEN cases of ischemic colitis. rOPEN had a significant increase in ischemic colitis (P = .0052).ConclusionsNSQIP data, over 9 years, demonstrate an increased morbidity and mortality associated with open vs endovascular repair of rAAAs. A great disparity exists between the proportion of rEVAR and rOPEN to EVAR and OPEN. The lagging use of endovascular repair of rAAAs must be further explored.     

Simulation training streamlines the real-life performance in endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveDifficulties in distributing endovascular experience among all operating room (OR) personnel prevented full-scale use of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in emergencies. To streamline the procedure of EVAR for ruptured aneurysm (rEVAR) and to provide this method even to unstable patients, we initiated regular simulation training sessions.MethodsThis is an observational study of 29 simulation sessions performed between January 2015 and December 2017. We analyzed the development of time from OR door to aortic balloon occlusion during simulations and OR door to needle times in real-life rEVARs as well as the outcome of the 185 ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) patients who arrived at the university hospital between January 2013 and December 2017. A questionnaire was sent for simulation attendants before and after the simulation session.ResultsIn the first simulations, the door to occlusion time was 20 to 35 minutes. After adding a hemodynamic collapse to the simulation protocol, the time decreased to 10 to 13 minutes in the 10 recent simulations, including a 5-minute cardiopulmonary resuscitation (P = .01). The electronic questionnaire performed for attendees before and after the simulation session showed significant improvement in both confidence and knowledge of the OR staff regarding rEVAR procedure. In the real-life rEVARs, 75 of the 185 patients with rAAAs underwent EVAR. Among rEVAR patients, the median OR door to needle time was 65 minutes before and 16 minutes after the onset of simulations (P = .000). The overall 30-day mortality among all rAAA patients was 44.8% and 30.6% accordingly (P = .046). When patients who were turned down from the emergency surgery were excluded, the 30-day operative mortality was 39.2% and 25.1% during the periods, respectively (P = .051). The 30-day mortality was 16.2% after rEVAR and 40.6% after open surgery (P = .001).ConclusionsSimulation training for rEVAR significantly improves the treatment process in real-life patients and may enhance the outcome of rAAA patients.     

应用国产整体式分叉型支架腔内治疗肾下型腹主动脉瘤

目的探讨应用国产整体式分叉型支架腔内治疗肾下型腹主动脉瘤的效果。方法回顾性分析2009年9月—2011年6月采用国产整体式分叉型支架腔内隔绝术治疗27例肾下型腹主动脉瘤患者的临床资料。结果 27例腹主动脉瘤腔内修复均获成功,术后随访2～20个月复查CTA,DSA证实:瘤体被完全隔绝,支架无移位、扭曲及内漏现象。结论应用国产整体式分叉型支架腔内治疗肾下型腹主动脉瘤安全有效,与分体式支架相比,其简便、经济、并发症少。     

Clinical presentation,operative management,and long-term outcomes of rupture after previous abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveThe aim of the present study was to evaluate the presentation trends, intervention, and survival of patients who had been treated for late abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture (LAR) after open repair (OR) or endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).MethodsWe reviewed the clinical data from a single-center, retrospective database for patients treated for LAR from 2000 to 2020. The end points were the 30-day mortality, major postoperative complication, and survival. The outcomes between LAR managed with EVAR (group I) vs OR were compared (group II).ResultsOf 390 patients with infrarenal aortic rupture, 40 (10%) had experienced aortic rupture after prior aortic repair and comprised the LAR cohort (34 men; age 78 ± 8 years). LAR had occurred before EVAR in 30 and before OR in 10 patients. LAR was more common in the second half of the study with 32 patients after 2010. LAR after prior OR was secondary to ruptured para-anastomotic pseudoaneurysms. After initial EVAR, LAR had occurred despite reintervention in 17 patients (42%). The time to LAR was shorter after prior EVAR than after OR (6 ± 4 vs 12 ± 4 years, respectively; P = .003). Treatment for LAR was EVAR for 25 patients (63%; group I) and OR for 15 (37%, group II). LAR after initial OR was managed with endovascular salvage for 8 of 10 patients. Endovascular management was more frequent in the latter half of the study period. In group I, fenestrated repair had been used for seven patients (28%). Salvage for the remaining cases was feasible with EVAR, aortic cuffs, or limb extensions. The incidence of free rupture, time to treatment, 30-day mortality (8% vs 13%; P = .3), complications (32% vs 60%; P = .1), and disposition were similar between the two groups. Those in group I had had less blood loss (660 vs 3000 mL; P < .001) and less need for dialysis (0% vs 33%; P < .001) than those in group II. The median follow-up was 21 months (interquartile range, 6-45 months). The overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival was 76%, 52%, and 41%, respectively, and was similar between groups (28 vs 22 months; P = .48). Late mortality was not related to the aorta.ConclusionsLAR after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair has been encountered more frequently in clinical practice, likely driven by the frequency of EVAR. However, most LARs, including those after previous OR, can now be salvaged with endovascular techniques with lower morbidity and mortality.     

Outcomes after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the era of centralized care

ObjectiveLittle is known about the relationship between case volume and patient outcomes of those treated for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) after either endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) or open aneurysm repair (OAR). This study evaluated the impact of hospital case volume on outcomes after rAAA.MethodsPatients with rAAA were identified in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database from 2003 to 2017, excluding patients from years in which a limited number of hospitals were included (2003-2009, 2017). Patients were stratified according to type of aneurysm repair and further stratified according to aortic surgical volume of the treating facility. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed.ResultsBetween 2010 and 2016, of 2895 patients who presented emergently with rAAA, 1246 underwent ruptured OAR (rOAR) and 1649 underwent ruptured EVAR (rEVAR). Before adjustment for demographics, comorbidities, and clinical characteristics, there were no differences in 1-year patient survival based on hospital OAR or EVAR volumes among patients undergoing rOAR or rEVAR. After adjustment for confounding variables, patients treated with rOAR at the highest volume OAR hospitals had a 33% lower hazard of mortality at 1 year relative to patients treated with rOAR at the lowest volume OAR hospitals. Preoperative interfacility transfer was associated with a 27% lower hazard of mortality after rOAR. There was no significant difference in hazard of mortality among patients undergoing rEVAR when they were stratified according to hospital EVAR volumes after adjustment for all other covariates.ConclusionsOutcomes after rAAA repair are associated with hospital volume among patients undergoing rOAR but not among patients undergoing rEVAR. Thus, centralization of care may have an important impact on outcomes when OAR is indicated, suggesting a benefit for preoperative interfacility transfer of care when it is feasible.     

矫正性裸支架理念在治疗复杂主动脉疾病中的应用

目的探讨矫正性裸支架理念在复杂主动脉病变中应用价值。方法回顾分析接受腔内修复术联合矫正性裸支架治疗的13例复杂主动脉夹层及2例肾下腹主动脉瘤患者的资料。结果 13例主动脉夹层患者中,植入Valiant支架11例,Grikin支架2例;2例腹主动脉瘤患者均植入Zenith支架。对15例患者共植入矫正性裸支架19枚;主动脉夹层裸支架17枚,长度60~80mm,直径18~24mm;腹主动脉瘤裸支架2枚,长度均为60mm,直径分别为24mm和7mm。所有患者术后无严重并发症。15例中,14例完成随访,1例失访,随访期间无支架源性夹层或内漏发生及假性动脉瘤、髂支血栓形成。结论矫正性裸支架理念有助于拓宽主动脉病变腔内治疗的适应证,且安全、微创、近期疗效满意。     

高风险患者腹主动脉瘤手术与腔内治疗效果的比较

目的 比较高风险患者腹主动脉瘤(abdominal aortic aneurysm,AAA)手术治疗(opensurgical repair,OSR)与腔内治疗(endovascular aneurysm repair,EVAR)的效果,探讨高风险患者AAA治疗方式的选择.方法 利用(customized probability index,CPI)危险评分方法[1]筛选出我院1998年至2008年高风险患者55例,比较OSR组(20例)与EVAR组(35例)围手术期及术后近期结果.结果 OSR组随访率100%,平均随访6年3个月.EVAR组随访率94%,平均随访5年10个月.(1)手术时间高风险患者EVAR组(3.1±0.6)h短于OSR组[(4.9±0.9)h(P<0.05)];(2)EVAR组术中出血、ICU时间和住院时间均短于OSR组(P<0.01);(3)围手术期死亡率EVAR组(2.86%)明显低于OSR组(15.00%);(4)术后并发症发生率EVAR组(17%)明显低于OSR组(40%);(5)EVAR组术后并发症主要为内漏(8.57%);(6)OSR组并发症主要为心脏相关性疾病(25%).结论 EVAR对于高风险患者AAA的治疗可以更少的导致围手术期心血管事件的发生,降低围手术期的死亡率和并发症发生率.CPI可以相对准确评估血管手术围手术期死亡率和并发症的发生率,可用于指导围手术期的治疗策略.     

Anatomic suitability of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms for endovascular repair

Mortality from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) remains high despite improvements in anesthesia, postoperative intensive care, and surgical techniques. Recent small series and single-center experiences suggest that endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for rAAAs is feasible and may improve short-term survival. However, the applicability of EVAR to all cases of rAAA is unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate the anatomical suitability of ruptured aneurysms for EVAR as determined by preoperative cross-sectional imaging. A contemporary consecutive series of rAAAs presenting to a tertiary academic center was retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative radiographic imaging was reviewed and assessed for endovascular compatibility based on currently available EVAR devices. Patients with aneurysm morphology demonstrating neck diameter >32 mm, neck length <10 mm, neck angulation >60 degrees, severe iliac tortuosity, or external iliac diameter <6 mm were deemed noncandidates for EVAR. Forty-seven rAAAs were treated over a 10-year period, with 47% of patients presenting with free rupture and 60% of patients transferred from outside hospitals. Five (11%) patients were treated with EVAR, all over the past 2 years, while the remaining 42 patients underwent open repair. Preoperative imaging was available for review in 43 (91%) patients, and morphological measurements indicated that 49% would have been candidates for EVAR with currently available devices. Criteria precluding EVAR in this cohort were inadequate neck length in 73%, unsuitable iliac access in 23%, large neck diameter in 18%, and severe neck angulation in 14%. Overall 30-day mortality was 34%, and 1-year mortality was 42%. Candidates for EVAR were more likely than non-EVAR candidates to be male (95% vs. 68%, p = 0.046) and to have smaller sac diameters (7.0 vs. 8.5 cm, p = 0.02) and longer neck lengths (24.1 vs. 8.6 mm, p < 0.0001); less likely to have a >60 degree angulated neck (10% vs. 45%, p = 0.0002), larger external iliac diameter (8.9 vs. 7.3 mm, p = 0.015), and less blood loss during surgical repair (2.4 vs. 6.0 L, p = 0.02); and more likely to be discharged home (71% vs. 25%, p = 0.05). There were no differences in 30-day, 1-year, or overall mortality between candidates for EVAR and noncandidates. Only 49% of patients with rAAAs in this consecutive series were found to be candidates for EVAR with conventional stent-graft devices. Differences in demographics, aneurysm morphology, and outcomes between candidates and noncandidates undergoing open repair suggest that differential risks apply to ruptured aneurysm patients. Protocols and future reports of EVAR for rAAAs should be tailored to these results. Device and technique modifications are necessary to increase the applicability of EVAR for rAAAs.     

Comparison of perioperative factors of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery and those of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery

BACKGROUND: Currently the mortality rate of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (eAAA) surgery has improved. However the mortality rate of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) surgery remains high. We compared perioperative variables of eAAA surgery and those of rAAA surgery. METHODS: From 1997 to 2002, 98 consecutive patients who had undergone graft replacement of infrarenal AAA (56 eAAA and 42 rAAA) were evaluated retrospectively. RESULTS: Significant differences existed between eAAA and rAAAs in following perioperative variables: agg (eAAA: 74.2 +/- 6.8 years, rAAA: 74.2 +/- 8.6 years), duration from the admission to the time of starting operation (eAAA: 62 +/- 11 min, rAAA: 28 +/- 17 min), duration from the time of starting operation to the aortic cross clamping (eAAA: 87 +/- 29 min, rAAA: 29 +/- 32 min), duration of the aortic cross clamping (eAAA:59 +/- 19 min, rAAA: 71 +/- 29 min), blood loss (eAAA: 1297 +/- 1046 ml, rAAA: 4619 +/- 4960 ml), total amount of blood products required (eAAA: 1058 +/- 953 ml, rAAA: 5619 +/- 4945 ml), intensive and/or high care unit stay (eAAA: 1.8 +/- 1.2 days, rAAA: 6.4 +/- 8.1 days), the postoperative mortality rate (eAAA: 0%, rAAA: 19%), and postoperative complications (eAAA: 14%, rAAA: 48%), CONCLUSIONS: Patients who had undergone rAAA surgery had higher mortality and more postoperative complications than those after eAAA surgery. Elective rapair before AAA ruptures is recommended.     

Population-based long-term outcomes of open versus endovascular aortic repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveExisting data regarding endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) are conflicting in their findings. The purpose of this paper was to determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR vs open surgical repair (OSR) for treatment of rAAA.MethodsA population-based retrospective cohort study of all patients 40 years or more that underwent OSR or EVAR of rAAA in Ontario, Canada, from 2003 to 2016 was conducted. Administrative data from the province of Ontario was used as the data source. The propensity for repair approach was calculated using a logistic regression model including all covariates and used for inverse probability of treatment weighting. Cox proportional hazards regression was conducted using the weighted cohort to determine the survival and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-free survival of EVAR relative to OSR for rAAA up to 10 years after repair.ResultsA total of 2692 rAAA (261 EVAR [10%] and 2431 OSR [90%]) repairs were recorded from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2016. Mean follow-up for the entire cohort was 3.4 years (standard deviation [SD], 3.9 years), with a maximum follow-up of 14.0 years. OSR patients were followed for a mean of 3.5 years (SD, 4.0 years) and maximum of 14.0 years, and EVAR patients were followed for a mean of 2.7 years (SD, 2.7 years) and a maximum of 11.4 years. Median survival was 2.7 years overall, and 2.5 and 3.7 years for OSR and EVAR patients, respectively. There were no significant baseline differences between EVAR and OSR patients after inverse probability of treatment weighting. EVAR patients were at lower hazard for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.65; P < .01), and MACE (hazard ratio, 0.51, 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.66; P < .01) within 30 days of repair. There were no statistically significant differences between EVAR and OSR in the hazard for all-cause mortality or MACE from 30 days to 5 years, and 5 to 10 years. Despite this, the upfront mortality and MACE benefits of EVAR persisted for more than 4.5 years after repair.ConclusionsThis population-based cohort study using administrative data from Ontario, Canada, demonstrated lower hazards for all-cause mortality and MACE within 30 days of operation in favor of EVAR, but no differences in the mid- or longer-term results. More work is needed to understand and improve the long-term outcomes of ruptured endovascular aortic aneurysm repair and ruptured open surgical repair.     

破裂性腹主动脉瘤的急救及围手术期危险因素：附27例报告

目的:探讨破裂性腹主动脉瘤(r AAA)的急救经验及围手术期危险因素。方法:回顾性分析2007年1月—2015年9月间救治的27例r AAA患者的临床资料,其中男20例,女7例;中位年龄72岁;18例行开腹手术,6例腔内治疗(包括1例行杂交手术)。总结诊治过程、围术期情况及随访结果,并分析影响预后的因素。结果:术前死亡3例,术中死亡1例,术后死亡9例,术后死因有急性肾衰、急性呼衰、腹腔间隔室综合征、心肌梗塞、消化道出血,最终均出现多器官功能衰竭。总体抢救成功率为51.9%(14/27),开腹手术和腔内治疗成功率分别为50.0%(9/18)和83.3%(5/6)。围术期存活和死亡患者间的临床参数比较显示,发病到就诊时间、术前收缩压、术前肌酐、术中出血量及输血量、术中尿量的差异有统计学意义(均P0.05)。结论:r AAA病情危重,病死率高,尽早确诊后应紧急外科治疗控制出血,加强围术期管理。在r AAA的救治中,腔内治疗是一种有效的治疗手段。     

Anatomical Suitability For Endovascular AAA Repair May Affect Outcomes following Rupture

ObjectivesSingle centre series have suggested that endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA) may reduce mortality versus open surgery. This has not been substantiated in the only randomized controlled trial, leading to suggestion that anatomical suitability for rEVAR may independently improve prognosis of rAAA. Our aim was to assess the outcome of open rAAA repair in patients dependant on their suitability for rEVAR on pre-operative computed tomography (CT) assessment.MethodsA retrospective review of all ruptured aneurysms presenting to our unit since January 1998 was performed. Patients were grouped based on anatomical suitability for rEVAR by pre-operative CT.ResultsOf 118 patients presenting with rAAA, 48 underwent pre-operative CT. Of these 9 scans had been “culled” and were excluded. 16 patients were suitable for rEVAR and 23 unsuitable. The groups were well matched demographically with no difference in Glasgow Aneurysm Score between groups. There was a non-significant trend towards reduction in 30-day mortality for patients suitable for EVAR (suitable 6.9% versus unsuitable 30.4%; P = 0.066) with no difference in operative time, transfusion requirement, length of stay or in-hospital morbidity.ConclusionsAnatomical suitability for EVAR seems to beneficially affect outcome following open repair for ruptured AAA. Further study is required to confirm these findings.     

Endograft treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms using the Talent aortouniiliac system: an international multicenter study

OBJECTIVE: To understand the potential of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients presenting with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA), the proportion in whom this procedure was applicable was assessed. Mortality and morbidity was also determined in patients treated with emergency EVAR (eEVAR) when anatomic and hemodynamic conditions allowed (ie, in the entire cohort with patients receiving endovascular and open repair combined). In addition, a comparison was made between the treatment group with eEVAR and open repair. METHODS: Between February 2003 and September 2004, 10 participating institutions enrolled a representative sample of 100 consecutive patients in whom eEVAR was considered. Patients in the New Endograft treatment in Ruptured abdominal aortic Aneurysm (ERA) trial were offered eEVAR or open repair in accordance with their clinical condition or anatomic configuration. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients or their legal representatives. The study included patients who were treated by stent-graft technique or by open surgery in the case of adverse anatomy for endoluminal stent-grafting or severe hemodynamic instability, or both. Data were collated in a centralized database for analysis. The study was sponsored and supported by Medtronic, and eEVAR was uniquely performed with a Talent aortouniiliac (AUI) system in all patients. Crude and adjusted 30-day or in-hospital and 3-month mortality rates were assessed for the entire group as a whole and the EVAR and open repair category separately. Complication rates were also assessed. RESULTS: Stent-graft repair was performed in 49 patients and open surgery in 51. No significant differences were observed between these treatment groups with regard to comorbidity at presentation, hemodynamic instability, and the proportion of patients who could be assessed by preoperative computed tomography scanning. Patients with eEVAR more frequently demonstrated a suitable infrarenal neck for endovascular repair, a longer infrarenal neck, and suitable iliac arteries for access than patients with open repair. The primary reason to perform open aneurysm repair was an unfavorable configuration of the neck in 80% of the patients. In patients undergoing eEVAR, operative blood loss was less, intensive care admission time was shorter, and the duration of mechanical ventilation was shorter (P < or = .02, all comparisons). The 30-day or in-hospital mortality was 35% in the eEVAR category, 39% in patients with open repair, and 37% overall. There was no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups with regard to crude mortality rates or rates adjusted for age, gender, hemodynamic shock, and pre-existent pulmonary disease. The cumulative 3-month all-cause mortality was 40% in the eEVAR group and 42% in the open repair group (no significant differences at crude and adjusted comparisons). The 3-month primary complication rate in the two treatment groups was similar at 59%. CONCLUSIONS: In approximately half the rAAA patients, eEVAR appeared viable. An unsuitable infrarenal neck was the most frequent cause to select open repair. In dedicated centers using a Talent AUI system, eEVAR appeared to be a feasible method for treatment of a rAAA. The overall first-month mortality did not differ across treatment groups (patients with endovascular and open repair combined), yet was somewhat lower than observed in a recent meta-analysis reporting on open repair.     

Outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs: Endovascular vs open surgical repairs

BackgroundOperative mortality after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been reported as lower than open surgical repair (OSR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in randomized controlled trials. However, many cohort studies have demonstrated similar mortality rates for both procedures. We compared operative mortality between EVAR and OSR, at our institution.MethodsAll AAA operations from 2012 to 2017 were reviewed, and baseline characteristics were collected. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, operative data, complications, length of hospital stay (LOS), costs, re-intervention, and survival rates were compared. A multivariable analysis with unbalanced characteristics was performed.ResultsWe had a total of 162 patients, 100 having OSR and 62 for EVAR. The EVAR group was older, with higher ASA classification. Thirty-day mortality rate did not significantly differ (0/100 for OSR and 2/62 (3%) for EVAR; p = 0.145), while the EVAR group had less blood loss, shorter operative times, and LOS, but higher re-intervention rates (adjusted hazard ratio 6.4 (95%CI: 1.4, 26.8)). Survival rates did not significantly differ between the groups. EVAR cost approximately 1-million yen more.ConclusionsOSR had low 30-day mortality rate in selected low-risk patients whereas EVAR had less blood loss, shorter operative times, LOS and could be done in high-risk patients with low 30-day mortality but with higher re-intervention rate.     

Emergency endovascular treatment of acute symptomatic or ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: a single-center experience

The purpose of this study is to report our early experience with endovascular treatment of patients with symptomatic non-ruptured (sAAA) or ruptured (rAAA) abdominal aortic aneurysms. Between September 2005 and September 2008, all patients with a diagnosis of sAAA or rAAA were evaluated for endovascular suitability. We did not consider hemodynamic instability to be a contraindication for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Patients whose aneurysm anatomy was not suitable for EVAR received open repair (OR). A total of 46 patients with sAAA or rAAA underwent emergency EVAR: in particular, 18/46 patients were treated for sAAA and 28/46 for rAAA. Successful stent-graft deployment was achieved in 44 patients (96%); we had two open surgical conversions. The 30-day mortality rate was 19.5%. Nine patients died during the first 30 postoperative days: four patients died within 24 hours because of severe hypovolemic shock, two died of respiratory failure, one died as a result of bowel ischemia and two because of myocardial infarction after hospital discharge. Complete follow-up data were available for 35 patients (median 185 days; range 30-730 days). In conclusion, endovascular treatment is feasible and the early experience is promising. The capability of offering EVAR and OR for sAAA and rAAA according to our experience suggests that EVAR and OR should be regarded as complementary techniques to improve outcome of patients with acute AAA.     

Women undergoing endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair differ significantly from their male counterparts preoperatively and postoperatively

ObjectiveA rational approach to the management of aortic aneurysm disease relies on weighing the risk of aneurysm rupture against the complications and durability of operative repair. In men, seminal studies of infrarenal aortic aneurysm disease and its endovascular management can provide a reasoned argument for the timing and modality of surgery, which is then extrapolated to the management of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). In contrast, there is less appreciation for the natural history of TAAA disease in women and its response to therapy.MethodsWe used a retrospective cohort design of women, all men, and matched men, fit for complex endovascular thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair at two large aortic centers. We controlled for preoperative anatomic and comorbidity differences, and assessed technical success, postoperative renal dysfunction, spinal ischemia, and early mortality. Women and matched men were reassessed at follow-up for long-term durability and survival.ResultsAssessing women and all men undergoing complex endovascular aortic reconstruction, we demonstrate that these groups are dissimilar before the intervention with respect to comorbidities, aneurysm extent, and aneurysm size; women have a higher proportion of proximal Crawford extent 1, 2, and 3 aneurysms. Matching men and women for demographic and anatomic differences, we find persistent elevated perioperative mortality in women (16%) undergoing endovascular thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair compared with matched men (6%); however, at the 3-year follow-up, both groups have the same survival. Furthermore, women demonstrate more favorable anatomic responses to aneurysm exclusion, with good durability and greater aneurysm sac regression at follow-up, compared with matched men.ConclusionsWomen and unmatched men with TAAA disease differ preoperatively with respect to aneurysm extent and comorbidities. Controlling for these differences, after complex endovascular aneurysm repair, there is increased early mortality in women compared with matched men. These observations argue for a careful risk stratification of women undergoing endovascular thoracoabdominal aneurysm treatment, balanced with women's good long-term survival and durability of endovascular aneurysm repair.     

Transperitoneal approach should be considered for suspected ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

Although transperitoneal surgical repair has been the gold standard for patients with a suspected ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA), the retroperitoneal approach and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) are increasingly being recommended as preferred approaches due to lower morbidity and mortality. To highlight the importance of considering the transperitoneal approach, we present three cases of suspected rAAA, all with a known AAA, who were found to have other significant intra-abdominal pathology at surgery that would have been missed using the other approaches.     

A systematic review and meta-analysis of proximal aortic neck dilatation after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveTo provide an updated systematic literature review summarizing current evidence on aortic neck dilatation (AND) after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm.MethodsAn extensive electronic search in major electronic databases was conducted between January 2000 and December 2021. Eligible for inclusion were observational studies that followed up with patients (n ≥ 20) undergoing EVAR with self-expanding endografts, for 12 or more months, evaluated AND with computed tomography angiography and provided data on relevant outcomes. The primary end point was the incidence of AND after EVAR, and the secondary end points were the occurrence of type Ia endoleak, stent graft migration, secondary rupture, and reintervention.ResultsWe included 34 studies with a total sample of 12,038 patients (10,413 men; median age, 71 years). AND was defined clearly in 18 studies, but significant differences in AND definition were evidenced. The pooled incidence of AND based on quantitative analysis of 16 studies with a total of 9201 patients (7961 men; median age, 72 years) was calculated at 22.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.4-34.4) over a follow-up period ranging from 12 months to 14 years. The risk of a type Ia endoleak was significantly higher in AND patients compared with those without AND (odds ratio, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.10-7.93; P = .030). Similarly, endograft migration was more common in the AND group compared with the non-AND group (odds ratio, 5.95; 95% CI, 1.80-19.69; P = .004). The combined incidence of secondary rupture and reintervention did not differ significantly between the two groups, even though the combined effect was in favor of the non-AND group.ConclusionsProximal AND after EVAR is common and occurs in a large proportion of patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. AND can influence the long-term durability of proximal endograft fixation and is significantly related to adverse outcomes, often leading to reinterventions.     

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: endovascular repair is feasible in 40% of patients.

INTRODUCTION: Open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) still has a high mortality. Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) may be the way to improve survival rates. However, it is not clear how many patients with rAAA will be suitable for acute EVAR. METHODS: Between October 2000 and April 2002 all patients with acute symptomatic or ruptured AAA were assessed for EVAR on an intention-to-treat basis with emergency computed tomographic angiography (CTA). Patient and logistic characteristics were analysed. We used two commercially available aorto uni-iliac devices with a maximum proximal diameter of 28 and 34 mm. RESULTS: Five out of 26 patients were excluded for CTA and EVAR because of severe and persistent hypotension (3 pts) or logistic reasons (2 pts, both eligible). Twelve patients were found not eligible for EVAR due to unsuitable infrarenal aortic neck length (3 pts), neck diameter (1 pt) or a combination of both (8 pts). The remaining six patients were treated with EVAR. After 6 months no graft failure or aneurysm related deaths were recorded in the EVAR group. CONCLUSION: A total of 28% of patients with symptomatic or ruptured AAA was treated with EVAR. A potential 42% of patients could have been suitable for EVAR, if the correct devices had been in stock and all patients had been properly assessed.