Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in the octogenarian: is it worthwhile?

HYPOTHESIS: During the past decade, endovascular stent graft repair (EVSG) of abdominal aortic aneurysms has emerged as a less invasive and less morbid alternative to open surgical repair. We hypothesize that EVSG may become the treatment method of choice among patients older than 80 years. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Major academic medical center with extensive experience in endovascular and open aortic aneurysm surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: During a 5-year period, EVSG was performed in 595 patients at our institution. One hundred fifty (25.2%) of these patients were older than 80 years. Our prospectively acquired database was reviewed with respect to the demographic, intraoperative, and outcome data of this elderly population. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Technical and clinical success, aneurysm-related events (aneurysm-related death, type I or type III endoleaks, aneurysm expansion, or aneurysm rupture), and secondary interventions. RESULTS: There were 119 men (79.3%) and 31 women (20.7%) (mean age, 84.6 years). Mean aneurysm diameter was 6.7 cm. Comorbidities including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, chronic renal insufficiency, peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia were common in these patients, with an average of 2.9 comorbid conditions per patient. Mean follow-up was 16.9 months (range, 1.0-61.4 months). One hundred forty-six patients (97.3%) received only regional anesthesia, and the average intraoperative blood loss was 369 mL. Average hospital and intensive care unit stays were 2.5 days and 0.1 day, respectively. The procedure was performed emergently in 3 patients, and each recovered uneventfully. There were 5 aborted procedures (3.3%) for technical reasons and 4 conversions to open aortic repair (2.6%). In addition to these aborted procedures, there were 2 additional technical failures resulting in a technical success rate of 95.3%. Endoleaks were common and included 9 type I (6.90%), 35 type II (24.10%), and 1 type III (0.69%). The majority either resolved spontaneously (type IIs) or with minimally invasive secondary intervention, which was performed in 13 patients. Perioperative local/vascular and systemic complications occurred in 16 (10.7%) and 8 (5.3%) patients, respectively. There were 5 perioperative deaths (3.3%)(<30 days postoperatively). Forty late deaths (26.7%)(>30 days postoperatively) occurred, which were unrelated to the EVSG procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms can be performed safely and successfully in the majority of octogenarians with relatively low complication rates. Improved EVSG devices and operator experience may make this procedure the treatment method of choice for patients in this age group who meet specific anatomical criteria.     

Endoleaks during follow-up after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Are they all dangerous?

AIM: Development of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been accompanied by previously unencoutered complications. The most challenging but least understood of these complications is incomplete seal of the endovascular graft (endoleak), a phenomenon which has a variety of causes. An important consequence of endoleakage may be persistent pressurisation of the aneurysm sac, which may ultimately lead to post-EVAR rupture. METHODS: Data of 110 European centers were recorded in a central database (EUROSTAR). Patient, anatomic characteristics and operative and device details were correlated with the occurrence of different types of endoleaks. Outcome events during follow-up, notably expansion of the aneurysm, incidence of conversion to open repair and post-EVAR rupture were assessed in the different categories of endoleaks and in a group of patients without any endoleak. RESULTS: Type I and III endoleak were associated with an increased frequency of open conversions or risk of rupture of the aneurysm. Device-related endoleaks also correlated with an increased need for secondary interventions. These types of endoleak need to be treated without delay, and when no other possibilities are present, an open conversion to avert the risk of rupture should be considered. Endoleaks type II do not pose an indication for urgent treatment. However, they may not be harmless, as there was a frequent association with enlargement of aneurysm and reinterventions. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that more frequent surveillance examinations are indicated than in patients without collateral endoleak. The indication for intervention is primarily dictated by documented expansion of the aneurysm.     

Will endovascular repair replace open surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate of the impact of endovascular aneurysm repair on the rate of open surgical repair and on the overall treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). METHODS: All patients with AAA who were treated during two consecutive 40-month periods were reviewed. During the first period, only open surgical repair was performed; during the subsequent 40 months, endovascular repair and open surgical repair were treatment options. RESULTS: A total of 727 patients with AAA were treated during the entire period. During the initial 40 months, 268 patients were treated with open surgical repair, including 216 infrarenal (81%), 43 complex (16%), and 9 ruptured (3%) aortic aneurysms. During the subsequent 40 months, 459 patients with AAA were treated (71% increase). There was no significant change in the number of patients undergoing open surgical repair and no significant difference in the rate of infrarenal (238 [77%]) and complex (51 [16%]) repairs. A total of 353 patients were referred for endovascular repair. Of these, 190 (54%) were considered candidates for endovascular repair based on computed tomography or arteriographic morphologic criteria. Analyzing a subgroup of 123 patients, the most common primary reasons for ineligibility for endovascular repair were related to morphology of the neck in 80 patients (65%) and of the iliac arteries in 35 patients (28%). A total of 149 patients underwent endovascular repair. Of these, the procedure was successful in 147 (99%), and 2 (1%) patients underwent surgical conversion. The hospital death rate was 0%, and the 30-day death rate was 1%. During a follow-up period of 1 to 39 months (mean 12 +/- 9), 21 secondary procedures to treat endoleak (20) or to maintain graft limb patency (1) were performed in 17 patients (11%). There were no aneurysm ruptures or aneurysm-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair appears to have augmented treatment options rather than replaced open surgical repair for patients with AAA. Patients who previously were not candidates for repair because of medical comorbidity may now be safely treated with endovascular repair.     

Two decades of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: have we made any progress?

PURPOSE: Over the past 20 years, there have been numerous advances in our ability to detect and to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). We hypothesized that these advances would lead to (1) an increase in the rate of elective repair and a decrease in the incidence of ruptured AAA (rAAA) and (2) a decrease in operative deaths for both elective AAA (eAAA) and rAAA. METHODS: To test these hypotheses, we investigated the incidence and outcomes of eAAA and rAAA surgery between 1979 and 1997, using the National Hospital Discharge Survey. This data set is a randomized, stratified sample representing discharges from the nation's acute care, nonfederally funded hospitals. Codes from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision were used to identify our study population. RESULTS: Over the past 19 years, there has been no change in the incidence rate of eAAA repair (range, 44.1-77.9 per 100,000). Moreover, the incidence of rAAAs presenting to the nation's hospitals has not changed (range, 6.6-16.3 per 100,000). There has been no consistent improvement over time in operative deaths associated with either eAAA or rAAA repair (average rates over the study period: eAAA, 5.6%; rAAA, 45.7%). Significant predictors of death from eAAA in patients included an age older than 80 years, African American race, congestive heart failure (CHF), and diabetes (P<.0001 for all). Significant predictors of death from rAAA in patients included age older than 70 years, African American race, female sex, renal failure, and a hospital bed size more than 500 (P<.05 for all). CONCLUSION: On a national level, over the past 19 years, our ability to identify and to treat patients with AAA has not improved. Advances in technology and critical care have not affected outcome. Regionalization of care, screening of high-risk populations, and endovascular repair are strategies that might allow further improvement in the outcome of patients with aneurysmal disease.     

Is preoperative cardiac evaluation for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair necessary?

Purpose: It is reported that 25% to 50% of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) have severe coronary artery disease (CAD) and should undergo an aggressive cardiac workup before AAA repair. In contrast, it has been our policy that patients referred for AAA repairs undergo no cardiac testing before surgery.Methods: This report reviews the last 113 consecutive patients who underwent elective AAA repair by the senior author using this policy. Seventy-four patients (group A) had only an electrocardiogram before surgery. The remaining 39 patients (group B) were referred having already had additional testing that included a thallium stress test (n = 20), echocardiogram (n = 18), multiple gated acquisition (MUGA) scan (n = 3), cardiac catheterization (n = 8), or some combination of these.Results: There was no statistical difference between group A and group B with regard to age, sex, tobacco use or history of coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, stroke (CVA), hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Group B more commonly had a history of myocardial infarction (41% vs 19%, p < 0.03) and congestive heart failure (23% vs 7%, p < 0.03). During surgery there was no significant differences in blood loss, transfusion requirements, or operative times. There were no myocardial infarctions in group A and two (5.1%) in group B, which was not significantly different. Other complications, such as CVA, renal failure, pulmonary failure, pneumonia, wound infection, and hemorrhage, were not significantly different between the two groups. Postoperative hospital stay was not significantly different. There were three deaths in the entire series (2.7%), and only one in group B was cardiac-related in a patient with known end-stage cardiac disease and a symptomatic 8 cm AAA.Conclusions: These data indicate that most patients with AAA can safely undergo repair with no cardiac workup and that cardiac workup before AAA repair contributes little information that impacts on treatment or final clinical outcome. We conclude that cardiac testing in preparation for AAA repair is not usually necessary and that intraoperative hemodynamic management may be the most important variable in determining outcome. (J Vasc Surg 1997;25:152-6.)     

Endovascular ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair – setting up your hospital for an endovascular approach

In recent years, major improvements have been made, making elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) a safe procedure. In selected series, mortality rates are less than 5%. Many of the patients with AAA, however, remain asymptomatic until they present with rupture. Once rupture has occurred, the overall mortality approaches 90%. Despite many advances in the management of ruptured AAA, the mortality rate of conventional open surgery has not improved significantly during the last 15 years. Over the last decade, endovascular techniques have been used increasingly to repair AAA, and there is increasing evidence that endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is technically feasible and safe for ruptured AAA. This review studies the evidence and aids the clinician in setting up a practice to manage rAAAs utilizing an endovascular approach.     

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair with the Zenith AAA Endovascular Graft: does gender affect procedural success, postoperative morbidity, or early survival?

The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of gender on deployment, early morbidity, and survival after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) using the Zenith Endovascular Graft. Data were obtained from the U.S. Multicenter Zenith Endograft trial and complemented with results from the Zenith female registry, including 40 women (10.9%) and 326 men (89.1%). Data analysis included preoperative medical risk factors, aneurysm morphology, deployment, and postoperative morbidity data, and 30-day and 1-year results. Preoperatively, women more often had experienced thromboembolic events (13% vs 4.3%; P = 0.04), but less angina pectoris (24% vs 49%; P = 0.002) or myocardial infarction (18% vs 38%; P = 0.01) compared with men. Women had more angulated aneurysm necks and narrower iliac arteries compared with men. Procedural success, cardiovascular, pulmonary, renal, bowel-related, neurologic, or other adverse events were comparable, as were 30-day and 1-year survival. Females experienced more wound dehiscences (5.0% vs 0.0%; P = 0.01) and open surgical conversions in the first year (5%) compared with men (0.31%) (P = 0.03). With more challenging aneurysm morphologies, women were found to be at a higher risk for conversion in the first year after EVAR using the Zenith endograft. This however does not translate into inferior survival or higher overall morbidity compared with men.     

Endovascular repair of small abdominal aortic aneurysms: a paradigm shift?

Recent reports have documented poor long-term results following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of large abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). EVAR of small AAAs may result in improved long-term results compared to large AAAs. It is not known whether the frequency of anatomic suitability for EVAR is increased for small compared to large AAAs. This study compared the anatomic suitability of large and small AAAs for EVAR in an unselected patient population. Radiology reports for all computed tomography (CT) scans in a single hospital over a recent 3-year period were reviewed. AAAs diagnosed by contrasted CT scans with cuts >7 mm were excluded. Suitability for EVAR was determined by neck diameter, length, and angulation. In addition, iliac diameters and common iliac distal landing zone lengths were determined. Computerized 3-dimensional (3D) reconstruction was used to measure neck angulation and total aortic tortuosity. One hundred ninety-one patients were found to have AAAs with adequate CT scans for evaluation. Suitability for EVAR was highest in patients with AAA diameters of 3-4 cm and declined with increasing size of the AAA. Dividing AAAs into sizes greater than or less than 5.5 cm revealed that small AAAs had significantly longer necks, less neck angulation, longer common iliac landing zones, and less total aortic tortuosity. Multivariable analysis revealed that maximal aortic diameter was the only independent predictor of suitability for EVAR (p = 0.005, odds ratio 1.67, CI 95% = 1.17 to 2.38). The odds ratio predicts that with each 1 cm increase in size, the likelihood of suitability decreased by 5.3-fold. Small AAAs have less complex anatomy with longer aortic necks, less neck angulation, and less tortuosity. The poor outcomes following the treatment of large AAAs is thought to be due to complex anatomy. EVAR of less anatomically challenging small AAAs may improve long-term outcomes.     

To what extent has endovascular aneurysm repair influenced abdominal aortic aneurysm management in the state of Illinois?

PURPOSE: This study was performed using population-based data to determine the changing trends in the techniques for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in the state of Illinois during the past 9 years and to examine the extent to which endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has influenced overall AAA management. METHODS: All records of patients who underwent AAA repair (1995 to 2003 inclusive) were retrieved from the Illinois Hospital Association COMPdata database. The outcome as determined by in-hospital mortality was analyzed according to intervention type (open vs EVAR) and indication (elective repair vs ruptured AAA). Data were stratified by age, gender, and hospital type (university vs community setting) and then analyzed using both univariate (chi 2 , t tests) and multivariate (stepwise logistic regression) techniques. RESULTS: Between 1995 and 2003, 14,517 patients underwent AAA repair (85% for elective and 15% for ruptured AAA). The average age was 71.4 +/- 7.9 years, and 76% were men. For elective cases, open repair was performed in 86% and EVAR in 14%; and for ruptured cases, open repair in 97% and EVAR in 3%. Elective EVAR was associated with lower in-hospital mortality compared with open repair regardless of age. No differences were observed with age after either type of repair for a ruptured aneurysm. Men had a lower in-hospital mortality compared with women for open repair of both elective and ruptured aneurysms. For EVAR, the mortality of an elective repair was lower in men, but there was no difference after a ruptured AAA. In men, the difference in mortality between elective open repair and EVAR was significant; the type of institution did not influence outcome. Patients >80 years of age had a higher mortality after open repair for both elective and ruptured AAA and after EVAR of a ruptured AAA. The average length of stay was 9.9 days for open elective repair, 13.1 days after open repair of a ruptured AAA, and 3.6 days for EVAR. The independent predictors of higher in-hospital mortality were female gender, age >80 years, diagnosis (ruptured vs open), and procedure (open vs EVAR). The year of the procedure and type of hospital (university vs community) were not predictive of outcome. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR has had a significant impact on AAA management in Illinois over a relatively short time period. In this population-based review, EVAR was associated with a significantly decreased in-hospital mortality and length of stay. Octogenarians had higher mortality after both types of repair, with the exception of elective EVAR.     

Endovascular aneurysm repair: Treatment of choice for abdominal aortic aneurysm coincident with horseshoe kidney? Three case reports and review of literature

There is still controversy as to which surgical method is the most suitable for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm with concomitant horseshoe kidney (AAA-HSK). We report three cases of AAA-HSK treated with endovascular aneurysm repair. In one of these patients we sacrificed the accessory renal artery by applying coils before the operation. Renal infarction, hypertension, or elevated serum creatinine level was not observed in any of our patients. If the blood supply to the kidneys is taken into consideration, endovascular aneurysm repair is our preferred surgical method for repair of AAA-HSK when anatomic conditions are suitable for stent-graft application and kidney function is normal.     

Is routine use of the intensive care unit after elective infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair necessary?

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative care after infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair has traditionally involved admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). With the advent of endovascular AAA repair, the management of open procedures has received increased scrutiny. We recently modified our AAA clinical pathway to include selective use of the ICU. METHODS: Consecutive elective infrarenal AAA repairs performed by members of the vascular surgery division at a university medical center from 1994 to 1999 were analyzed retrospectively with a computerized database, the Medical Archival Retrieval System. Group I consisted of 245 patients who were treated in the ICU for 1 or more days, and Group II included 69 patients admitted directly to the floor. Ruptured, symptomatic, suprarenal, endovascular, and reoperative repairs were excluded. Outcome variables were compared over the 6-year period. RESULTS: Floor admissions increased over the study period with 0%, 0%, 3.3%, 16.3%, 48.6%, and 43.6% of patients admitted directly to the surgery ward from 1994 to 1999. The average ICU length of stay declined from 4.6 to 1.2 days, whereas the hospital length of stay decreased from 12.5 to 6.8 days from 1994 to 1999. The change in ICU use had no effect on death (2.4% in Group I vs 0% in Group II). Major and minor morbidity was comparable. Hospital charges were significantly lower for patients in Group II. CONCLUSION: A policy of selective utilization of the ICU after elective infrarenal AAA repair is safe. It can reduce resource use without a negative impact on the quality of care.     

Is abdominal aortic aneurysm repair appropriate in oxygen-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients?

BACKGROUND: The life expectancy of patients with oxygen-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is significantly reduced, but the risk of any intervention is considered prohibitive. However, severe COPD may increase the risk of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture. We reviewed our experience with AAA repair in oxygen-dependent patients to determine whether operative risk and expected long-term survival justify surgical intervention. METHODS: A retrospective review of 44 consecutive patients with oxygen-dependent COPD undergoing AAA repair over an 8-year period was performed. Information was recorded for survival, length of follow-up, patient age, medical comorbidities, pulmonary function tests, and operative approach. Survival data were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier curves and compared with published cohorts of oxygen-dependent patients and the natural history of untreated aneurysms. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), and 20 underwent open procedures (14 retroperitoneal and 6 transabdominal). The mean AAA diameter was 6.1 cm (range, 5-9.5 cm). The mean age was 71.4 years, and 82% of patients were male. Operative mortality was 0%. The mean length of stay was 11.2 days for open procedures and 4.3 days for EVAR (significantly longer than that for standard-risk patients). The mean survival time was 37.9 months (range, 2-91 months). Preoperative medical comorbidities, type of repair, and pulmonary function tests were not predictive of survival. Postoperative morbidity was significantly higher with open repair. Long term survival was comparable to historical series of the natural history of O2 dependent patients without AAA but better than untreated 6 cm AAA cohorts. At 42 months, almost 50% of patients in our study group were still alive, compared to 20% survival at 34 months for those with untreated 6 cm AAAs. CONCLUSIONS: It is reasonable to continue to offer AAA repair to home oxygen-dependent COPD patients who are ambulatory and medically optimized and who are without untreated coronary artery disease. Although EVAR may be the most suitable treatment for oxygen-dependent COPD patients, our results show that even open repair may be safely performed in this population, with acceptable results.     

Is diabetes a risk factor for patients undergoing open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair?

A number of studies have compared results after aortic procedures in diabetics vs nondiabetics but few have focused specifically on abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. An analysis of prospective data was carried out in the Vascular Surgery Registry (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA) and identified 421 patients (422 grafts) who underwent elective open repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm between 1990 and 1999. The influence of diabetes mellitus on outcome was assessed by dividing the patients into two groups: 52 diabetic and 370 nondiabetic patients. Postoperative mortality was 1.7% overall (n = 7) and proportionally higher in the diabetic population, although this did not reach statistical significance (3.8% vs 1.4%, p = 0.19). However, cumulative survival at 1 year and 3 years was essentially identical for diabetic vs nondiabetic patients (91.0% vs 92.6% and 70.0% vs 73.5%, respectively) and did not diverge until 5 years after surgery (25.0% vs 50.9% respectively [p > 0.05]). Overall, major complications occurred in 11 diabetics (21.2%) vs 58 nondiabetics (15.7%, p = 0.32). Specific complications that were increased in the diabetic population included pancreatitis (5.8% vs 1.1%, p = 0.01) and pneumonia (11.5% vs 3.2%, p = 0.006). Notably, overall cardiac morbidity was not higher in patients with diabetes mellitus (1.9% vs 4.3%, p = 0.41). Our data suggest that after elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, patients with diabetes mellitus may have a higher rate of certain complications when compared to patients without diabetes mellitus. These differences however, do not preclude the expectation of excellent results of open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in patients with diabetes mellitus.     

Patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm: are we missing the opportunity for cardiovascular risk reduction?

INTRODUCTION: Antiplatelet agents, 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statin drugs), angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and beta-adrenergic receptor blockers (beta-blockers) reduce cardiovascular risk and mortality in patients with specific manifestations of cardiovascular disease and risk factors. Occlusive arterial disease, in particular, coronary heart disease, is prevalent in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and results in reduced life expectancy. The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence of cardiovascular disease and risk factors in patients with AAA. In particular, numbers of patients in whom pharmacologic therapy is indicated and numbers of patients who are receiving adequate treatment were determined. METHODS: This was a prospective study of 313 patients with AAA in Leicestershire over the 15 months between September 2002 and December 2003. RESULTS: Data that enabled determination of an indication for antiplatelet agents and statin drugs were available for 262 patients (84%), and for a beta-blocker and ACE inhibitor for 313 patients (100%). An antiplatelet agent was indicated in 242 of 262 patients (92%), a statin drug was indicated in 196 of 262 patients (75%), a beta-blocker was indicated in 107 of 313 patients (34%), and an ACE inhibitor was indicated in 178 of 313 patients (57%). In patients with an indication, 146 of 242 patients (60%) were using an antiplatelet agent, 81 of 196 (41%) were using a statin drug, 41 of 313 (38%) were using a beta-blocker, and 69 of 313 (39%) were using an ACE inhibitor. CONCLUSION: Cardiovascular disease, for which there is evidence for the survival benefit of pharmacologic risk reduction, is prevalent in patients with AAA. The data show that current treatment of cardiovascular risk is suboptimal and could be improved, with an expected reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.     

Can minilaparotomy abdominal aortic aneurysm repair be performed safely and effectively without special skills?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether a surgeon without special skills can perform minimal incision abdominal aortic aneurysm repair as safely and effectively as traditional retroperitoneal aneurysmectomy. METHODS: After informed consent, eligible patients were randomized into minilaparotomy and retroperitoneal groups. The minilaparotomy repair consisted of a short transabdominal midline incision, intraabdominal retraction of the bowel, control of back bleeding with balloon catheters, and hand-sewn anastomoses. The retroperitoneal approach was performed through a left vertical-lateral abdominal incision. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were randomly treated by minilaparotomy approach (n = 14) or retroperitoneal approach (n = 12) from December, 1999, to May 2001. Parameters for speed of recovery were indistinguishable and of no clinical significance. In the long-term follow-up (mean period, 27 months), no patients in the minilaparatomy group complained of discomfort from the incision, whereas 4 patients in the retroperitoneal group complained of discomfort (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Minilaparotomy approach can be performed safely and effectively without specialized skill. With regard to wound discomfort, the minilaparotomy technique is excellent. The minilaparotomy approach is therefore a useful alternative to traditional repair.