腹主动脉瘤破裂腔内治疗的荟萃分析

目的 系统评价血管腔内修复术(vascular edovascular repair,EVAR)治疗腹主动脉瘤破裂(ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms,RAAA)的有效性与安全性.方法 计算机检索PubMed、MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane Library、中国生物医学文献数据库、中文科技期刊全文数据库及中国期刊全文数据库等数据库,并辅以手工检索近年发表的中文期刊.对纳入文献采用RevMan 5.0.18软件进行Meta分析.结果 纳入9篇文献.1篇随机对照试验(RCT),8篇队列研究共2402例患者,Meta分析结果显示:与开放手术比较,血管腔内修复术可明显降低术后30 d死亡率[OR =0.47,95％ CI(0.39,0.57),P＜0.01]和并发症发生率OR=0.47,95％ CI(0.39,0.57),P＜0.01.血管腔内修复术与开放手术相比,在术后早期再手术率[ OR=0.86,95％ CI(0.55,1.33),P=0.5]及中期死亡率[OR=1.24,95％ CI(0.46,3.37),P＜0.67]方面差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 对于合适的腹主动脉瘤破裂的患者,腔内治疗是可行的,并且逐渐显现出相对传统开腹手术更大的优势,短期疗效较好,术后并发症相对较少.     

腔内修复完全替代开放手术治疗急性破裂性腹主动脉瘤可行性研究

目的 探讨应用腔内修复（EVAR）完全替代开放手术治疗急性腹主动脉瘤的可行性。方法 回顾性分析复旦大学附属中山医院血管外科2009年1月至2019年12月期间收治的121例真性破裂性腹主动脉瘤的病人资料。对比“选择性EVAR（EVAR/Open）”时期（2009年1月至2014年3月）与“完全EVAR（EVAR Only）”时期（2014年4月至2019年12月）的两种治疗策略的疗效。结果 121例真性破裂性腹主动脉瘤病人中,29例于术前放弃手术或死亡。其中,在“EVAR/Open”时期,40例（19例EVAR及21例开放手术）接受外科治疗,EVAR及开放手术后30 d病死率分别为26.3%及23.8%（P=0.94）;而在“EVAR Only”时期共52例全部接受EVAR治疗,术后30 d病死率为23.1%。两个时期病死率差异无统计学意义（P=0.83）。两个时期内均未观察到不同术式在不同术前血流动力学状态及不同瘤体解剖学条件中对病死率有明显的影响。结论 基于所在中心平诊手术经验的“完全EVAR”策略可有效用于几乎所有破裂性腹主动脉瘤的急诊救治,并获得与“选择性EVAR”策略一致的疗效。     

Anaesthesia for the ruptured aortic aneurysm

The perioperative management of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAA) remains a core anaesthetic competency. Changes such as service centralization, aneurysm screening and the developing role of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are altering the demands upon anaesthetists. Whereas previously on-site general anaesthesia for resuscitative open aneurysm repair (OAR) was standard, now transfer, choice of surgical technique and options for anaesthetic management may need to be considered. We present the key components of emergency anaesthesia for both OAR and EVAR and describe clinical dilemmas arising at preoperative and intraoperative stages.     

Anaesthesia for the ruptured aortic aneurysm

The perioperative management of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAA) remains a core anaesthetic competency. Changes such as service centralization, aneurysm screening and the developing role of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are altering the demands upon anaesthetists. Whereas previously on-site general anaesthesia for resuscitative open aneurysm repair (OAR) was standard, now transfer, choice of surgical technique and options for anaesthetic management may need to be considered. We present the key components of emergency anaesthesia for both OAR and EVAR and describe clinical dilemmas arising at preoperative and intraoperative stages.     

破裂性腹主动脉瘤的治疗

目的探讨破裂性腹主动脉瘤急诊救治的治疗经验。方法回顾性研究2002年5月-2013年7月救治的36例破裂性腹主动脉瘤患者的临床资料。其中25例合并高血压病,21例合并慢性阻塞性肺疾病。33例采取急诊开腹主动脉人工血管置换术;3例采取主动脉覆膜支架腔内修复术,其中1例中转开腹手术治疗。结果术后33例存活,另外3例死亡,死亡原因包括1例失血性休克和心功能衰竭,1例术中心跳骤停,1例术后多器官功能衰竭,围手术期病死率为8．3％。术后随访3～61个月,未发生人工血管感染等手术相关并发症及死亡病例。结论积极的手术治疗是提高破裂性腹主动脉瘤患者救治成功率的关键,早期明确诊断,手术中快速有效控制近端瘤颈血流,完善围手术期治疗能有效降低病死率。     

Endovascular stenting versus open surgery for thoracic aortic disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative results

BACKGROUND: Endovascular stenting has emerged as an alternative to open repair in patients requiring surgery for thoracic aortic pathology. A number of comparative series have been published but, to date, there has been no meta-analysis comparing outcomes following stenting as opposed to open surgery. METHODS: Electronic abstract databases and conference proceedings were searched to identify relevant series. Pooled odds ratios were calculated using random effects models for perioperative mortality, neurological injury, and major reintervention. RESULTS: The search identified 17 eligible series, totaling 1109 patients (538 stenting). Stenting was associated with a significant reduction in mortality (pooled odds ratio 0.36; 95% CI 0.228-0.578; P < .0001) and major neurological injury (pooled odds ratio 0.39; 95% CI 0.25-0.62; P = .0001). There was no difference in the major reintervention rate (pooled odds ratio 0.91; 95% CI 0.610-1.619). There was a reduction in hospital and critical care stay although there was evidence of heterogeneity and bias with respect to these outcomes. Subgroup analyses suggested that endovascular repair reduced mortality (pooled odds ratio 0.25; 95% CI 0.09-0.66) and neurological morbidity (pooled odds ratio 0.28; 95% CI 0.13-0.61) in stable patients undergoing repair of thoracic aortic aneurysms. There was no effect on mortality in patients with thoracic aortic trauma but neurological injury was reduced (pooled odds ratio 0.17; 95% CI 0.03-1.03). Endovascular repair did not confer any apparent benefit over open surgery in patients with thoracic aortic rupture. CONCLUSION: Endovascular thoracic aortic repair reduces perioperative mortality and neurological morbidity in patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. There may be less benefit in other thoracic aortic conditions.     

腔内修复完全替代开放手术治疗急性破裂性腹主动脉瘤可行性研究

目的 探讨应用腔内修复（EVAR）完全替代开放手术治疗急性腹主动脉瘤的可行性。方法 回顾性分析复旦大学附属中山医院血管外科2009年1月至2019年12月期间收治的121例真性破裂性腹主动脉瘤的病人资料。对比“选择性EVAR（EVAR/Open）”时期（2009年1月至2014年3月）与“完全EVAR（EVAR Only）”时期（2014年4月至2019年12月）的两种治疗策略的疗效。结果 121例真性破裂性腹主动脉瘤病人中，29例于术前放弃手术或死亡。其中，在“EVAR/Open”时期，40例（19例EVAR及21例开放手术）接受外科治疗，EVAR及开放手术后30 d病死率分别为26.3%及23.8%（P=0.94）；而在“EVAR Only”时期共52例全部接受EVAR治疗，术后30 d病死率为23.1%。两个时期病死率差异无统计学意义（P=0.83）。两个时期内均未观察到不同术式在不同术前血流动力学状态及不同瘤体解剖学条件中对病死率有明显的影响。结论 基于所在中心平诊手术经验的“完全EVAR”策略可有效用于几乎所有破裂性腹主动脉瘤的急诊救治，并获得与“选择性EVAR”策略一致的疗效。     

Open versus endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in VA hospitals

BACKGROUND: Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), when compared with conventional open surgical repair, has been shown to reduce perioperative morbidity and mortality. We performed a retrospective cohort study with prospectively collected data from the Department of Veterans Affairs to examine outcomes after elective aneurysm repair. STUDY DESIGN: We studied 30-day mortality, 1-year survival, and postoperative complications in 1,904 patients who underwent elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR n=717 [37.7%]; open n=1,187 [62.3%]) at 123 Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals between May 1, 2001 and September 30, 2003. We investigated the influence of patient, operative, and hospital variables on outcomes. RESULTS: Patients undergoing EVAR had significantly lower 30-day (3.1% versus 5.6%, p=0.01) and 1- year mortality rates (8.7% versus 12.1%, p=0.018) than patients having open repair. EVAR was associated with a decrease in 30-day postoperative mortality (adjusted odds ratio[OR]=0.59; 95% CI=0.36, 0.99; p=0.04). The risk of perioperative complications was much less after EVAR (15.5% versus 27.7%; p<0.001; unadjusted OR 0.48; 95% CI=0.38, 0.61; p<0.001). Patients operated on at low volume hospitals (25% of entire cohort) were more likely to have had open repair (31.3% compared with 15.9% EVAR; p<0.001) and a nearly two-fold increase in adjusted 30-day mortality risk (OR=1.9; 95% CI=1.19, 2.98; p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: In routine daily practice, veterans who undergo elective EVAR have substantially lower perioperative mortality and morbidity rates compared with patients having open repair. The benefits of a minimally invasive approach were readily apparent in this cohort, but we recommend using caution in choosing EVAR for all elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs until longer-term data on device durability are available.     

Clinical effect of abdominal aortic aneurysm endografting: 7-year concurrent comparison with open repair

OBJECTIVE: We compared the effectiveness and clinical outcome of open repair versus endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in achieving prevention of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA)-related death and graft-related complications. METHODS: Over 7 years from 1997 to 2003, 1119 consecutive patients underwent elective treatment of infrarenal AAAs, 585 with open repair and 534 with EVAR. Patients were regularly followed up at 1, 6, 12 months, and every 6 months thereafter, in EVAR group, and at 3 and 12 months, and yearly thereafter after open repair. Preoperative, intraoperative, and follow-up data were stored in a prospective database. RESULTS: Median follow-up was similar in the 2 groups: 33 months (interquartile range [IQR], 13-50 months) in the EVAR group vs 35 months (IQR, 15-54 months) in the open repair group. EVAR group patients were older than patients in the open repair group: 73 years vs 72 years (P = .04). There were statistical significant differences between the EVAR group and the open repair group with respect to AAA median diameter (52 mm vs 56 mm), coronary disease rate (46% vs 37%; P = .001), pulmonary disease rate (56% vs 38%; P < .0001), and American Society of Anesthesiologists IV score rate (16% vs 6%; P < .0001). Thirty-day mortality in the EVAR group was 0.9% (5 of 534 patients), compared with 4.1% (24 of 585 patients; P = .001) in the open repair group, and major morbidity was 9.1% (49 of 534 patients) vs 18.6% (109 of 585 patients; P < .0001), respectively. The incidence of secondary procedures in the EVAR group was 15.7%, compared with 3% in the open repair group (P < .0001). There were no deaths related to secondary procedures in either group. Six AAAs (1.1%) ruptured after EVAR, 3 of which were fatal; in the open repair group 1 patient (0.2%) underwent successful repeat operatation to treat iliac pseudoaneurysm rupture 5 years after the original procedure. Kaplan-Meier estimates for freedom from aneurysm-related death at 84 months were 97.5% in the EVAR group and 95.9% in the open repair group (log rank test, P = .008). Kaplan-Meier survival estimates at 84 months were 67.1% in the open repair group and 66.9% in the EVAR group (P = NS). At the same interval the risk for secondary procedures was 49.4% for the EVAR group and 7.1% for the open repair group. Of the 11 variables analyzed with logistic analysis, open surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-54.2; P = .002), American Society of Anesthesiologists IV score (HR, 7.1; 95% CI, 2.7-18.8; P = .0001), and age (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.13; P = .04) were positive independent predictors of perioperative mortality. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that at a maximum follow-up of 7 years, patients who undergo EVAR show lower perioperative and late aneurysm-related mortality compared with a younger and substantially healthier group of patients with aneurysms treated with open repair. The higher need for secondary procedures in the endovascular group did not affect superiority of the overall performance of EVAR in the early and late intervals.     

Endovascular versus open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: a comparison of early and intermediate results in patients suitable for both techniques.

PURPOSE: To assess early and intermediate results of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR), and to compare them with open surgery (OS) in concurrent patients suitable for both types of treatment. METHODS: During 3 years, 180 patients with AAA underwent repair. We excluded patients with ruptured aneurysms (33), juxtarenal aneurysms (11), iliac aneurysms (8), with peripheral embolization (2) and those treated with a cryopreserved homograft (2). From the remaining patients (n=124), we selected those suitable for both techniques (n=83), of which 53 were treated by EVAR and 30 by OS. Analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Log Rank tests. RESULTS: Hospital mortality was not significantly higher in the OS group (6.6% OS vs. 3.7% EVAR), p=0.55. The EVAR group had significantly shorter operative time, length of hospital stay and less blood loss. The median follow up time was 2.18 years for OR and 1.58 years for EVAR. There were no conversions from EVAR to OS and no differences in late survival (p=0.255, Cox regression analysis) with a cumulative survival rate at 3 years of 89% for EVAR and 73% for OS. By 3 years 24% (95% CI, 11-47%) of EVAR patients had presented endoleaks with an endovascular re-intervention rate of 27% (95% CI, 13-50%). One patient in the OS group needed a late open intervention. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR compares favourably with OS in terms of reduction of operative time, hospital length of stay and blood loss. This study did not show a difference in early or late mortality. EVAR durability remains the most critical issue to be addressed.     

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: endovascular repair does not confer any long-term survival advantage over open repair

Recent studies have suggested that endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) may reduce the perioperative mortality of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Whether EVAR confers any long-term survival advantage over published results for open repair of ruptured AAA has not been established. We conducted a single-center retrospective study over a 10-year period (1994-2004) examining the long-term outcome of patients who have undergone endovascular repair of ruptured AAA. Fifty-four patients underwent endovascular repair of a ruptured AAA. The median age was 75 years (interquartile range 69.5-79.5 years); 42 (78%) patients were male. The perioperative mortality rate was 37%. During a median follow-up of 32 months (range 14-48 months), there were 5 aneurysm-related and 13 non-aneurysm-related deaths. Overall, the 3- and 5-year survival rates were 36% and 26%, respectively. EVAR does not appear to confer any overall survival advantage in the mid- to long term compared with the published results for open repair. The reasons for this remain unclear. Further, larger studies are required to confirm these results.     

Outcome after endografting in small and large abdominal aortic aneurysms: a metanalysis.

AIM: To compare the results of endovascular repair (EVAR) in large and small (diameter < 5.5cm) abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify studies comparing the outcomes after EVAR of large and small aneurysms. Outcomes considered were: risk of death (perioperative, all cause, aneurysm-related), ruptures, and complications (conversion, reintervention). Weighted pooled estimates of outcomes in patients with small versus large aneurysms were calculated. The inverse variance method was used (random-effect model). Subgroup analyses by a follow-up longer or shorter than 24 months were performed. RESULTS: Five studies, with published and unpublished data, totallying 7,735 patients, were included. Overall, the weighted pooled estimates were: OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.51-0.90 for operative mortality, OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.86 for all cause mortality, OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.87 for aneurysm-related mortality and OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.79 for rupture in favour of small AAA group. Pooled estimates were not influenced by follow-up length. Conversion and reintervention rates were not significantly lower for small AAA. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR in small versus large AAA might be associated with lower operative mortality, aneurysm-related mortality and aneurysm rupture. Better evidence is needed to support these suggestions.     

Is there a selection bias in applying endovascular aneurysm repair for rupture?

Accumulating data suggest that endovascular repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAAs) leads to reduced mortality, but concern exists that this may reflect selection bias. We reviewed our overall rupture experience early after our protocol was instituted to explore this question. We instituted a defined protocol for RAAA with emphasis on EVAR in July 2002, which included device availability (consignment), preoperative training, 24-hr access to our surgical endosuite and ability to operate imaging in an emergency, and immediate availability of a transbrachial balloon cutdown cart for all cases. Charts of all RAAA patients who arrived in the operating room alive since institution of our protocol were reviewed. Computed tomographic (CT) scans were re-reviewed to assess potentially suitable anatomic candidates. From July 2002 to May 2006, a total of 52 RAAAs were treated at our institution: 15 pararenal RAAAs, all treated by open repair (PR-OPEN), and 37 infrarenal RAAAs, 20 treated by open repair (IR-OPEN) and 17 treated by EVAR (IR-EVAR, 32% of all ruptures). Mortality rates in the three groups were 47%, 75%, and 35% (p < 0.02 vs. IR-OPEN), respectively. Although mortality was significantly lower in the EVAR group, overall mortality was 53% (28/52). On re-review of the operative notes and CT scans, it is estimated that more than half of those cases repaired using open techniques could have been repaired using EVAR based on anatomic criteria alone. The most common reason for open repair was hemodynamic instability preoperatively; only a minority of cases were excluded from EVAR based on unfavorable anatomy after CT scan review in the emergency room. In conclusion, during our early experience EVAR for rupture was associated with significantly reduced mortality. However, our overall mortality was no different from historical values, and this fact along with the extremely high mortality seen in the IR-OPEN group suggest that we are simply selecting patients with the greatest chance of survival to undergo EVAR. It also appears that many patients who are anatomically suitable for EVAR are undergoing open operation because of hemodynamic instability. If EVAR for rupture truly decreases mortality in all patients, a much more aggressive attitude toward EVAR may be required to lower the overall mortality rate.     

腹主动脉瘤破裂的处理及预后分析

目的探讨腹主动脉瘤破裂的处理及影响预后的主要因素。方法回顾性分析12年间收治的42例腹主动脉瘤破裂的临床资料。85．7％的患者术前行影像学检查确诊。36例行手术治疗,其中35例行腹主动脉瘤切除人工血管植入术,术中80％采用肾动脉下腹主动脉阻断, 14．3％采用膈下腹主动脉阻断,5．7％采用Foley尿管球囊阻断（2例）;1例行覆膜支架腔内隔绝术。结果围手术期死亡率45．24％。单因素统计分析表明在围手术期死亡者年龄（72．1±1．0）岁、合并疾病13例和术前收缩压（82±53）mm Hg;存活者年龄（61．5±17．0）岁、合并症7例、术前收缩压（82±28）mm Hg,之间差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）,而性别、术前Hb、肌酐、瘤体直径和手术失血量则无显著差异（P〉0．05）。结论手术是治疗破裂腹主动脉瘤的惟一有效方法,高龄、合并其他疾病和休克提示预后不良。     

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with open repair for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveThe Zenith Fenestrated Endovascular Graft (ZFEN; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) has expanded the anatomic eligibility of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Current data on ZFEN mainly consist of single-institution experiences and show conflicting results. Therefore, we compared perioperative outcomes after repair using ZFEN with open complex AAA repair and infrarenal EVAR in a nationwide multicenter registry.MethodsWe identified all patients undergoing elective AAA repair using ZFEN, open complex AAA repair, and standard infrarenal EVAR between 2012 and 2016 within the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted vascular module. Open complex AAA repairs were defined as those with a juxtarenal or suprarenal proximal AAA extent in combination with an aortic cross-clamping position that was above at least one renal artery. The primary outcome was perioperative mortality, defined as death within 30 days or within the index hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included postoperative renal dysfunction (creatinine concentration increase of >2 mg/dL from preoperative value or new dialysis), occurrence of any complication, procedure times, blood transfusion rates, and length of stay. To account for baseline differences, we calculated propensity scores and employed inverse probability-weighted logistic regression.ResultsWe identified 6825 AAA repairs—220 ZFENs, 181 open complex AAA repairs, and 6424 infrarenal EVARs. Univariate analysis of ZFEN compared with open complex AAA repair demonstrated lower rates of perioperative mortality (1.8% vs 8.8%; P = .001), postoperative renal dysfunction (1.4% vs 7.7%; P = .002), and overall complications (11% vs 33%; P < .001). In addition, fewer patients undergoing ZFEN received blood transfusions (22% vs 73%; P < .001), and median length of stay was shorter (2 vs 7 days; P < .001). After adjustment, open complex AAA repair was associated with higher odds of perioperative mortality (odds ratio [OR], 4.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-18), postoperative renal dysfunction (OR, 13; 95% CI, 3.6-49), and overall complication rates (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.3-7.5) compared with ZFEN. Compared with infrarenal EVAR, ZFEN presented comparable rates of perioperative mortality (1.8% vs 0.8%; P = .084), renal dysfunction (1.4% vs 0.7%; P = .19), and any complication (11% vs 7.7%; P = .09). Furthermore, after adjustment, there was no significant difference between the odds of perioperative mortality, postoperative renal dysfunction, or any complication between infrarenal EVAR and ZFEN.ConclusionsZFEN is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with open complex AAA repair, and outcomes are comparable to those of infrarenal EVAR. Long-term durability of ZFEN compared with open complex AAA repair warrants future research.     

Perioperative outcome of endovascular repair for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms

Background

As endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) continues to advance, eligibility of patients with anatomically complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) for EVAR is increasing. However, whether complex EVAR is associated with favorable outcome over conventional open repair and how outcomes compare with infrarenal EVAR remains unclear. This study examined perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing complex EVAR, focusing on differences with complex open repair and standard infrarenal EVAR.

Extended use of endovascular aneurysm sealing for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR) is now an established treatment modality for suitable patients presenting with aneurysm rupture. EVAR for ruptured aneurysms reduces transfusion, mechanical ventilation, intensive care. and hospital stay when compared with open surgery. In the emergency setting, however, EVAR is limited by low applicability due to adverse clinical or anatomical characteristics and increased need for reintervention. In addition, ongoing bleeding from aortic side branches post-EVAR can cause hemodynamic instability, larger hematomas, and abdominal compartment syndrome. Endovascular aneurysm sealing, based on polymer filling of the aneurysm, has the potential to overcome some of the limitations of EVAR for ruptured aneurysms and to improve outcomes. Recent literature suggests that endovascular aneurysm sealing can be performed with early mortality similar to that of EVAR for ruptured aortic aneurysms, but experience is limited to a few centers and a small number of patients. The addition of chimney grafts can increase the applicability of endovascular aneurysm sealing in order to treat short-neck and juxtarenal aneurysms as an alternative to fenestrated endografts. Further evaluation of the technique, with larger longitudinal studies, is necessary before advocating wider implementation of endovascular aneurysm sealing in the emergency setting.     

Improved survival after introduction of an emergency endovascular therapy protocol for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND: The study was conducted to demonstrate improved survival (30-day mortality) after the introduction of an emergency endovascular therapy protocol for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA). Numerous authors have successfully demonstrated reduced mortality in patients with rAAA using endovascular techniques. Comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with open repair for rAAA may be misleading, however, because EVAR cannot be performed on all patients, and selection bias may explain the superior performance of any given surgical or endovascular strategy. We developed a model to predict mortality in patients before the introduction of EVAR (preprotocol population), applied this model to predict 30-day mortality among prospective patients (postprotocol population), and compared observed vs expected results. METHODS: We assessed 126 patients with rAAA. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Potential confounding variables were age, sex, presurgical lowest recorded systolic blood pressure (SBP), and glomerular filtration rate (GFR). A logistic regression model incorporating significant confounders was used to evaluate changes in 30-day mortality for all patients with rAAA after introduction of the EVAR protocol. Separate logistic regressions were done to compare 30-day mortality for preprotocol vs patients receiving EVAR and preprotocol vs patients receiving postprotocol open repair. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was used to assess shifts in the performance of the rAAA program over time. RESULTS: Significant confounders were SBP, absence of SBP, and GFR. Logistic regression found evidence of lower mortality after the protocol was introduced, 17.9% vs 30.0% (odds ratio [OR], 0.385; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.141 to 0.981; P = .046). Comparison of all open repairs (preprotocol and postprotocol) and EVAR demonstrated decreased risk for EVAR of 5.0% vs 28.3% (OR, 0.109; 95% CI, 0.013 to 0.906; P = .0084). Unstable patients (SBP 相似文献   

Performance of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in high-risk patients: results from the Veterans Affairs National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

OBJECTIVE: Recent results after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) have brought into question its value in patients deemed at high-risk for surgical intervention. The Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) is the largest prospectively collected and validated United States surgical database representing current clinical practice. The purpose of our study was to evaluate outcomes after elective EVAR performed in high-risk veterans. METHODS: Using NSQIP data from 123 participating VA hospitals, we retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent elective aneurysm repair from May 2001 to December 2004. High-risk criteria were used to identify a cohort for analysis (EVAR, n = 788; open, n = 1580). High-risk criteria analyzed included age > or =60 years, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification 3 or 4, and the comorbidity variables of history of cardiac, respiratory, or hepatic disease, cardiac revascularization, renal insufficiency, and low serum albumin level. Our primary end points were 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality, and we evaluated a secondary end point of perioperative complications. Statistical analysis included univariate analysis and multivariate modeling. RESULTS: Veterans who were classified as high-risk underwent elective EVAR with significantly lower 30-day (3.4% vs 5.2%, P = .047) and 1-year all-cause mortality (9.5% vs 12.4%, P = .038) than patients having open repair. EVAR was associated with a decrease in 30-day postoperative mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 1.03; P = .067) as well as 1-year mortality (adjusted OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.91; P = .0094) despite the presence of severe comorbid conditions. The risk of perioperative complications was significantly lower after EVAR (16.2% vs 31.0%; P < .0001; adjusted OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.52; P < .0001). A subset analysis of higher-risk patients (ASA 4 and the above comorbidity variables) still demonstrated an acceptable 30-day mortality rate. CONCLUSION: In veterans deemed high-risk for surgical therapy, outcomes after elective EVAR are excellent, and the procedure is relatively safe in this special patient population. Our retrospective data demonstrate that patients with considerable medical comorbidities and infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms benefit from and should be considered for primary EVAR.     

Endovascular ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVRAR): a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: To review evidence supporting the use of endovascular ruptured aneurysm repair (EVRAR) for treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA). METHODS: A systematic review of the medical literature was performed for relevant studies. We searched a number of electronic databases and hand-searched relevant journals until November 2006 to identify studies for inclusion. We considered studies in which patients with a confirmed ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm were treated with EVRAR, which reported endpoints of mortality and major complications. RESULTS: There was 1 randomised controlled trial (RCT), 33 non-randomised case series (24 retrospective and 9 prospective) reports were identified comparing EVRAR (n=891) with conventional open surgical repair for the treatment of RAAA. Whilst no benefit in the primary outcome of mortality was noted in the only RCT, evidence from non-randomised studies suggest that EVRAR is feasible in selected patients, where it may be associated with a trend towards reductions in blood loss, duration of intensive care treatment, early complications, and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of symptomatic or ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, emergency endovascular repair (EVRAR) is feasible in selected patients, with early outcomes comparable to best conventional open surgical repair for the treatment of RAAA.