Delayed endovascular treatment of descending aorta stent graft collapse in a patient treated for post- traumatic aortic rupture: a case report

Background: We report a case of delayed endovascular correction of graft collapse occurred after emergent Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) for traumatic aortic isthmus rupture.Case presentation: In 7 th post-operative day after emergent TEVAR for traumatic aortic isthmus rupture (Gore TAG \uae 28-150), a partial collapse of the endoprosthesis at the descending tract occurred, with no signs of visceral ischemia. Considering patient's clinical conditions, the graft collapse wasn't treated at that time. When general conditions allowed reintervention, the patient refused any new treatment, so he was discharged.Four months later the patient complainted for severe gluteal and sural claudication, erectile disfunction and abdominal angina; endovascular correction was performed. At 18 months the graft was still patent.Discussion and Conclusion: Graft collapse after TEVAR is a rare event, which should be detected and treated as soon as possible. Delayed correction of this complication can be lethal due to the risk of visceral ischemia and limbs loss

Decision analysis model of open repair versus endovascular treatment in patients with asymptomatic popliteal artery aneurysms

Objective: Repair is indicated of asymptomatic popliteal artery aneurysms (aPAAs) that are >2 cm. Endovascular PAA repair with covered stents (stenting) is increasingly used. It is, however, unclear when an endovascular approach is preferred to traditional open repair with great saphenous vein bypass (GSVB). The goal of this study was to assess the treatment options for aPAAs using decision analysis. Methods: A Markov model was developed and a hypothetic cohort of patients with aPAAs was analyzed. GSVB, stenting, and nonoperative management with optimal medical treatment (OMT) were compared. Operative mortality, patency rates, quality-of-life values, and costs were determined by comprehensive review of the best available evidence. The main outcome was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Secondary outcomes were cost-effectiveness and number of reinterventions. Results: For a 65-year-old male patient with a 2.0-cm aPAA and without significant comorbidities, probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that intervention is preferred over OMT (5.77 QALYs, 95% credibility interval [CI], 5.43-6.11; OMT). GSVB treatment for this patient results in slightly higher QALYs than stent placement, with a predicted 8.43 QALYs (GSVB: 95% CI, 8.21-8.64) vs 8.07 QALYs (stenting: 95% CI, 7.84-8.29), a difference of 0.36 QALYs (95% CI, 0.14-0.58). Furthermore, costs are higher for stenting ($40,464; 95$34,814-$46,242) vs GSVB ($21,618; 95% CI, $15,932-$28,070), and more reinterventions are required after stenting (1.03 per patient) vs GSVB (0.52 per patient), making GSVB the preferred strategy for all outcomes considered. Stenting is preferred in patients who are at high risk for open repair (>6% 30-day mortality) or if the 5-year primary patency rates of stenting increase to 80%. For very old patients (>95 years) and patients with a very short life expectancy (<1.5 years), OMT yields higher QALYs. Conclusions: GSVB is the preferred treatment in 65-year-old patients with aPAAs for all outcomes considered. However, patients at high risk for open repair or without suitable vein should be considered as candidates for endovascular repair. Very elderly patients and patients with a short life expectancy are best treated with OMT. Further improvement of endovascular techniques that increase patency rates of endovascular stents could make this the preferred therapy for more patients in the future

A clinical decision model for selecting the most appropriate therapy for uncomplicated chronic dissections of the descending aorta

ObjectiveThe optimal treatment for patients with uncomplicated chronic Stanford type B aortic dissections (chTBADs) is still matter of debate. The purpose of this study was to design a decision tool to guide the surgeon in determining the preferred treatment option.MethodsA Markov decision-analysis model compared chTBAD patients treated with initial open surgical repair (OSR), thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), and optimal medical therapy (OMT), followed during follow-up by OSR (OMT-OSR) or TEVAR (OMT-TEVAR), if indicated. Procedural risks, aortic growth and rupture rates, outcomes, and quality of life values were derived from the best available evidence in the literature. A chTBAD treatment strategy decision tool was developed, including the four key variables of age, sex, surgical risk, and maximum initial aortic diameter. Primary outcome was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).ResultsFor the reference patient cohort, 55-year-old men with chTBAD with a maximum aortic diameter of 5.0 cm, medium risk for surgery, and a threshold for surgery of 6.0 cm during follow-up, OSR yielded higher QALYs, with 10.06 QALYs (95% credibility interval [CI], 9.52-10.56 QALYs) vs 9.92 QALYs (95% CI, 9.23-10.58 QALYs) after TEVAR and 9.64 QALYs (95% CI, 9.38-9.88 QALYs) and 9.40 QALYs (95% CI, 9.11-9.69 QALYs) for OMT-OSR and OMT-TEVAR. The difference between OSR and OMT-OSR was 0.42 QALYs (95% CI, 0.01-0.81 QALYs) and between TEVAR and OMT-TEVAR was 0.52 QALYs (95% CI, 0.04-0.68 QALYs). This showed that intervention is preferred over OMT. A change of the four variables resulted in a change of preferred treatment. In general, OSR was the preferred treatment in younger patients with a larger aortic diameter and in low-risk patients. TEVAR was preferred in elderly patients with large aortic diameter and if the aortic diameter threshold for repair decreased. OMT was the optimal therapy in high-risk patients, elderly patients, or in patients with small aortic diameters.ConclusionsThis decision-analysis model shows that there is no “one-size-fits-all” treatment for uncomplicated chTBADs. For the reference patient cohort, intervention is preferred over OMT. Age is the most important deciding factor, followed by initial aortic diameter. Immediate OSR is the preferred treatment option in younger patients with a large initial aortic diameter and in low-risk patients. Immediate TEVAR is preferred in elderly patients with a large initial aortic diameter and in patients with a lower threshold for OSR. OMT should be considered in high-risk patients, in patients with small initial aortic diameters, and in patients aged >80 years, unless their initial aortic diameter is >5.5 cm. However, the differences in some patient groups are clinically insignificant, allowing a major role for patient preferences and hospital-specific considerations. This clinical decision model may guide chTBAD treatment

Endovascular vs. Open Repair of Complicated Acute Type B Aortic Dissections

Purpose: To assess the comparative effectiveness of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) vs. open surgical repair (OSR) of complicated acute type B aortic dissections (cABAD) using decision analysis. Methods: A decision analysis comparing TEVAR and OSR for cABAD included variables extracted from the best-available evidence. Main outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), presented with the 95% credibility intervals (Cl), and number of reinterventions over the remaining lifetime. Different clinical scenarios, including age, gender, and risk profile were analyzed. Parameter uncertainty was analyzed using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: In the reference case, a cohort of 55-year-old men, TEVAR was preferred over OSR: 7.07 QALYs (95% Cl 6.77 to 7.38) vs. 6.34 QALYs (95% Cl 6.04 to 6.66) for OSR. The difference of 0.73 QALYs (95% Cl 0.29 to 1.17) is equal to 8.5 months in perfect health. TEVAR was more effective in all analyzed cases and age groups. Perioperative mortality was the most important variable affecting the difference between OSR and TEVAR, followed by the relative risk and percentage of aortic-related complications. Total expected reinterventions were 0.43/patient (TEVAR) and 0.35/patient (OSR). Conclusion: The results of this decision model for the treatment of cABAD suggest that TEVAR is preferred over OSR. Although a higher number of reinterventions is expected, the total effectiveness of TEVAR is higher for all age groups. OSR should be reserved for patients whose aortic anatomy is unsuitable for endovascular repair

A comparison of open and endovascular revascularization for chronic mesenteric ischemia in a clinical decision model

Objective: Open revascularization (OR) has been the treatment of choice for chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI) for many years, but endovascular revascularization (EV) has been increasingly used with good short-term results. In this study, we evaluated the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of EV and OR in patients with CMI refractory to conservative management. Methods: A Markov-state transition model was developed using TreeAge Pro 2012 (TreeAge Inc, Williamstown, Mass) to simulate a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 65-year-old female patients with CMI requiring treatment with either OR or EV. Data for the model, including perioperative and long-term overall mortality risks, disease-specific mortality risks, complications, and reintervention and patency rates, were retrieved from original studies and systematic reviews about CMI. Costs were analyzed with the 2013 Medicare database. Outcomes evaluated were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs from the health care perspective, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed and different clinical scenarios evaluated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to assess robustness of the model. Results: For a reference-case 65-year-old female patient with CMI and an average risk for operation, EV is preferred with 10.03 QALYs (95% credibility interval [CI], 9.76-10.29) vs 9.59 after OR (95% CI, 9.29-9.87). The difference is comparable to 5 months in perfect health: 0.44 QALY (95% CI, 0.13-0.76). For 65-year-old men, this was 8.71 QALYs (95% CI, 8.48-8.94) for EV vs 8.42 (95% CI, 8.14-8.63) for OR. Sensitivity analysis showed that for younger patients, EV results in a higher increase in QALYs compared with older patients. Total expected reinterventions per patient are 1.70 for EV vs 0.30 for OR. Total expected health care costs for the reference-case patient were $39,942 (95$28,509-$53,380) for OR and$38.217 (95% CI, $29,329-$48,309) for EV. For men, this was $39,375 (95$28,092-$52,853) for OR and$35,903 (95% CI, $27,685-$45,597) for EV. For patients younger than 60 years, EV is a more expensive treatment strategy compared with OR, but with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for EV of less than $60,000/QALY. For patients 60 years and older, EV dominated OR as preferential treatment because effectiveness was higher than for OR and costs were lower. Conclusions: The results of this decision analysis model suggest that EV is favored over OR for patients with CMI in all age groups. Although EV is associated with more expected reinterventions, EV appears to be cost-effective for all age groups

Open repair, endovascular repair, and conservative management of true splenic artery aneurysms

Objective: True splenic artery aneurysms (SAAs) are a rare but potentially fatal pathology. For many years, open repair (OPEN) and conservative management (CONS) were the treatments of choice, but throughout the last decade endovascular repair (EV) has become increasingly used. The purpose of the present study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the outcomes of the three major treatment modalities (OPEN, EV, and CONS) for the management of SAAs. Methods: A systematic review of all studies describing the outcomes of SAAs treated with OPEN, EV, or CONS was performed using seven large medical databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to ensure a high-quality review. All articles were subject to critical appraisal for relevance, validity, and availability of data regarding characteristics and outcomes. All data were systematically pooled, and meta-analyses were performed on several outcomes, including early and late mortality, complications, and number of reinterventions. Results: Original data of 1321 patients with true SAAs were identified in 47 articles. OPEN contained 511 patients (38.7%) in 31 articles, followed by 425 patients (32.2%) in CONS in 16 articles and 385 patients (29.1%) in EV in 33 articles. The CONS group had fewer symptomatic patients (9.5% vs 28.7% in OPEN and 28.8% in EV; P < .001) and fewer ruptured aneurysms (0.2% vs 18.4% in OPEN and 8.8% in EV; P < .001), but no significant differences were found in existing comorbidities. CONS patients were usually older and had smaller-sized aneurysms than patients in the OPEN and EV groups. The only identified difference in baseline characteristics between OPEN and EV was the number of ruptured aneurysms (18.4% vs 8.8%; P < .001). OPEN had a higher 30-day mortality than EV (5.1% vs 0.6%; P < .001), whereas minor complications occurred in a larger number of the EV patients. EV required more reinterventions per year (3.2%) compared with OPEN (0.5%) and CONS (1.2%; P < .001). The late mortality rate was higher in patients treated with CONS (4.9% vs 2.1% in OPEN and 1.4% in EV; P = .04). Conclusions: EV of SAA has better short-term results compared with OPEN, including significantly lower perioperative mortality. OPEN is associated with fewer late complications and fewer reinterventions during follow-up. Patients treated with CONS showed a higher late mortality rate. Ruptured SAAs are predictors of a significantly higher perioperative mortality compared with nonruptured SAAs in the OPEN and EV groups