New Bacteriological Patterns in Primary Infected Aorto-iliac Aneurysms: A Single-centre Experience

AbstractObjectivesTo assess causative pathogens and surgical outcomes in patients with primary infected aorto-iliac aneurysms at our institution.DesignRetrospective study of patients treated at a university hospital between 1992 and 2009.ResultsWe identified 26 patients (median age, 63 years) with primary infected aneurysms on the aorta (descending thoracic, n = 2; thoraco-abdominal, n = 3; suprarenal, n = 2; infrarenal, n = 15) or iliac arteries (n = 4). Among them, 22 were symptomatic, including 13 with ruptured aneurysms. The causative organisms, identified in 25/26 patients, were Campylobacter fetus, n = 6; Streptococcus pneumoniae, n = 4; Listeria, n = 3; Salmonella, n = 2; Mycobacterium tuberculosis, n = 2; Staphylococcus aureus, n = 1; and other, n = 7. Immune suppression was a feature in 10 (38.4%) patients. Revascularisation was performed in situ in 23 patients (10 allografts, eight grafts, three superficial femoral veins, and 2 stentgrafts) and by extra-anatomic bypass in three patients.Hospital mortality was 23% (in situ group, 17.4%; extra-anatomic group, 66.7%; χ2 Yates, P = 0.24). During follow-up in the 20 survivors (median, 48.5 months), there were two non-infection-related deaths (five and 24 months) and six (30%) vascular complications.ConclusionsThe bacteriological spectrum of primary infected aorto-iliac aneurysms was wider than previously reported. The availability of new diagnostic tests and increased prevalence of immunosuppression may explain this finding

Meta-analysis of individual-patient data from EVAR-1, DREAM, OVER and ACE trials comparing outcomes of endovascular or open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm over 5 years

Background: The erosion of the early mortality advantage of elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm remains without a satisfactory explanation.Methods: An individual-patient data meta-analysis of four multicentre randomized trials of EVAR versus open repair was conducted to a prespecified analysis plan, reporting on mortality, aneurysm-related mortality and reintervention.Results: The analysis included 2783 patients, with 14 245 person-years of follow-up (median 5.5years). Early (0-6 months after randomization) mortality was lower in the EVAR groups (46 of 1393 versus 73 of 1390 deaths; pooled hazard ratio 0.61, 95 per cent c. i. 0.42 to 089; P = 0010), primarily because 30-day operative mortality was lower in the EVAR groups (16 deaths versus 40 for open repair; pooled odds ratio 040, 95 per cent c. i. 022 to 074). Later (within 3 years) the survival curves converged, remaining converged to 8 years. Beyond 3 years, aneurysm-related mortality was significantly higher in the EVAR groups (19 deaths versus 3 for open repair; pooled hazard ratio 516, 149 to 1789; P = 0010). Patients with moderate renal dysfunction or previous coronary artery disease had no early survival advantage under EVAR. Those with peripheral artery disease had lower mortality under open repair (39 deaths versus 62 for EVAR; P = 0022) in the period from 6 months to 4 years after randomization.Conclusion: The early survival advantage in the EVAR group, and its subsequent erosion, were confirmed. Over 5 years, patients of marginal fitness had no early survival advantage from EVAR compared with open repair. Aneurysm-related mortality and patients with low ankle : brachial pressure index contributed to the erosion of the early survival advantage for the EVAR group. Trial registration numbers: EVAR-1, ISRCTN55703451; DREAM(Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management), NCT00421330; ACE (Anevrysme de l'aorte abdominale, Chirurgie versus Endoprothsse), NCT00224718; OVER (Open Versus Endovascular Repair Trial for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms), NCT00094575.</p

Meta-analysis of individual-patient data from EVAR-1, DREAM, OVER and ACE trials comparing outcomes of endovascular or open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm over 5 years

Background: The erosion of the early mortality advantage of elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm remains without a satisfactory explanation. Methods: An individual-patient data meta-analysis of four multicentre randomized trials of EVAR versus open repair was conducted to a prespecified analysis plan, reporting on mortality, aneurysm-related mortality and reintervention. Results: The analysis included 2783 patients, with 14 245 person-years of follow-up (median 5·5 years). Early (0–6 months after randomization) mortality was lower in the EVAR groups (46 of 1393 versus 73 of 1390 deaths; pooled hazard ratio 0·61, 95 per cent c.i. 0·42 to 0·89; P = 0·010), primarily because 30-day operative mortality was lower in the EVAR groups (16 deaths versus 40 for open repair; pooled odds ratio 0·40, 95 per cent c.i. 0·22 to 0·74). Later (within 3 years) the survival curves converged, remaining converged to 8 years. Beyond 3 years, aneurysm-related mortality was significantly higher in the EVAR groups (19 deaths versus 3 for open repair; pooled hazard ratio 5·16, 1·49 to 17·89; P = 0·010). Patients with moderate renal dysfunction or previous coronary artery disease had no early survival advantage under EVAR. Those with peripheral artery disease had lower mortality under open repair (39 deaths versus 62 for EVAR; P = 0·022) in the period from 6 months to 4 years after randomization. Conclusion: The early survival advantage in the EVAR group, and its subsequent erosion, were confirmed. Over 5 years, patients of marginal fitness had no early survival advantage from EVAR compared with open repair. Aneurysm-related mortality and patients with low ankle : brachial pressure index contributed to the erosion of the early survival advantage for the EVAR group. Trial registration numbers: EVAR-1, ISRCTN55703451; DREAM (Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management), NCT00421330; ACE (Anévrysme de l'aorte abdominale, Chirurgie versus Endoprothèse), NCT00224718; OVER (Open Versus Endovascular Repair Trial for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms), NCT00094575.</p

Meta-analysis of individual-patient data from EVAR-1, DREAM, OVER and ACE trials comparing outcomes of endovascular or open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm over 5 years

Background: The erosion of the early mortality advantage of elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm remains without a satisfactory explanation. Methods: An individual-patient data meta-analysis of four multicentre randomized trials of EVAR versus open repair was conducted to a prespecified analysis plan, reporting on mortality, aneurysm-related mortality and reintervention. Results: The analysis included 2783 patients, with 14 245 person-years of follow-up (median 5·5 years). Early (0–6 months after randomization) mortality was lower in the EVAR groups (46 of 1393 versus 73 of 1390 deaths; pooled hazard ratio 0·61, 95 per cent c.i. 0·42 to 0·89; P = 0·010), primarily because 30-day operative mortality was lower in the EVAR groups (16 deaths versus 40 for open repair; pooled odds ratio 0·40, 95 per cent c.i. 0·22 to 0·74). Later (within 3 years) the survival curves converged, remaining converged to 8 years. Beyond 3 years, aneurysm-related mortality was significantly higher in the EVAR groups (19 deaths versus 3 for open repair; pooled hazard ratio 5·16, 1·49 to 17·89; P = 0·010). Patients with moderate renal dysfunction or previous coronary artery disease had no early survival advantage under EVAR. Those with peripheral artery disease had lower mortality under open repair (39 deaths versus 62 for EVAR; P = 0·022) in the period from 6 months to 4 years after randomization. Conclusion: The early survival advantage in the EVAR group, and its subsequent erosion, were confirmed. Over 5 years, patients of marginal fitness had no early survival advantage from EVAR compared with open repair. Aneurysm-related mortality and patients with low ankle : brachial pressure index contributed to the erosion of the early survival advantage for the EVAR group. Trial registration numbers: EVAR-1, ISRCTN55703451; DREAM (Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management), NCT00421330; ACE (Anévrysme de l'aorte abdominale, Chirurgie versus Endoprothèse), NCT00224718; OVER (Open Versus Endovascular Repair Trial for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms), NCT00094575.</p

Incidence, natural course, and outcome of type II endoleaks in infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair based on the ENGAGE registry data

Objective: The purpose of this study was to report the incidence, natural history, and outcome of type II endoleaks in the largest prospective real-world cohort to date. Methods: Patients were extracted from the prospective Endurant Stent Graft Natural Selection Global Postmarket Registry (ENGAGE). Two groups were analyzed: first, patients with an isolated type II endoleak; and second, patients with a type II endoleak who later presented with a type I endoleak. A health status analysis between patients with an early type II endoleak and patients with no endoleak was performed. Second, an attempt was made to identify risk factors in patients with a type II endoleak who later presented with a type I endoleak. Results: Through 5 years of follow-up, a total of 197 (15.6%) patients with isolated type II endoleaks were identified. Most were detected within the first 30 days (n = 73 [37.1%]) and through the first year (n = 73 [37.1%]), with the remainder being detected after 1 year of follow-up (n = 51 [25.8%]). Patients with a type II endoleak had a higher incidence of aneurysm growth and more secondary endovascular procedures (15.4% vs 7.5% at 5 years; P <.001). Overall survival was higher in the isolated type II endoleak group compared with patients with no endoleak (77.2% vs 67.0% at 5 years; P =.010). Twenty-two patients (10%) with a type II endoleak were diagnosed with a late type I endoleak (type IA, n = 10; type IB, n = 12), with a secondary intervention rate of 67.5% through 5 years. There was no difference in health status scores between patients with an early type II endoleak and patients without any type of endoleak at 1-year follow-up. Conclusions: In the ENGAGE registry, isolated type II endoleaks are present in 15.6% of patients during follow-up. The majority do not require secondary intervention, and an early isolated type II endoleak does not have an impact on health status through 1 year. However, a small group of patients with a type II endoleak will present with a type I endoleak, resulting in a high secondary intervention rate and significant risk of aneurysm-related complications

Carotid stenting: is there an operator effect? A pooled analysis from the carotid stenting trialists' collaboration.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Randomized clinical trials show higher 30-day risk of stroke or death after carotid artery stenting compared with surgery. We examined whether operator experience is associated with 30-day risk of stroke or death in the Carotid Stenting Trialists' Collaboration database. METHODS: The Carotid Stenting Trialists' Collaboration is a pooled individual patient database including all patients recruited in 3 randomized trials of stenting versus endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis (Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis trial, Stent-Protected Angioplasty versus Carotid Endarterectomy trial, and International Carotid Stenting Study). Lifetime carotid artery stenting experience, lifetime experience in stenting procedures excluding the carotid, and annual number of procedures performed within the trial (in-trial volume), divided into tertiles, were used to measure operator experience. The outcome event was the occurrence of any stroke or death within 30 days of the procedure. The analysis was done per protocol. RESULTS: Among 1546 patients who underwent carotid artery stenting, 120 (7.8%) had a stroke or death within 30 days of the procedure. The 30-day risk of stroke or death did not differ according to operator lifetime carotid artery stenting experience (P=0.8) or operator lifetime stenting experience excluding the carotid (P=0.7). In contrast, the 30-day risk of stroke or death was significantly higher in patients treated by operators with low (mean ≤3.2 procedures/y; risk 10.1%; adjusted risk ratio=2.30 [1.36-3.87]) and intermediate annual in-trial volumes (3.2-5.6 procedures/y; 8.4%; adjusted risk ratio=1.93 [1.14-3.27]) compared with patients treated by high annual in-trial volume operators (>5.6 procedures/y; 5.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Carotid stenting should only be performed by operators with annual procedure volume ≥6 cases per year

Risk of Stroke before Revascularisation in Patients with Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis: A Pooled Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines recommending rapid revascularisation of symptomatic carotid stenosis are largely based on data from clinical trials performed at a time when best medical therapy was potentially less effective than today. The risk of stroke and its predictors among patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis awaiting revascularisation in recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and in medical arms of earlier RCTs was assessed. METHODS: The pooled data of individual patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis randomised to stenting (CAS) or endarterectomy (CEA) in four recent RCTs, and of patients randomised to medical therapy in three earlier RCTs comparing CEA vs. medical therapy, were compared. The primary outcome event was any stroke occurring between randomisation and treatment by CAS or CEA, or within 120 days after randomisation. RESULTS: A total of 4 754 patients from recent trials and 1 227 from earlier trials were included. In recent trials, patients were randomised a median of 18 (IQR 7, 50) days after the qualifying event (QE). Twenty-three suffered a stroke while waiting for revascularisation (cumulative 120 day risk 1.97%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75 - 3.17). Shorter time from QE until randomisation increased stroke risk after randomisation (χ2 = 6.58, p = .011). Sixty-one patients had a stroke within 120 days of randomisation in the medical arms of earlier trials (cumulative risk 5%, 95% CI 3.8 - 6.2). Stroke risk was lower in recent than earlier trials when adjusted for time between QE and randomisation, age, severity of QE, and degree of carotid stenosis (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.25 - 0.88, p = .019). CONCLUSION: Patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis enrolled in recent large RCTs had a lower risk of stroke after randomisation than historical controls. The added benefit of carotid revascularisation to modern medical care needs to be revisited in future studies. Until then, adhering to current recommendations for early revascularisation of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis considered to require invasive treatment is advisable