Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Without Symptomatic Atherosclerotic Disease

IMPORTANCE: Patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm have a high risk of ischemic events associated with concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and current clinical practice guidelines recommend antiplatelet therapy to mitigate this risk. However, in patients with aneurysms without symptomatic atherosclerosis, the benefit of antiplatelet therapy has been sparsely investigated.OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of antiplatelets on the risk of ischemic events and bleeding in individuals with abdominal aneurysms with no symptomatic atherosclerotic vascular disease.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A comparative effectiveness research study using a target trial emulation framework was performed. Population-based, cross-linked observational data from Danish national health registries containing comprehensive, individual-level information on all Danish citizens were used to evaluate patients who were antiplatelet-naive and diagnosed with abdominal aortic aneurysms, with no record of symptomatic atherosclerotic vascular disease, from January 1, 2010, through August 21, 2021.EXPOSURE: Prescription filled for aspirin or clopidogrel.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Risk of ischemic events (myocardial infarction and/or ischemic stroke) and risk of major bleeding. For target trial emulation, trials were emulated as sequential, contingent on patient eligibility at the time of inclusion, and were evaluated by means of pooled logistic regression models to estimate the intention-to-treat and as-treated effects, expressed as hazard ratio (HR) and event-free survival.RESULTS: A total of 6344 patients (65.2% men; age, 72 [IQR, 64-78] years) provided 131 047 trial cases; 3363 of these cases involved initiation of antiplatelet therapy and 127 684 did not. A total of 182 ischemic events occurred among initiators and 5602 ischemic events occurred among noninitiators, corresponding to an intention-to-treat HR of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.73-1.17) and an estimated absolute event-free survival difference of -0.6% (95% CI, -1.7% to 0.5%). After censoring nonadherent person-time, the treatment HR was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.68-1.20), with similar risk difference. For bleeding, the intention-to-treat HR was 1.26 (95% CI, 0.97-1.58) and the event-free survival difference was 1.0%. The treatment HR was 1.21 (95% CI, 0.82-1.72); the risk difference was similar.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, no evidence of effectiveness of antiplatelet therapy to lower the risk of ischemic events and a trend toward higher bleeding risk was noted. The observed differences between the treatment groups were minimal, suggesting limited clinical relevance of antiplatelet treatment.</p

External Validation of the OAC3-PAD Bleeding Score in a Nationwide Population of Patients Undergoing Invasive Treatment for Peripheral Arterial Disease

OBJECTIVE: The OAC3-PAD score was developed to predict bleeding risk in patients with lower extremity peripheral arterial disease (PAD), but its performance in concomitant international cohorts is largely unknown. This study aimed to validate the OAC3-PAD score in an unselected nationwide population of patients undergoing invasive treatment for symptomatic PAD.METHODS: This was nationwide cohort study including all patients who underwent a first revascularisation procedure or major amputation for symptomatic PAD in Denmark from 2000 - 2021. The study population was stratified based on OAC3-PAD score, and the 1 year risk of major bleeding was assessed, accounting for the competing risk of death. The score performance was evaluated using calibration plots, C-statistic, Brier score, and the index of prediction accuracy (IPA).RESULTS: A total of 52 016 patients were included (mean age 71 years, 43.8% female). The 1 year risk of major bleeding increased with higher OAC3-PAD score, ranging from 1.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4 - 1.8%) to 2.3% (95% CI 2.0 - 2.5%), 3.5% (95% CI 3.2 - 3.8%), and 5.2% (95% CI 4.8 - 5.6%) for patients with low, low moderate, moderate high, and high score, respectively. Using patients with low risk as reference, the OAC3-PAD score effectively categorised patients, demonstrating statistically significant differences in bleeding risk across strata. However, the score showed modest discriminative performance, with a C-statistic of 65% (95% CI 63 - 66%) and a Brier score of 2.6% (95% CI 2.5 - 2.7%). Nevertheless, it performed significantly better than the null model, as indicated by an IPA of 3.1%.CONCLUSION: Among patients who underwent invasive treatment for symptomatic PAD in routine care, the OAC3-PAD score was associated with greater risk of major bleeding with increasing score level. However, its discriminatory ability was modest, and the clinical utility remains to be determined.</p

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Patients with Concomitant Cancer: A Literature Review

ObjectivesAbdominal aortic aneurysmal (AAA) repair in patients with concomitant cancer is controversial due to increased comorbidity and reduced life expectancy in this specific patient group. This literature review aims to investigate the evidence supporting one treatment modality over another (endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) or open repair (OR)), as well as treatment strategy (staged AAA-, cancer first or simultaneous procedures) in patients with AAA and concomitant cancer.MethodsLiterature review, including studies published from 2000 to 2021 on surgical treatment in patients with AAA and concomitant cancer and related outcomes (30-day morbidity/complications as well as 30-day and 3-year mortality).Results24 studies comprising 560 patients undergoing surgical treatment of AAA and concomitant cancer were included. Of these, 220 cases were treated with EVAR and 340 with OR. Simultaneous procedures were performed in 190 cases, 370 received staged procedures. The 30-day mortality for EVAR versus OR was 1% and 8%, corresponding to a relative risk (RR) of 0.11 (95% CI: 0.03–0.46, p = 0.002). No difference in mortality was observed between staged versus simultaneous procedure nor between AAA-first versus cancer-first strategy, RR 0.59 (95% CI: 0.29–1.1, p = 0.13) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.34–2.31, p = 0.80), respectively. Overall, 3-year mortality was 21% for EVAR and 39% for OR from 2000–2021, while the mortality up to 3 years after EVAR within recent years (2015–2021) was 16%.ConclusionThis review supports EVAR treatment as first choice if suitable. No consensus was established on treating either the aneurysm or the cancer first or simultaneously. Long-term mortality after EVAR was comparable to non-cancer patients within recent years

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Patients with Concomitant Cancer: A Literature Review

ObjectivesAbdominal aortic aneurysmal (AAA) repair in patients with concomitant cancer is controversial due to increased comorbidity and reduced life expectancy in this specific patient group. This literature review aims to investigate the evidence supporting one treatment modality over another (endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) or open repair (OR)), as well as treatment strategy (staged AAA-, cancer first or simultaneous procedures) in patients with AAA and concomitant cancer.MethodsLiterature review, including studies published from 2000 to 2021 on surgical treatment in patients with AAA and concomitant cancer and related outcomes (30-day morbidity/complications as well as 30-day and 3-year mortality).Results24 studies comprising 560 patients undergoing surgical treatment of AAA and concomitant cancer were included. Of these, 220 cases were treated with EVAR and 340 with OR. Simultaneous procedures were performed in 190 cases, 370 received staged procedures. The 30-day mortality for EVAR versus OR was 1% and 8%, corresponding to a relative risk (RR) of 0.11 (95% CI: 0.03–0.46, p = 0.002). No difference in mortality was observed between staged versus simultaneous procedure nor between AAA-first versus cancer-first strategy, RR 0.59 (95% CI: 0.29–1.1, p = 0.13) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.34–2.31, p = 0.80), respectively. Overall, 3-year mortality was 21% for EVAR and 39% for OR from 2000–2021, while the mortality up to 3 years after EVAR within recent years (2015–2021) was 16%.ConclusionThis review supports EVAR treatment as first choice if suitable. No consensus was established on treating either the aneurysm or the cancer first or simultaneously. Long-term mortality after EVAR was comparable to non-cancer patients within recent years