Emergency endovascular treatment for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm and the risk of spinal cord ischemia

BackgroundSpinal cord ischemia is a rare complication after open surgical repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA). The use of emergency endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (eEVAR) is increasing, and paraplegia has been observed in a few patients. The objective of this study was to assess the incidence and pathogenesis of spinal cord ischemia after eEVAR in greater detail.MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of patients who had eEVAR for rAAA in three hospitals in The Netherlands and Belgium during a 3-year study period that ended in February 2004. The use of aortouniiliac devices combined with a femorofemoral crossover bypass was the preferred technique. Patients with postoperative symptoms of spinal cord ischemia were identified and the influence of potential risk factors was assessed. These factors included the presence of common iliac artery aneurysms necessitating device limb extension to the external iliac artery with associated overlapping the hypogastric artery, the prolonged interruption of bilateral hypogastric artery arterial inflow during the procedure (defined “functional aortic occlusion time” >30 minutes), and the occurrence of preoperative hemodynamic shock.ResultsThirty-five patients were treated by EVAR and they constituted the study group. The first-month mortality in the study group with EVAR was 23%. Four patients (11.5%) with EVAR developed paraplegia postoperatively; the unilateral or bilateral hypogastric artery in all four patients became occluded during the procedure. In the other 31 patients who did not have paraplegia, the unilateral or bilateral hypogastric arteries became occluded in 14 patients (45%). This constituted a significant difference in the prevalence of hypogastric artery occlusion in patients with or without paraplegia (P = .04). The functional aortic occlusion time was prolonged in all four patients with paraplegia and in five without spinal cord ischemia (P = .0003). All four patients with spinal cord ischemia presented with hemodynamic shock. This factor did not reach a significant difference from nonparaplegic patients.ConclusionEmergency EVAR continues to be a promising approach to reduce the high mortality of rAAA, but the incidence of spinal cord ischemia after endovascular treatment of rAAA was worrisome. Although the pathogenesis is most likely multifactorial, interruption of the hypogastric artery inflow appeared to have significant influence. In patients with aneurysmatic common iliac arteries, any effort should be made to minimize hypogastric occlusion time during the procedure and to maintain hypogastric artery inflow afterwards, either by the use of a bell-bottom iliac extension or by electing open repair

Cost-effectiveness of Elective Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Versus Open Surgical Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Objective/Background: The aim of this study was to estimate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) in the Netherlands, based on recently published literature. Methods: A model was developed to simulate a cohort of individuals (age 72 years, 87% men) with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) diameter of at least 5.5 cm and considered fit for both repairs. The model consisted of two sub-models that estimated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of EVAR versus OSR: (1) a decision tree for the first 30 post-operative days; and (2) a Markov model for the period thereafter (31 days-30 years). Results: In the base case analysis, EVAR was slightly more effective (4.704 vs. 4.669 quality adjusted life years) and less expensive ((sic)24,483 vs. (sic)25,595) than OSR. Improved effectiveness occurs because EVAR can reduce 30 day mortality risk, as well as the risk of events following the procedure, while lower costs are primarily due to a reduction in length of hospital stay. The cost-effectiveness of EVAR is highly dependent on the price of the EVAR device and the reduction in hospital stay, complications, and 30 day mortality. Conclusion: EVAR and OSR can be considered equally effective, while EVAR can be cost saving compared with OSR. EVAR can therefore be considered as a cost-effective solution for patients with AAAs. (C) 2016 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Retrograde catheterization of haemodialysis fistulae and grafts: angiographic depiction of the entire vascular access tree and stenosis treatment

Background. The European Best Practice Guidelines on Vascular Access propose magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) of dysfunctional dialysis fistulae and grafts if visualization of the complete arterial inflow and outflow vessels is needed. In a prospective multi-centre study we determined the technical success rate of complete vascular access tree depiction by digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as an alternative to MRA. Instead of a more invasive brachial artery of femoral artery approach, we performed a retrograde catheterization of the venous outflow or graft, and stenoses were treated in connection with DSA. Methods. A catheter was advanced into the central arterial inflow after retrograde puncture of the venous outflow or graft for depiction of the complete inflow, access region and complete outflow. Access DSA through femoral artery puncture was done if the retrograde approach failed to depict the complete vascular access tree. Stenoses with a luminal diameter reduction >= 50% were treated, if possible, in connection with DSA. Results. A total of 116 dysfunctional haemodialysis fistulae and 50 grafts were included. Retrograde DSA depicted the complete vascular tree in 162 patients (97.6%). The arteriovenous anastomosis of four fistulae could not be negotiated by a catheter. DSA demonstrated 247 significant stenoses: 30, 128 and 89 were located in the arterial inflow (12.1%), AV anastomosis and graft region (51.8%) and venous outflow (36.0%), respectively. Ten patients (6.0%) had no stenosis. Eight (4.8%), 55 (33.1%) and 33 (19.9%) patients demonstrated stenoses in only inflow, access region or outflow, respectively. Stenoses in two or three vascular territories were present in 53 (31.9%) and 7 (4.2%) patients, respectively. A technically successful endovascular intervention was obtained in 135 of the 139 patients (97.1%) who underwent angioplasty and/or stent placement. Additional sheath insertion by antegrade outflow puncture was needed in 46 patients (33.1%) for the treatment of coexisting venous outflow stenoses, located downstream from the retrograde positioned sheath. Two minor complications were observed at DSA/angioplasty. Conclusion. As an alternative to MRA, full retrograde DSA is safe and effective for stenosis detection and stenosis treatment. However, access evaluation by a non-invasive imaging modality such as colour duplex ultrasound will be sufficient in most cases as proximal inflow stenoses are encountered in a minority of patients. Full retrograde DSA, including complete arterial inflow depiction, may then be reserved for cases with an unsuccessful outcome following endovascular intervention of stenoses depicted at ultrasound

A randomized trial comparing conventional and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Contains fulltext : 57421.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Although the initial results of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms were promising, current evidence from controlled studies does not convincingly show a reduction in 30-day mortality relative to that achieved with open repair. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing open repair with endovascular repair in 345 patients who had received a diagnosis of abdominal aortic aneurysm of at least 5 cm in diameter and who were considered suitable candidates for both techniques. The outcome events analyzed were operative (30-day) mortality and two composite end points of operative mortality and severe complications and operative mortality and moderate or severe complications. RESULTS: The operative mortality rate was 4.6 percent in the open-repair group (8 of 174 patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.0 to 8.9 percent) and 1.2 percent in the endovascular-repair group (2 of 171 patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.1 to 4.2 percent), resulting in a risk ratio of 3.9 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.9 to 32.9). The combined rate of operative mortality and severe complications was 9.8 percent in the open-repair group (17 of 174 patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 5.8 to 15.2 percent) and 4.7 percent in the endovascular-repair group (8 of 171 patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.0 to 9.0 percent), resulting in a risk ratio of 2.1 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.9 to 5.4). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the overall results of this trial, endovascular repair is preferable to open repair in patients who have an abdominal aortic aneurysm that is at least 5 cm in diameter. Long-term follow-up is needed to determine whether this advantage is sustained