Endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: A strategy in need of definitive evidence

IntroductionEndovascular strategies have been increasingly used to manage patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in an attempt to improve patient survival. We analyzed the evidence to support such an approach.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature review of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of ruptured AAA from 1994 to 2009. The literature analyzed included systematic reviews and population-based studies of ruptured AAA.ResultsSeven systematic reviews were identified, all demonstrating from published data that patients with EVAR of ruptured AAA had significantly reduced mortality compared with controls. Six recently published population-based studies from the United States demonstrated low mortality rates associated with EVAR; however, only a small proportion of ruptured AAAs were treated by EVAR. Systematic reviews and population-based studies both raised concerns about patient selection and publication bias. Two randomized trials are in progress, and one is due to commence 2009.ConclusionsThe outcome of EVAR in a nonselected patient population remains unknown. One or more definitive randomized trials could provide the level I evidence to resolve these issues

Editor's Choice - Re-interventions After Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Report From the IMPROVE Randomised Trial.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: The aim was to describe the re-interventions after endovascular and open repair of rupture, and investigate whether these were associated with aortic morphology. METHODS: In total, 502 patients from the IMPROVE randomised trial (ISRCTN48334791) with repair of rupture were followed-up for re-interventions for at least 3 years. Pre-operative aortic morphology was assessed in a core laboratory. Re-interventions were described by time (0-90 days, 3 months-3 years) as arterial or laparotomy related, respectively, and ranked for severity by surgeons and patients separately. Rare re-interventions to 1 year, were summarised across three ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm trials (IMPROVE, AJAX, and ECAR) and odds ratios (OR) describing differences were pooled via meta-analysis. RESULTS: Re-interventions were most common in the first 90 days. Overall rates were 186 and 226 per 100 person years for the endovascular strategy and open repair groups, respectively (p = .20) but between 3 months and 3 years (mid-term) the rates had slowed to 9.5 and 6.0 re-interventions per 100 person years, respectively (p = .090) and about one third of these were for a life threatening condition. In this latter, mid-term period, 42 of 313 remaining patients (13%) required at least one re-intervention, most commonly for endoleak or other endograft complication after treatment by endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) (21 of 38 re-interventions), whereas distal aneurysms were the commonest reason (four of 23) for re-interventions after treatment by open repair. Arterial re-interventions within 3 years were associated with increasing common iliac artery diameter (OR 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.93; p = .004). Amputation, rare but ranked as the worst re-intervention by patients, was less common in the first year after treatment with EVAR (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.05-0.88) from meta-analysis of three trials. CONCLUSION: The rate of mid-term re-interventions after rupture is high, more than double that after elective EVAR and open repair, suggesting the need for bespoke surveillance protocols. Amputations are much less common in patients treated by EVAR than in those treated by open repair

Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an abnormal ballooning of the major abdominal artery. Some AAAs present as emergencies and require surgery; others remain asymptomatic. Treatment of asymptomatic AAAs depends on many factors but an important one is size of the aneurysm, as risk of rupture increases with aneurysm size. Large asymptomatic AAAs (> 5.5 cm in diameter) are usually operated on; very small AAAs (< 4.0 cm diameter) are monitored with ultrasonography. The optimal timing of surgery would benefit from further evidence

Analysis of clinical benefit, harms, and cost-effectiveness of screening women for abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: A third of deaths in the UK from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are in women. In men, national screening programmes reduce deaths from AAA and are cost-effective. The benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness in offering a similar programme to women have not been formally assessed, and this was the aim of this study. METHODS: We developed a decision model to assess predefined outcomes of death caused by AAA, life years, quality-adjusted life years, costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a population of women invited to AAA screening versus a population who were not invited to screening. A discrete event simulation model was set up for AAA screening, surveillance, and intervention. Relevant women-specific parameters were obtained from sources including systematic literature reviews, national registry or administrative databases, major AAA surgery trials, and UK National Health Service reference costs. FINDINGS: AAA screening for women, as currently offered to UK men (at age 65 years, with an AAA diagnosis at an aortic diameter of ≥3·0 cm, and elective repair considered at ≥5·5cm) gave, over 30 years, an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £30 000 (95% CI 12 000-87 000) per quality-adjusted life year gained, with 3900 invitations to screening required to prevent one AAA-related death and an overdiagnosis rate of 33%. A modified option for women (screening at age 70 years, diagnosis at 2·5 cm and repair at 5·0 cm) was estimated to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £23 000 (9500-71 000) per quality-adjusted life year and 1800 invitations to screening required to prevent one AAA-death, but an overdiagnosis rate of 55%. There was considerable uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness ratio, largely driven by uncertainty about AAA prevalence, the distribution of aortic sizes for women at different ages, and the effect of screening on quality of life. INTERPRETATION: By UK standards, an AAA screening programme for women, designed to be similar to that used to screen men, is unlikely to be cost-effective. Further research on the aortic diameter distribution in women and potential quality of life decrements associated with screening are needed to assess the full benefits and harms of modified options. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Biomechanical assessment predicts aneurysm-related events in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm

Objective To test whether aneurysm biomechanical ratio (ABR; a dimensionless ratio of wall stress and wall strength) can predict aneurysm related events. Methods In a prospective multicentre clinical study of 295 patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA; diameter ≥ 40 mm), three dimensional reconstruction and computational biomechanical analyses were used to compute ABR at baseline. Participants were followed for at least two years and the primary end point was the composite of aneurysm rupture or repair. Results The majority were male (87%), current or former smokers (86%), most (72%) had hypertension (mean ± standard deviation [SD] systolic blood pressure 140 ± 22 mmHg), and mean ± SD baseline diameter was 49.0 ± 6.9 mm. Mean ± SD ABR was 0.49 ± 0.27. Participants were followed up for a mean ± SD of 848 ± 379 days and rupture (n = 13) or repair (n = 102) occurred in 115 (39%) cases. The number of repairs increased across tertiles of ABR: low (n = 24), medium (n = 34), and high ABR (n = 44) (p = .010). Rupture or repair occurred more frequently in those with higher ABR (log rank p = .009) and ABR was independently predictive of this outcome after adjusting for diameter and other clinical risk factors, including sex and smoking (hazard ratio 1.41; 95% confidence interval 1.09–1.83 [p = .010]). Conclusion It has been shown that biomechanical ABR is a strong independent predictor of AAA rupture or repair in a model incorporating known risk factors, including diameter. Determining ABR at baseline could help guide the management of patients with AAA

Current prevalence of screen-detected abdominal aortic aneurysm in women: a systematic review with meta-analysis

This is the author accepted manuscript. It is currently under an indefinite embargo pending publication by Wiley.Background: Although women represent an increasing proportion of those now presenting with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture, the current prevalence of AAA in women is unknown. The contemporary population prevalence of screen-detected AAA in women by both age and smoking status was investigated. Methods: Systematic review of studies screening for AAA, including >1000 women, aged ≥60 years, undertaken since the year 2000, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases until 13th January 2016. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scoring system. Results: Eight studies were identified, including only 3 based on population registers. The largest studies were based on self-purchase of screening. Altogether 1,537,633 women were screened. Overall AAA prevalence rates were very heterogeneous, ranging from 0.37 to 1.53%: pooled prevalence 0.74% [95%CI 0.53, 1.03]. The pooled prevalence increased with both age (>1% for women >70 years) and smoking (>1% for ever smokers and >2% in current smokers). Conclusions: The current population prevalence of screen-detected AAA in older women is subject to wide demographic variation. However, in ever smokers and those over 70 years, the prevalence is >1%. Registration: PROSPERO database of systematic reviews CRD42015020444This project was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Appraisal (HTA) programme (project number 14/179/01)

Endovascular or open repair strategy for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: 30 day outcomes from IMPROVE randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a strategy of endovascular repair (if aortic morphology is suitable, open repair if not) versus open repair reduces early mortality for patients with suspected ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 30 vascular centres (29 UK, 1 Canadian), 2009-13. PARTICIPANTS: 613 eligible patients (480 men) with a clinical diagnosis of ruptured aneurysm. INTERVENTIONS: 316 patients were randomised to the endovascular strategy (275 confirmed ruptures, 174 anatomically suitable for endovascular repair) and 297 to open repair (261 confirmed ruptures). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 30 day mortality, with 24 hour and in-hospital mortality, costs, and time and place of discharge as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: 30 day mortality was 35.4% (112/316) in the endovascular strategy group and 37.4% (111/297) in the open repair group: odds ratio 0.92 (95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.28; P=0.62); odds ratio after adjustment for age, sex, and Hardman index 0.94 (0.67 to 1.33). Women may benefit more than men (interaction test P=0.02) from the endovascular strategy: odds ratio 0.44 (0.22 to 0.91) versus 1.18 (0.80 to 1.75). 30 day mortality for patients with confirmed rupture was 36.4% (100/275) in the endovascular strategy group and 40.6% (106/261) in the open repair group (P=0.31). More patients in the endovascular strategy than in the open repair group were discharged directly to home (189/201 (94%) v 141/183 (77%); P<0.001). Average 30 day costs were similar between the randomised groups, with an incremental cost saving for the endovascular strategy versus open repair of £1186 (€1420; $1939) (95% confidence interval -£625 to £2997). CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of endovascular repair was not associated with significant reduction in either 30 day mortality or cost. Longer term cost effectiveness evaluations are needed to assess the full effects of the endovascular strategy in both men and women. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48334791