Meta-Analysis of Genome-Wide Association Studies for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Identifies Four New Disease-Specific Risk Loci

Rationale: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a complex disease with both genetic and environmental risk factors. Together, 6 previously identified risk loci only explain a small proportion of the heritability of AAA. Objective: To identify additional AAA risk loci using data from all available genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Methods and Results: Through a meta-analysis of 6 GWAS datasets and a validation study totalling 10,204 cases and 107,766 controls we identified 4 new AAA risk loci: 1q32.3 (SMYD2), 13q12.11 (LINC00540), 20q13.12 (near PCIF1/MMP9/ZNF335), and 21q22.2 (ERG). In various database searches we observed no new associations between the lead AAA SNPs and coronary artery disease, blood pressure, lipids or diabetes. Network analyses identified ERG, IL6R and LDLR as modifiers of MMP9, with a direct interaction between ERG and MMP9. Conclusions: The 4 new risk loci for AAA appear to be specific for AAA compared with other cardiovascular diseases and related traits suggesting that traditional cardiovascular risk factor management may only have limited value in preventing the progression of aneurysmal disease

Experience with the GORE EXCLUDER iliac branch endoprosthesis for common iliac artery aneurysms

Objective: In this study, we analyzed the procedural success and early outcome of endovascular treatment of a multicenter cohort of patients with common iliac artery (CIA) aneurysms treated with the new GORE EXCLUDER (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) iliac branch endoprosthesis (IBE). Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed in 13 sites in The Netherlands. Anatomic, demographic, procedural, and follow-up data were assessed from hospital records. Results: From November 2013 to December 2014, 51 CIA aneurysms were treated with an IBE in 46 patients. The median diameter of the treated aneurysm was 40.5 (range, 25.0-90.0) mm. The mean procedural time was 198 +/- 56 minutes. All but one implantation were successful; two type Ib endoleaks were noticed, resulting in a procedural success rate of 93.5%. The two type Ib endoleaks spontaneously disappeared at 30 days. There was no 30-day mortality. Ipsilateral buttock claudication was present in only two cases at 30 days and disappeared during follow-up. The incidence of reported erectile dysfunction was low and severe ischemic complications were absent. After a mean follow-up of 6 months, data on 17 treated aneurysms were available. Two showed a stable diameter, whereas 15 showed a mean decrease of 3.9 +/- 2.2 mm (P < .001). Reinterventions were performed in two patients (7.1%). The 6-month primary patency of the internal component of the IBE device was 94%. Conclusions: The use of the GORE EXCLUDER IBE device for CIA aneurysms is related to high procedural success, high patency rates, and low reintervention rates at short-term follow-up. Prospective data with longer follow-up are awaited to establish the role of the device in the treatment algorithm of CIA aneurysms

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