Effect of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair on the Volume-Outcome Relationship in Aneurysm Repair

Background— We aim to quantify the relationship between the annual caseload (volume) and outcome from elective endovascular (EVR) or open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in England between 2005 and 2007. Methods and Results— Individual patient data were obtained from the Hospital Episode Statistics. Statistical methods included multiple logistic regression models, mortality control charts, and safety plots to determine the nature of any relationship between volume and outcome. The case-mix between hospitals of different sizes was examined using observed and expected values for in-hospital mortality. Outcome measures included in-hospital mortality and hospital length of stay. Between 2005 and 2007, a total of 57 587 patients were admitted to hospitals in England with a diagnosis of AAA, and 11 574 underwent AAA repair. There were 7313 elective AAA repairs, of which 5668 (78%) were open and 1645 (22%) were EVR. In-hospital mortality rates were 5.63% for all elective AAA repairs with rates of 6.18% for open repair and 3.77% for EVR (odds ratio, 0.676; 95% CI, 0.501 to 0.913; P=0.011). High-volume aneurysm services were associated with significantly lower mortality rates overall (0.991; 0.988 to 0.994; P<0.0001), for open repairs (0.994; 0.991 to 0.998; P=0.0008), and EVR (0.989; 0.982 to 0.995; P=0.0007). Large endovascular units had low mortality rates for open repairs. Conclusion— A strong relationship existed between the volume of surgery performed and outcome from both open and endovascular aneurysm repairs. These data support the concept that abdominal aortic surgery should be performed in specialized units that meet a minimum volume threshold

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Long-term survival After Elective Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair 1969-2011: 5 Year Survival Remains Poor Despite Advances in Medical Care and Treatment Strategies.

BACKGROUND: Improved critical care, pre-operative optimization, and the advent of endovascular surgery (EVAR) have improved 30 day mortality for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. It remains unknown whether this has translated into improvements in long-term survival, particularly because these factors have also encouraged the treatment of older patients with greater comorbidity. The aim of this study was to quantify how 5 year survival after elective AAA repair has changed over time. METHODS: A systematic review was performed identifying studies reporting 5 year survival after elective infrarenal AAA repair. An electronic search of the Embase and Medline databases was conducted to January 2014. Thirty-six studies, 60 study arms, and 107,814 patients were identified. Meta-analyses were conducted to determine 5 year survival and to report whether 5 year survival changed over time. RESULTS: Five-year survival was 69% (95% CI 67 to 71%, I(2) = 87%). Meta-regression on study midpoint showed no improvement in 5 year survival over the period 1969-2011 (log OR -0.001, 95% CI -0.014-0.012). Larger average aneurysm diameter was associated with poorer 5 year survival (adjusted log OR -0.058, 95% CI -0.095 to -0.021, I(2) = 85%). Older average patient age at surgery was associated with poorer 5 year survival (adjusted log OR -0.118, 95% CI -0.142 to -0.094, I(2) = 70%). After adjusting for average patient age, an improvement in 5 year survival over the period that these data spanned was obtained (adjusted log OR 0.027, 95% CI 0.012 to 0.042). CONCLUSION: Five-year survival remains poor after elective AAA repair despite advances in short-term outcomes and is associated with AAA diameter and patient age at the time of surgery. Age-adjusted survival appears to have improved; however, this cohort as a whole continues to have poor long-term survival. Research in this field should attempt to improve the life expectancy of patients with repaired AAA and to optimise patient selection

Value of risk scores in the decision to palliate patients withruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

Background: The aim of this study was to develop a 48‐h mortality risk score, which included morphology data, for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm presenting to an emergency department, and to assess its predictive accuracy and clinical effectiveness in triaging patients to immediate aneurysm repair, transfer or palliative care. Methods: Data from patients in the IMPROVE (Immediate Management of the Patient With Ruptured Aneurysm: Open Versus Endovascular Repair) randomized trial were used to develop the risk score. Variables considered included age, sex, haemodynamic markers and aortic morphology. Backwards selection was used to identify relevant predictors. Predictive performance was assessed using calibration plots and the C‐statistic. Validation of the newly developed and other previously published scores was conducted in four external populations. The net benefit of treating patients based on a risk threshold compared with treating none was quantified. Results: Data from 536 patients in the IMPROVE trial were included. The final variables retained were age, sex, haemoglobin level, serum creatinine level, systolic BP, aortic neck length and angle, and acute myocardial ischaemia. The discrimination of the score for 48‐h mortality in the IMPROVE data was reasonable (C‐statistic 0·710, 95 per cent c.i. 0·659 to 0·760), but varied in external populations (from 0·652 to 0·761). The new score outperformed other published risk scores in some, but not all, populations. An 8 (95 per cent c.i. 5 to 11) per cent improvement in the C‐statistic was estimated compared with using age alone. Conclusion: The assessed risk scores did not have sufficient accuracy to enable potentially life‐saving decisions to be made regarding intervention. Focus should therefore shift to offering repair to more patients and reducing non‐intervention rates, while respecting the wishes of the patient and family

Endovascular aneurysm sealing for the treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility and report preliminary results of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) repair with endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS), a novel therapeutic alternative whose feasibility has not been established in rAAAs due to the unknown effects of the rupture site on the ability to achieve sealing. CASE REPORT: Between December 2013 and April 2014, 5 patients (median age 71 years, range 57-90; 3 men) with rAAAs were treated with the Nellix EVAS system at a single institution. Median aneurysm diameter was 70 mm (range 67-91). Aneurysm morphology in 4 of the 5 patients was noncompliant with instructions for use (IFU) for both EVAS and standard stent-grafts; the remaining patient was outside the IFU for standard stent-grafts but treated with EVAS under standard IFU for the Nellix system. Median Hardman index was 2 (range 0-3). Two patients died of multiorgan failure after re-laparotomy and intraoperative cardiac arrest, respectively. Among survivors, all devices were patent with no signs of endoleak or failed aneurysm sac sealing at 6 months (median follow-up 9.2 months). CONCLUSION: EVAS for the management of infrarenal rAAAs appears feasible. The use of EVAS in emergency repairs may broaden the selection criteria of the current endovascular strategy to include patients with more complex aneurysm morphology

Cardiac rehabilitation versus standard care after aortic aneurysm repair (Aneurysm CaRe): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal and thoracic aortic aneurysms (A/TAA) are an important cause of mortality amongst the older population. Although A/TAA repair can be performed with low peri-operative risk, overall life expectancy remains poor in the years that follow surgery. The majority of deaths are caused by heart attack or stroke, which can both be prevented by cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in patients with clinically-manifest coronary artery disease. A Cochrane review has urged researchers to widen the use of CR to other populations with severe cardiovascular risk, and patients surviving A/TAA repair appear ideal candidates. However, it is unknown whether CR is feasible or acceptable to A/TAA patients, who are a decade older than those currently enrolling in CR. Aneurysm-CaRe is a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) that will address these issues. METHODS AND DESIGN: Aneurysm-CaRe is a pilot RCT of CR versus standard care after A/TAA repair, with the primary objectives of estimating enrolment to a trial of CR after A/TAA repair and estimating compliance with CR amongst patients with A/TAA. Aneurysm-CaRe will randomise 84 patients at two sites. Patients discharged from hospital after elective A/TAA repair will be randomised to standard care or enrolment in their local CR programme with a protocolised approach to medical cardiovascular risk reduction. The primary outcome measures are enrolment in the RCT and compliance with CR. Secondary outcomes will include phenotypic markers of cardiovascular risk and smoking cessation, alongside disease-specific and generic quality-of-life measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 65746249 5 June 2014

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

Endovascular stenting of a chronic ruptured type B thoracic aortic dissection, a second chance: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>We aim to highlight the need for awareness of late complications of endovascular thoracic aortic stenting and the need for close follow-up of patients treated by this method.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>We report the first case in the English literature of an endovascular repair of a previously stented, ruptured chronic Stanford type B thoracic aortic dissection re-presenting with a type III endoleak of the original repair.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Endovascular thoracic stenting is now a widely accepted technique for the treatment of thoracic aortic dissection and its complications. Long term follow up is necessary to ensure that late complications are identified and treated appropriately. In this case of type III endoleak, although technically challenging, endovascular repair was feasible and effective.</p

Placement of an aortomonoiliac stent graft without femorofemoral revascularization in endovascular aneurysm repair: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Endovascular aortic repair, if technically feasible, is the treatment of choice for patients with a contained ruptured aortic aneurysm who are unfit for open surgery.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>We report the case of an 80-year-old Caucasian man who presented with an unusually configured, symptomatic infrarenal aortic aneurysm. His aneurysm showed an erosion of the fourth lumbar vertebra and a severely arteriosclerotic pelvic axis. A high thigh amputation of his right leg had been performed 15 months previously. On his right side, occlusion of his external iliac artery, common femoral artery, and deep femoral artery had occurred. His aneurysm was treated by a left-sided aortomonoiliac stent graft without femorofemoral revascularization, resulting in occlusions of both internal iliac arteries. No ischemic symptoms appeared, although perfusion of his right side was maintained only over epigastric collaterals.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The placement of aortomonoiliac stent grafts for endovascular treatment of infrarenal aortic aneurysms without contralateral revascularization is a feasible treatment option in isolated cases. In this report, access problems and revascularization options in endovascular aneurysm repair are discussed.</p

Comparative clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of endovascular strategy vs open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: three year results of the IMPROVE randomised trial

Objective To assess the three year clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of a strategy of endovascular repair (if aortic morphology is suitable, open repair if not) versus open repair for patients with suspected ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Design Randomised controlled trial. Participants 613 eligible patients (480 men) with a clinical diagnosis of ruptured aneurysm, of whom 502 underwent emergency repair for rupture. Interventions 316 patients were randomised to an endovascular strategy (275 with confirmed rupture) and 297 to open repair (261 with confirmed rupture). Main outcome measures Mortality, with reinterventions after aneurysm repair, quality of life, and hospital costs to three years as secondary measures. Results The maximum follow-up for mortality was 7.1 years, with two patients in each group lost to follow-up by three years. After similar mortality by 90 days, in the mid-term (three months to three years) there were fewer deaths in the endovascular than the open repair group (hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.90), but by seven years mortality was about 60% in each group (hazard ratio 0.92, 0.75 to 1.13). Results for the 502 patients with repaired ruptures were more pronounced: three year mortality was lower in the endovascular strategy group (42% v 54%; odds ratio 0.62, 0.43 to 0.88), but after seven years there was no clear difference between the groups (hazard ratio 0.86, 0.68 to 1.08). Reintervention rates up to three years were not significantly different between the randomised groups (hazard ratio 1.02, 0.79 to 1.32); the initial rapid rate of reinterventions was followed by a much slower mid-term reintervention rate in both groups. The early higher average quality of life in the endovascular strategy versus open repair group, coupled with the lower mortality at three years, led to a gain in average quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at three years of 0.17 (95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.33). The endovascular strategy group spent fewer days in hospital and had lower average costs of −£2605 (€2813; $3439) (95% confidence interval −£5966 to £702). The probability that the endovascular strategy is cost effective was >90% at all levels of willingness to pay for a QALY gain. Conclusions At three years, compared with open repair, an endovascular strategy for suspected ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm was associated with a survival advantage, a gain in QALYs, similar levels of reintervention, and reduced costs, and this strategy was cost effective. These findings support the increasing use of an endovascular strategy, with wider availability of emergency endovascular repair. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48334791; ClinicalTrials NCT00746122This project was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (project No 07/37/64). The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HTA programme, NIHR, National Health Service, or the Department of Health. Neither the funder nor the sponsor had any role in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of the findings