Open thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair after previous abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to provide insight into the incidence of thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair following previous infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery and to determine whether thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair after prior infrarenal AAA surgery is associated with higher mortality and morbidity rates.MethodsMEDLINE, Cochrane Library CENTRAL, and EMBASE databases were searched for relevant articles. Selected articles were critically appraised and meta-analyses were performed.ResultsA total of 12.4% of patients with thoracic aortic aneurysms and 18.7% of patients with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms have had prior AAA surgery. The chance of developing a thoracic aortic aneurysm in patients with AAA is 2.2% and 2.5% for developing a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm. The mean time interval between prior AAA surgery and subsequent thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm surgery or detection is 8.0 years with a wide variation between individuals. Surgery in these patients is technically feasible. The 30-day mortality of patients undergoing open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair does not significantly differ from patients without prior AAA surgery and the 30-day mortality is 11.8%. No data were available about mortality of patients with prior AAA repair undergoing thoracic aortic aneurysm surgery. Morbidity risks are higher in patients with thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Prior AAA repair was a significant risk factor for neurological deficit after thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms surgery with relative risks (RRs) of 11.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8-32.3, P value < .0001) and 2.90 (95% CI 1.26-6.65, P value = .008), respectively. Prior AAA repair was a significant risk factor for developing renal failure in patients undergoing thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.74-6.91, P value = .0001). Determinants of the prognosis in these patients include distal aortic perfusion, distal extent of the landing zone of the graft, drainage of cerebrospinal fluid for thoracic aortic aneurysm repair and age, history of cardiac diseases, extent of the aneurysm, rupture, amount of estimated blood loss, aortic clamp time, and visceral ischemic times for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair.ConclusionsA considerable group of patients with thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms have had prior AAA repair. The risk of postoperative morbidity is increased in these patients. Mortality appears to be similar for patients with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Patients with prior AAA repair undergoing thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair should be provided maximum care to protect their spinal cord and renal function

Meta-analysis of open versus endovascular repair for ruptured descending thoracic aortic aneurysm

IntroductionRuptured descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (rDTAA) is associated with high mortality rates. Data supporting endovascular thoracic aortic aneurysm repair (TEVAR) to reduce mortality compared with open repair are limited to small series. We investigated published reports for contemporary outcomes of open and endovascular repair of rDTAA.MethodsWe systematically reviewed all studies describing the outcomes of rDTAA treated with open repair or TEVAR since 1995 using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library CENTRAL, and Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) databases. Case reports or studies published before 1995 were excluded. All articles were critically appraised for relevance, validity, and availability of data regarding treatment outcomes. All data were systematically pooled, and meta-analyses were performed to investigate 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and paraplegia rates after both types of repair.ResultsOriginal data of 224 patients (70% male) with rDTAA were identified: 143 (64%) were treated with TEVAR and 81 (36%) with open repair. Mean age was 70 ± 5.6 years. The 30-day mortality was 19% for patients treated with TEVAR for rDTAA compared 33% for patients treated with open repair, which was significant (odds ratio [OR], 2.15, P = .016). The 30-day occurrence rates of myocardial infarction (11.1% vs 3.5%; OR, 3.70, P < .05), stroke (10.2% vs 4.1%; OR, 2.67; P = .117), and paraplegia (5.5% vs 3.1%; OR, 1.83; P = .405) were increased after open repair vs TEVAR, but this failed to reach statistical significance for stroke and paraplegia. Five additional patients in the TEVAR group died of aneurysm-related causes after 30 days, during a median follow-up of 17 ± 10 months. Follow-up data after open repair were insufficient. The estimated aneurysm-related survival at 3 years after TEVAR was 70.6%.ConclusionEndovascular repair of rDTAA is associated with a significantly lower 30-day mortality rate compared with open surgical repair. TEVAR was associated with a considerable number of aneurysm-related deaths during follow-up

Timing of Pre-Operative Beta-Blocker Treatment in Vascular Surgery Patients Influence on Post-Operative Outcome

ObjectivesThis study evaluated timing of β-blocker initiation before surgery and its relationship with: 1) pre-operative heart rate and high-sensitivity C-reactive-protein (hs-CRP) levels; and 2) post-operative outcome.BackgroundPerioperative guidelines recommend β-blocker initiation days to weeks before surgery, on the basis of expert opinions.MethodsIn 940 vascular surgery patients, pre-operative heart rate and hs-CRP levels were recorded, next to timing of β-blocker initiation before surgery (0 to 1, >1 to 4, >4 weeks). Pre- and post-operative troponin-T measurements and electrocardiograms were performed routinely. End points were 30-day cardiac events (composite of myocardial infarction and cardiac mortality) and long-term mortality. Multivariate regression analyses, adjusted for cardiac risk factors, evaluated the relation between duration of β-blocker treatment and outcome.ResultsThe β-blockers were initiated 0 to 1, >1 to 4, and >4 weeks before surgery in 158 (17%), 393 (42%), and 389 (41%) patients, respectively. Median heart rate at baseline was 74 (±17) beats/min, 70 (±16) beats/min, and 66 (±15) beats/min (p < 0.001; comparing treatment initiation >1 with <1 week pre-operatively), and hs-CRP was 4.9 (±7.5) mg/l, 4.1 (±.6.0) mg/l, and 4.5 (±6.3) mg/l (p = 0.782), respectively. Treatment initiated >1 to 4 or >4 weeks before surgery was associated with a lower incidence of 30-day cardiac events (odds ratio: 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27 to 0.76, odds ratio: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.79) and long-term mortality (hazard ratio: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.67, hazard ratio: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.71) compared with treatment initiated <1 week pre-operatively.ConclusionsOur results indicate that β-blocker treatment initiated >1 week before surgery is associated with lower pre-operative heart rate and improved outcome, compared with treatment initiated <1 week pre-operatively. No reduction of median hs-CRP levels was observed in patients receiving β-blocker treatment >1 week compared with patients in whom treatment was initiated between 0 and 1 week before surgery

Technical pitfalls and proposed modifications of instructions for use for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair using the Gore Excluder conformable device in angulated and short landing zones

We describe a case of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and angulated proximal neck treated with a Gore Excluder conformable endoprosthesis and show relevant technical pitfalls in the deployment of the graft main body. An 82-year-old man presented with a 71-mm asymptomatic AAA with an angulated infrarenal proximal neck (75°) and was referred to our unit. The patient was treated with a 26-mm Gore Excluder conformable device, which was deployed slightly above the renal arteries after precatheterization of the lowest renal artery. The graft was then repositioned with support of the introducer sheath and a stiff guide wire. The proximal sealing zone was ballooned before the endograft delivery system was retrieved to avoid distal migration. Technical success was achieved. The patient was discharged with no complications. No type Ia endoleak was present on the 6-month computed tomography scan. Endovascular treatment of an AAA with a severe angulated proximal neck can be effective with a conformable stent graft if technical measures are used during deployment of the main body to optimize the seal.</p

Results from a nationwide prospective registry on open surgical or endovascular repair of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms

Background: Juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (JRAAAs) can be treated either with open surgical repair (OSR) including suprarenal clamping or by complex endovascular aneurysm repair (cEVAR). In this study, we present the comparison between the short-term mortality and complications of the elective JRAAA treatment modalities from a national database reflecting daily practice in the Netherlands. Methods: All patients undergoing elective JRAAA open repair or cEVAR (fenestrated EVAR or chimney EVAR) between January 2016 and December 2018 registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA) were eligible for inclusion. Descriptive perioperative variables and outcomes were compared between patients treated with open surgery or endovascularly. Adjusted odds ratios for short-term outcomes were calculated by logistic regression analysis. Results: In all, 455 primary treated patients with JRAAAs could be included (258 OSR, 197 cEVAR). Younger patients and female patients were treated more often with OSR vs cEVAR (72 ± 6.1 vs 76 ± 6.0; P < .001 and 22% vs 15%; P = .047, respectively). Patients treated with OSR had significantly more major and minor complications as well as a higher chance of early mortality (OSR vs cEVAR, 45% vs 21%; P < .001; 34% vs 23%; P = .011; and 6.6% vs 2.5%; P = .046, respectively). After logistic regression with adjustment for confounders, patients who were treated with OSR showed an odds ratio of 3.64 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.25-5.89; P < .001) for major complications compared with patients treated with cEVAR, and for minor complications, the odds ratios were 2.17 (95% CI, 1.34-3.53; P = .002) higher. For early mortality, the odds ratios were 3.79 (95% CI, 1.26-11.34; P = .017) higher after OSR compared with cEVAR. Conclusions: In this study, after primary elective OSR for JRAAA, the odds for major complications, minor complications, and short-term mortality were significantly higher compared with cEVAR

Treatment Outcome Trends for Non-Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms:A Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study

Objective: The Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA) initiative was established in 2013 to monitor and improve nationwide outcomes of aortic aneurysm surgery. The objective of this study was to examine whether outcomes of surgery for intact abdominal aortic aneurysms (iAAA) have improved over time.Methods: Patients who underwent primary repair of an iAAA by standard endovascular (EVAR) or open surgical repair (OSR) between 2014 and 2019 were selected from the DSAA for inclusion. The primary outcome was peri-operative mortality trend per year, stratified by OSR and EVAR. Secondary outcomes were trends per year in major complications, textbook outcome (TbO), and characteristics of treated patients. The trends per year were evaluated and reported in odds ratios per year.Results: In this study, 11 624 patients (74.8%) underwent EVAR and 3 908 patients (25.2%) underwent OSR. For EVAR, after adjustment for confounding factors, there was no improvement in peri-operative mortality (aOR [adjusted odds ratio] 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 – 1.20), while major complications decreased (2014: 10.1%, 2019: 7.0%; aOR 0.91, 95% CI 0.88 – 0.95) and the TbO rate increased (2014: 68.1%, 2019: 80.9%; aOR 1.13, 95% CI 1.10 – 1.16). For OSR, the peri-operative mortality decreased (2014: 6.1%, 2019: 4.6%; aOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 – 0.98), as well as major complications (2014: 28.6%, 2019: 23.3%; aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 – 0.99). Furthermore, the proportion of TbO increased (2014: 49.1%, 2019: 58.3%; aOR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 – 1.10). In both the EVAR and OSR group, the proportion of patients with cardiac comorbidity increased.Conclusion: Since the establishment of this nationwide quality improvement initiative (DSAA), all outcomes of iAAA repair following EVAR and OSR have improved, except for peri-operative mortality following EVAR which remained unchanged.</p

Multicenter experience of upper extremity access in complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

Purpose: Upper extremity access (UEA) for antegrade cannulation of aortic side branches is a relevant part of endovascular treatment of complex aortic aneurysms and can be achieved using several techniques, sites, and sides. The purpose of this study was to evaluate different UEA strategies in a multicenter registry of complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Methods: In six aortic centers in the Netherlands, all endovascular aortic procedures from 2006 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who received UEA during complex EVAR were included. The primary outcome was a composite end point of any access complication, excluding minor hematomas. Secondary outcomes were access characteristics, access complications considered individually, access reinterventions, and incidence of ischemic cerebrovascular events. Results: A total of 417 patients underwent 437 UEA for 303 fenestrated/branched EVARs and 114 chimney EVARs. Twenty patients had bilateral, 295 left-sided, and 102 right-sided UEA. A total of 413 approaches were performed surgically and 24 percutaneously. Distal brachial access (DBA) was used in 89 cases, medial brachial access (MBA) in 149, proximal brachial access (PBA) in 140, and axillary access (AA) in 59 cases. No significant differences regarding the composite end point of access complications were seen (DBA: 11.3% vs MBA: 6.7% vs PBA: 13.6% vs AA: 10.2%; P =.29). Postoperative neuropathy occurred most after PBA (DBA: 1.1% vs MBA: 1.3% vs PBA: 9.3% vs AA: 5.1%; P =.003). There were no differences in cerebrovascular complications between access sides (right: 5.9% vs left: 4.1% vs bilateral: 5%; P =.75). Significantly more overall access complications were seen after a percutaneous approach (29.2% vs 6.8%; P =.002). In multivariate analysis, the risk for access complications after an open approach was decreased by male sex (odds ratio [OR]: 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10-0.72; P =.009), whereas an increase in age per year (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.004-1.179; P =.039) and diabetes mellitus type 2 (OR: 3.70; 95% CI: 1.20-11.41; P =.023) increased the risk. Conclusions: Between the four access localizations, there were no differences in overall access complications. Female sex, diabetes mellitus type 2, and aging increased the risk for access complications after a surgical approach. Furthermore, a percutaneous UEA resulted in higher complication rates than a surgical approach