Search

Contains fulltext : 226469.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Long-term secondary aortic reinterventions (SARs) can be a sign of (lack of) effectiveness of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery. This study provides insight into the national number of SARs after primary AAA repair by endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) or by open surgical repair in the Netherlands. METHODS: Observational study included all patients undergoing SAR between 2016 and 2017, registered in the compulsory Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA). The DSAA started in 2013, SARs are registered from 2016. Characteristics of SAR and postoperative outcomes (mortality/complications) were analyzed, stratified by urgency of SAR. Data of SARs were merged with data of their preceded primary AAA repair, registered in the DSAA after January 2013. In these patients undergoing SAR, treatment characteristics of the preceded primary AAA repair were additionally described, with focus on differences between stent grafts. RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2017, 691 patients underwent SAR, this concerned 9.3% of all AAA procedures (infrarenal/juxtarenal/suprarenal) in the Netherlands (77% elective/11% acute symptomatic/12% ruptured). Endoleak (60%) was the most frequent indication for SAR. SARs were performed with EVAR in 66%. Postoperative mortalities after SAR were 3.4%, 11%, and 29% in elective, acute symptomatic, and ruptured patients, respectively. In 26% (n = 181) of the patients undergoing SAR their primary AAA repair was performed after January 2013 and data of primary and SAR procedures could be merged. In 93% (n = 136), primary AAA repair was EVAR. Endografts primarily used were nitinol/polyester (62%), nitinol/polytetrafluoroethylene (8%), endovascular sealing (21%), and others (9%), compared with their national market share of 76% (odds ratio [OR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.71), 15% (OR, 0.50; CI, 0.29-0.89), 4.9% (OR, 5.04; CI, 3.44-7.38), and 4.1% (OR, 2.81; CI, 1.66-4.74), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the Netherlands, about one-tenth of the annual AAA procedures concerns an SAR. A quarter of this cohort had an SAR within 1-5 years after their primary AAA repair. Most SARs followed after primary EVAR procedures, in which an overrepresentation of endovascular sealing grafts was seen. Postoperative mortality after SAR is comparable with primary AAA repair.

Background and objective: Current evidence suggests short-term survival benefit from endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) in elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) procedures, but this benefit is lost during long-term follow-up. The aim of this study was to compare short- and mid-term all-cause mortality in patients with non-ruptured aneurysm treated by OSR and EVAR; and to assess the rate of complications and reinterventions, as well as to evaluate their impact on survival. Methods: The medical records of the non-ruptured AAA patients undergoing OSR or EVAR between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2019 at Tartu University Hospital, Estonia, were retrospectively reviewed. We gathered survival data from the national registry (mean follow-up period was 3.7 ± 2.3 years). Results: A total of 225 non-ruptured AAA patients were treated operatively out of whom 95 (42.2%) were EVAR and 130 (57.8%) were OSR procedures. The difference in estimated all-cause mortality between the OSR and EVAR groups at day 30 was statistically irrelevant (2.3% vs 0%; p = 0.140), but OSR patients showed statistically significantly higher 5 year survival compared with EVAR patients (75.3% vs 50.0%, p = 0.002). Complication and reintervention rates for the EVAR and OSR groups did not differ statistically (26.3% vs 16.9%, p = 0.122; 10.5% vs 11.5%, p = 0.981, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that greater aneurysm diameter (p = 0.012), EVAR procedure (p = 0.016), male gender (p = 0.023), and cerebrovascular diseases (p = 0.028) were independently positively associated with 5-year mortality. Conclusions: Thirty-day mortality, and complication and reintervention rates for EVAR and OSR after elective AAA repair were similar. Although the EVAR procedure is an independent risk factor for 5-year mortality, higher age and greater proportion of comorbidities among EVAR patients may influence not only the choice of treatment modality, but also prognosis.

Background Elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm has an initial survival advantage over open repair (OR), but more frequent complications increase costs and long-term aneurysm-related mortality. Randomised controlled trials of EVAR versus OR have shown EVAR is not cost-effective over a patient’s lifetime. However, in the EVAR-1 trial, post-operative surveillance may have been sub-optimal, as the importance of sac growth as a predictor of graft failure was overlooked. Methods Real-world data informed a discrete event simulation model of post-operative outcomes following EVAR. Outcomes observed EVAR-1 were compared with those from five alternative post-operative surveillance and re-intervention strategies. Key events, quality-adjusted life years and costs were predicted. The impact of using complication and rupture rates from more recent devices, imaging and re-intervention methods was also explored. Results Compared with observed EVAR-1 outcomes, modelling full adherence to the EVAR-1 scan protocol reduced AAA deaths by 3% and increased elective re-interventions by 44%. European Society re-intervention guidelines provided the most clinically effective strategy, with an 8% reduction in AAA deaths, but a 52% increase in elective re-interventions. The cheapest and most cost-effective strategy used lifetime annual ultrasound in primary care with confirmatory CT if necessary, and reduced AAA-related deaths by 5%. Using contemporary rates for complications and rupture did not alter these conclusions. Conclusions All alternative strategies improved clinical benefits compared with the EVAR-1 trial. Further work is needed regarding the cost and accuracy of primary care ultrasound, and the potential impact of these strategies in the comparison with OR., Financial support from National Institute of Health Research and Camelia Botnar Arterial Foundation. The National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, in the writing of the report or in the decision to submit the article for publication. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR, UK NHS, or Department of Health. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is commonly used to treat abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). However, the incidence of long-term complications and the need for re-interventions after EVAR remain a concern. Newer generation stent grafts have encouraging short and mid-term outcomes, but thorough analysis of their long-term performance is necessary.METHODS: The ENGAGE registry includes a total of 1263 patients with AAA enrolled from March 2009 to April 2011 at 79 centres across 30 countries. The aim of this study is to present standard EVAR outcomes in the registry after five years.RESULTS: A significant proportion of the ENGAGE patients presented with challenging features, such as 15.2% with an AAA diameter >7 cm, 12.0% with proximal neck lengths 60°. Of the 1263 enrolled subjects, 17.8% were implanted outside of the instructions for use for the device. At the five year follow up, the Kaplan-Meier overall survival rate was 67.4% and the freedom from aneurysm related mortality was 97.8%. Freedom from aneurysm rupture, secondary procedures, and conversion to open repair at five years were 98.6%, 84.3%, and 97.9% respectively. The five year freedom from type IA endoleaks was 95.2% and for type III endoleaks 97.4%. Aneurysm sac diameter at five years was observed to have either decreased ≥5 mm in diameter or remained stable in 89.4% of the patients.CONCLUSION: Five year follow up of patients in the ENGAGE registry demonstrates sustained safety, effectiveness, and durability in an international cohort that is reflective of real world experience. Additional follow up is expected through to 10 years.

Background: Our objective was to investigate whether patients undergoing standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) outside the instructions for use (IFU) have worse outcomes than patients treated within IFU.Methods: We conducted a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Electronic bibliographic sources were searched up to January 2019 using a combination of controlled vocabulary (thesaurus) and free-text terms to identify studies comparing outcomes of EVAR in patients treated outside versus within IFU. Pooled estimates of dichotomous outcomes were calculated using odds ratio (OR) or risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We conducted a time-to-event data meta-analysis using the inverse-variance method and reported the results as summary hazard ratio (HR) and associated 95% CI. Random-effects methods of meta-analysis were applied. We formed meta-regression models to explore heterogeneity as a result of changes in practice over time.Results: We identified 17 observational cohort studies published between 2011 and 2017, reporting a total of 4498 patients. The pooled prevalence of EVAR performed outside the IFU was 40% (95% CI, 33-48). Nonadherence to IFU was not associated with increased risk of perioperative mortality (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.00 to 0.01; P = .23), aneurysm rupture (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.30-5.93; P = .70), aneurysm-related mortality (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.20-3.84; P = .86), technical failure (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.05; P = .56), requirement for adjunctive procedures (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.81-2.71; P = .20), type I endoleak (HR, 2.28; 95% CI, 0.58-8.91; P = .24), aneurysm sac expansion (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.55-1.33; P = .49), or aneurysm-related reintervention (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.81-1.34; P = .74). The overall mortality was significantly higher in patients treated outside the IFU (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.42; P = .03). Meta-regression showed that the prevalence of EVAR performed outside the IFU has increased over time ( P = .019).Conclusions: Standard EVAR outside the IFU was not found to have worse aneurysm-related outcomes than treatment within the IFU. Standard EVAR outside the IFU could be considered in selected patients who are deemed high risk for complex open or endovascular surgery.

Background Our objective was to investigate whether patients undergoing standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) outside the instructions for use (IFU) have worse outcomes than patients treated within IFU. Methods We conducted a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Electronic bibliographic sources were searched up to January 2019 using a combination of controlled vocabulary (thesaurus) and free-text terms to identify studies comparing outcomes of EVAR in patients treated outside versus within IFU. Pooled estimates of dichotomous outcomes were calculated using odds ratio (OR) or risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We conducted a time-to-event data meta-analysis using the inverse-variance method and reported the results as summary hazard ratio (HR) and associated 95% CI. Random-effects methods of meta-analysis were applied. We formed meta-regression models to explore heterogeneity as a result of changes in practice over time. Results We identified 17 observational cohort studies published between 2011 and 2017, reporting a total of 4498 patients. The pooled prevalence of EVAR performed outside the IFU was 40% (95% CI, 33-48). Nonadherence to IFU was not associated with increased risk of perioperative mortality (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, −0.00 to 0.01; P = .23), aneurysm rupture (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.30-5.93; P = .70), aneurysm-related mortality (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.20-3.84; P = .86), technical failure (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, −0.03 to 0.05; P = .56), requirement for adjunctive procedures (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.81-2.71; P = .20), type I endoleak (HR, 2.28; 95% CI, 0.58-8.91; P = .24), aneurysm sac expansion (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.55-1.33; P = .49), or aneurysm-related reintervention (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.81-1.34; P = .74). The overall mortality was significantly higher in patients treated outside the IFU (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.42; P = .03). Meta-regression showed that the prevalence of EVAR performed outside the IFU has increased over time (P = .019). Conclusions Standard EVAR outside the IFU was not found to have worse aneurysm-related outcomes than treatment within the IFU. Standard EVAR outside the IFU could be considered in selected patients who are deemed high risk for complex open or endovascular surgery.

Background The treatment of mycotic abdominal aortic aneurysm requires surgery and antimicrobial therapy. Since prosthetic reconstructions carry a considerable risk of reinfection, biological grafts are noteworthy alternatives. The current study evaluated the durability, infection resistance, and midterm outcome of biological grafts in treatment of mycotic abdominal aortic aneurysm. Methods and Results All patients treated with biological graft in 6 countries between 2006 and 2016 were included. Primary outcome measures were 30‐ and 90‐day survival, treatment‐related mortality, and reinfection rate. Secondary outcome measures were overall mortality and graft patency. Fifty‐six patients (46 males) with median age of 69 years (range 35–85) were included. Sixteen patients were immunocompromised (29%), 24 (43%) had concomitant infection, and 12 (21%) presented with rupture. Bacterial culture was isolated from 43 (77%). In‐situ aortic reconstruction was performed using autologous femoral veins in 30 patients (54%), xenopericardial tube‐grafts in 12 (21%), cryopreserved arterial/venous allografts in 9 (16%), and fresh arterial allografts in 5 (9%) patients. During a median follow‐up of 26 months (range 3 weeks–172 months) there were no reinfections and only 3 patients (5%) required assistance with graft patency. Thirty‐day survival was 95% (n=53) and 90‐day survival was 91% (n=51). Treatment‐related mortality was 9% (n=5). Kaplan–Meier estimation of survival at 1 year was 83% (95% confidence interval, 73%–94%) and at 5 years was 71% (52%–89%). Conclusions Mycotic abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with biological grafts is a durable option for patients fit for surgery presenting an excellent infection resistance and good overall survival.