Open Repair Of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Research Articles

Identification of Risk Factors and Development of Predictive Risk Score Model for Mortality after Open Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

Background and Objectives: Despite the relatively large number of publications concerning the validation of these models, there is currently no solid evidence that they can be used with absolute precision to predict survival. The goal of this study is to identify preoperative factors that influenced 30-day mortality and to create a predictive model after open ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA) repair. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective single-center cohort study derived from a prospective collected database, between 1 January 2009 and 2016. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify all significant predictive factors. Variables that were identified in the multivariate analysis were dichotomized at standard levels, and logistic regression was used for the analysis. To ensure that dichotomized variables were not overly simplistic, the C statistic was evaluated for both dichotomized and continuous models. Results: There were 500 patients with complete medical data included in the analysis during the study period. Of them, 37.6% were older than 74 years, and 83.8% were males. Multivariable logistic regression showed five variables that were predictive of mortality: age > 74 years (OR = 4.01, 95%CI 2.43–6.26), loss of consciousness (OR = 2.21, 95%CI 1.11–4.40), previous myocardial infarction (OR = 2.35, 95%CI 1.19–4.63), development of ventricular arrhythmia (OR = 4.54, 95%CI 1.75–11.78), and DAP < 60 mmHg (OR = 2.32, 95%CI 1.17–4.62). Assigning 1 point for each variable, patients were stratified according to the preoperative RAAA mortality risk score (range 0–5). Patients with 1 point suffered 15.3% mortality and 3 points 68.2% mortality, while all patients with 5 points died. Conclusions: This preoperative RAAA score identified risk factors readily assessed at the bedside and provides an accurate prediction of 30-day mortality after open repair of RAAA.

Open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm with associated horseshoe kidney.

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAA) with concomitant horseshoe kidney (HK) present a unique challenge at the time of repair. The aim of this article was to propose the most rationale strategy during open repair (OR) of RAAA in the presence of HK. We identified and analyzed all patients treated at the clinic due to RAAA and HK. An extensive search was performed on all articles published up to August of 2017 describing open and endovascular repair of RAAA with concomitant horseshoe kidney. The following data were extracted and analyzed: patient number, number of renal arteries, Crawford classification of horseshoe kidney vascularization, type of aortic reconstruction, management with renal arteries, 30-day kidney failure and outcome. Transperitoneal approach followed by supraceliac aortic cross clamping without the division of the renal isthmus occurred in all our six cases. Four of them required additional procedures with accessory renal arteries after aortic replacement. Three of patients (50%) died during the first 30 postoperative days, while one developed transitory renal insufficiency. The renal isthmus was preserved in 43.90% and divided in 46.34% of cases. Crawford type I of HK vascularization was presented in 21.95% of cases, type II also in 39.02%, while the type III in 19.51% of cases. In 46.33% of cases a procedure with renal arteries was necessary. In 26.82% accessory renal arteries were ligated, while in 19.51% preserved (reattachment or aorto-renal bypass). Thirty-day mortality was 21.95%, while the incidence of postoperative renal failure was also 21.95%. There was not significant correlation between the renal artery ligation and the postoperative renal failure (r=-0.81, P=0.59). Transperitoneal approach should be preferred during urgent OR of RAAA with concomitant HK. A supraceliac aortic cross clamping and the placement of occlusive Fogarty catheters into both iliac arteries are recommended for proximal and distal bleeding control. Preservation of accessory renal arteries that are larger than 3 mm in diameter or supply more than 30% of renal parenchima is recommended. The division of the renal isthmus should be avoided if vascularized. It seems that renal arteries could be covered in emergency EVAR without any implications on postoperative kidney function, allowing broader aplication of endovascular treatment for thesse patients.

Endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms does not reduce later mortality compared with open repair

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAAs) reduces in-hospital mortality compared with open repair (OR), but it is unknown whether EVAR reduces long-term mortality. We hypothesized that EVAR of RAAA would independently reduce long-term mortality compared with OR. The Vascular Quality Initiative database (2003-2013) was used to determine Kaplan-Meier 1-year and 5-year mortality after EVAR and OR of RAAA. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify patient and operative characteristics associated with mortality at 1 year and 5 years after RAAA repair. Among 590 patients who underwent EVAR and 692 patients who underwent OR of RAAA, the lower mortality seen in the hospital after EVAR (EVAR 23% vs OR 35%; P < .001) persisted at 1 year (EVAR 34% vs OR 42%; P = .001) and 5 years (EVAR 50% vs OR 58%; P = .003) after repair. After adjusting for patient and operative characteristics, EVAR did not independently reduce mortality at 1 year (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-1.1) or 5 years (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77-1.2) compared with OR. Dialysis dependence (HR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.8-8.6), home oxygen use (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3-2.7), cardiac ejection fraction <50% (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.03-2.1), female gender (HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.04-1.6), and age (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.05-1.08 per 5 years) as well as cardiac arrest (HR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.5-4.5), loss of consciousness (HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3-2.2), and preoperative systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8) on admission predicted mortality at 1 year and 5 years after RAAA repair. Type I endoleak (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-3.8) also predicted mortality at 1 year. EVAR does not independently reduce long-term mortality compared with OR. Patient comorbidities and indices of shock on admission are the primary independent determinants of long-term mortality. However, the lower early mortality observed in the Vascular Quality Initiative for patients selected to undergo EVAR of RAAA compared with patients selected for OR is sustained over time, suggesting that EVAR for RAAA is beneficial in appropriate candidates. Better elucidation of the key selection factors, including aneurysm anatomy, is needed to best select patients for EVAR and OR to reduce long-term mortality.

Endovascular repair or open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: a Cochrane systematic review

ObjectivesEmergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) may improve outcomes for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA). The study aim was to compare the outcomes for eEVAR with conventional open surgical...

In patients stratified by preoperative risk, endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms has a lower in-hospital mortality and morbidity than open repair

Previous studies have reported that endovascular repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAAs) has lower postoperative mortality than open repair (OR). However, comparisons involved heterogeneous populations that lacked adjustment for preoperative risk. We hypothesize that for RAAA patients stratified by a validated measure of preoperative mortality risk, EVAR has a lower in-hospital mortality and morbidity than does OR. In-hospital mortality and morbidity after EVAR and OR of RAAA were compared in patients from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2003-2013) stratified by the validated Vascular Study Group of New England RAAA risk score into low-risk (score 0-1), medium-risk (score 2-3), and high-risk (score 4-6) groups. Among 514 patients who underwent EVAR and 651 patients who underwent OR of RAAA, EVAR had lower in-hospital mortality (25% vs 33%, P = .001). In risk-stratified patients, EVAR trended toward a lower mortality in the low-risk group (n = 626; EVAR, 10% vs OR, 15%; P = .07), had a significantly lower mortality in the medium-risk group (n = 457; EVAR, 37% vs OR, 48%; P = .02), and no advantage in the high-risk group (n = 82; EVAR, 95% vs OR, 79%; P = .17). Across all risk groups, cardiac complications (EVAR, 29% vs OR, 38%; P = .001), respiratory complications (EVAR, 28% vs OR, 46%; P < .0001), renal insufficiency (EVAR, 24% vs OR, 38%; P < .0001), lower extremity ischemia (EVAR, 2.7% vs OR, 8.1%; P < .0001), and bowel ischemia (EVAR, 3.9% vs OR, 10%; P < .0001) were significantly lower after EVAR than after OR. Across all risk groups, median (interquartile range) intensive care unit length of stay (EVAR, 2 [1-5] days vs OR, 6 [3-13] days; P < .0001) and hospital length of stay (EVAR, 6 [4-12] days vs OR, 13 [8-22] days; P < .0001) were lower after EVAR. This novel risk-stratified comparison using a national clinical database showed that EVAR of RAAA has a lower mortality and morbidity compared with OR in low-risk and medium-risk patients and that EVAR should be used to treat these patients when anatomically feasible. For RAAA patients at the highest preoperative risk, there is no benefit to using EVAR compared with OR.

Endovascular treatment for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) (pathological enlargement of the aorta) can develop in both men and women as they grow older. It is most commonly seen in men over the age of 65 years. Progressive aneurysm enlargement can lead to rupture and massive internal bleeding, a fatal event unless timely repair can be achieved. Despite improvements in perioperative care, mortality remains high (approximately 50%) after conventional open surgical repair. A newer minimally invasive technique, endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), has been shown to reduce early morbidity and mortality as compared to conventional open surgery for planned AAA repair. Emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) has been used successfully to treat ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA), proving that it is feasible in selected patients. However, it is not yet known if eEVAR will lead to significant improvements in outcomes for these patients or indeed if it can replace conventional open repair as the preferred treatment for this lethal condition. To assess the advantages and disadvantages of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) in comparison with conventional open surgical repair for the treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA). This will be determined by the effect on short-term mortality, major complication rates, aneurysm exclusion, and late complications when compared with the effects in patients who have had conventional open repair of RAAA. For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched February 2014) and CENTRAL (2014, Issue 2). Reference lists of relevant publications were also checked. Randomised controlled trials in which patients with a clinically or radiologically diagnosed RAAA were randomly allocated to eEVAR or conventional open surgical repair. Studies identified for potential inclusion were independently assessed for eligibility by at least two review authors. Data extraction and quality assessment were also completed independently by two review authors. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. Meta-analysis was performed using fixed-effect models with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data and mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous data. Three randomised controlled trials were included in this review. A total of 761 patients with a clinical or radiological diagnosis of RAAA were randomised to receive either eEVAR or open surgical repair. Overall risk of bias was low but one study did not adequately report random sequence generation, putting it at risk of selection bias, two studies did not report on outcomes identified in their protocol, indicating reporting bias, and one study was underpowered. There was no clear evidence to support a difference between the two interventions on 30-day (or in-hospital) mortality, OR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.22; P = 0.52). The 30-day complications included myocardial infarction, stroke, composite cardiac complications, renal complications, severe bowel ischaemia, spinal cord ischaemia, re-operation, amputation, and respiratory failure. Individual complication outcomes were reported in only one or two studies and therefore no robust conclusion can currently be drawn. For complication outcomes that did include at least two studies in the meta-analysis there was no clear evidence to support a difference between eEVAR and open repair. Six-month outcomes were evaluated in only a single study, which included mortality and re-operation, with no clear evidence of a difference between the interventions and no overall association. Cost per patient was only evaluated in a single study and therefore no overall associations can currently be derived. The conclusions of this review are currently limited by the paucity of data. From the data available there is no difference in the outcomes evaluated in this review between eEVAR and open repair, specifically 30-day mortality. Not enough information was provided for complications in order to make a well informed conclusion at this time. Long-term data are lacking for both survival and late complications. More high quality, randomised controlled trials comparing eEVAR and open repair for the treatment of RAAA are needed in order to better understand if one method is superior to the other, or if there is no difference between the methods on relevant outcomes.

Critical limb ischemia during perioperative period of open surgery for rupture abdominal aortic aneurysm: treatment and prognosis

To explore the treatment and prognosis of critical limb ischemia during perioperative period of open surgery for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Retrospective reviews were conducted for the clinical data of unstable ruptured AAA patients with open repair at our hospital from June 2002 to June 2012 to examine the characteristics and treatment regimens for associated critical limb ischemia. A total of 46 unstable AAAs were enrolled. There were 37 males and 9 females with an average age of 69 years. All AAAs were repaired by a bifurcated polytetrafluoroethylene graft via a transperitoneal midline incision. Critical limb ischemia was found in 8 patients during or after the procedure. Treatments included additional graft-distal iliac artery bypass (n = 2), anastomotic stoma stenting (n = 2), Fogarty catheter embolectomy plus local thrombolysis (n = 2), Fogarty catheter embolectomy (n = 1) and venous thrombolysis (n = 1). Lower limb necrosis developed in 5 patients (4 unilateral, 1 bilateral) and all of them died. Open repair of ruptured AAA may be associated with a considerate morbidity of critical limb ischemia. Early reconstruction of blood flow improves the prognosis.

Derivation and validation of a practical risk score for prediction of mortality after open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms in a U.S. regional cohort and comparison to existing scoring systems

Scoring systems for predicting mortality after repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAAs) have not been developed or tested in a United States population and may not be accurate in the endovascular era. Using prospectively collected data from the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE), we developed a practical risk score for in-hospital mortality after open repair of RAAAs and compared its performance to that of the Glasgow aneurysm score, Hardman index, Vancouver score, and Edinburg ruptured aneurysm score. Univariate analysis followed by multivariable analysis of patient, prehospital, anatomic, and procedural characteristics identified significant predictors of in-hospital mortality. Integer points were derived from the odds ratio (OR) for mortality based on each independent predictor in order to generate a VSGNE RAAA risk score, which was internally validated using bootstrapping methodology. Discrimination and calibration of all models were assessed by calculating the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (C-statistic) and applying the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. From 2003 to 2009, 242 patients underwent open repair of RAAAs at 10 centers. In-hospital mortality was 38% (n= 91). Independent predictors of mortality included age >76 years (OR, 5.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8-10.1), preoperative cardiac arrest (OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.6-12), loss of consciousness (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-6), and suprarenal aortic clamp (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.3-4.6). Patient stratification according to the VSGNE RAAA risk score (range, 0-6) accurately predicted mortality and identified those at low and high risk for death (8%, 25%, 37%, 60%, 80%, and 87% for scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and ≥5, respectively). Discrimination (C= .79) and calibration (χ(2)= 1.96; P= .85) were excellent in the derivation and bootstrap samples and superior to that of existing scoring systems. The Glasgow aneurysm score, Hardman index, Vancouver score, and Edinburg ruptured aneurysm score correlated with mortality in the VSGNE cohort but failed to identify accurately patients with a risk of mortality >65%. Existing scoring systems predict mortality after RAAA repair in this cohort but do not identify patients at highest risk. This parsimonious VSGNE RAAA risk score based on four variables readily assessed at the time of presentation allows accurate prediction of in-hospital mortality after open repair of RAAAs, including identification of those patients at highest risk for postoperative mortality.

Predictors of Postoperative Mortality of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Retrospective Clinical Study

PurposeDespite significant improvements in surgery, anesthesia, and postoperative critical care, the postoperative mortality rate of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA) has remained at 40% to 50% for several decades. Therefore, we evaluated factors associated with the postoperative mortality of RAAA.Materials and MethodsFrom January 1999 to December 2008, a retrospective study was performed with 34 patients who underwent open repair of RAAA. The preoperative factors included age, sex, smoking, comorbidities, serum creatinine, hemoglobin, shock, pulse rate, and time from emergency room to operation room. The intraoperative factors included blood loss, transfusion, aortic clamping site and time, aneurysmal characteristics, rupture type, graft type, hourly urine output (HUO), and operative time. The postoperative factors included inotropic support, renal replacement therapy (RRT), reoperation, bowel ischemia, multiple organ failure (MOF), and intensive care unit stay. The 2-day and the 30-day mortality rates were analyzed separately.ResultsThe 2-day and the 30-day mortality rates were 14.7% and 41.2%, respectively. On univariate analysis, shock, transfusion, HUO, inotropic support and MOF for the 2-day mortality and serum creatinine, transfusion, aortic clamping site, HUO, inotropic support, RRT and MOF for the 30-day mortality were statistically significant. On multivariate analysis, shock, inotropic support and MOF for the 2-day mortality and aortic clamping site, RRT and MOF for the 30-day mortality were statistically significant.ConclusionTo decrease the postoperative mortality rate of RAAA, prevention of massive hemorrhage and acute renal failure with infrarenal aortic clamping, as well as prompt operative control of bleeding and maintenance of systemic perfusion are important.

Influence of Establishment of a Protocol for Endovascular Repair in Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in Patient Outcomes

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA) continues to carry a high mortality. A randomized trial and a few single-center experiences have shown improved short-term results with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair of RAAA. An EVAR for RAAA (R-EVAR) program was started in 2007 at our institute. We studied our own experience with repair of RAAA during 10-year period, comparing outcomes between the two time periods.

Open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients aged 80 years and older

Open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA) in patients aged 80 years and older may be questioned owing to the patients' high operative risk and short life expectancy. Data on patients aged at least 80 years, admitted for RAAA at four Finnish university hospitals, were collected and analysed retrospectively. Three hundred and ten consecutive patients aged 80 years and older with RAAA reached hospital alive; 200 (64·5 per cent) underwent open repair. The number of open repairs increased during the last 5 years (49·0 per cent of the whole series), with no significant increase in the number of patients treated conservatively. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 72·9 per cent. The operative mortality rate was 59·0 per cent and decreased from 66 to 52 per cent during the last 5 years (P = 0·050). On multivariable analysis, shock was the only independent predictor of immediate postoperative death (odds ratio 4·97, 95 per cent confidence interval 2·09 to7·94; P < 0·001). Classification and regression tree analysis showed that preoperative haemoglobin level and presence of shock were predictive of immediate postoperative death; 19 (95 per cent) of 20 patients with shock and a haemoglobin level below 68 g/l died immediately after surgery. Among the 82 survivors of surgery, survival rates at 1, 3 and 5 years were 90, 68 and 45 per cent respectively. These values were not significantly different from those of the age-, sex- and year-matched general population (P = 0·885). Survival after open repair of RAAA among patients aged 80 years and older is sufficient to justify the procedure, particularly in patients in a stable haemodynamic condition.

Outcome after Open Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in Patients &gt;80 Years Old: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

The role of open repair in the management of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA) in patients>80 years old is questioned by the perceived high operative risk of these patients. This issue has been investigated in the present meta-analysis of observational studies. Studies on open repair of RAAA in patients>80 years old were identified in July 2010. The immediate and intermediate results were expressed as pooled proportions with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Linear regression and meta-regression were performed to evaluate the impact of variables on the immediate postoperative mortality. Pooled analysis of 29 studies showed that the risk of immediate postoperative mortality in patients>80 years old was significantly higher than in younger patients (risk ratio 1.440, 95%CI 1.365-1.519, I2 36.8%, P=0.002; risk difference 19.4%, 95% CI 16.4-22.4%, I2 38.8%, P=0.019). Pooled analysis of 36 studies showed an immediate postoperative mortality rate of 59.2% (95% CI 55.7-62.5, I2 35.62). Immediate postoperative mortality in patients<80 years old positively correlated with that of patients>80 years old (rho: 0.686, P<0.0001). Intermediate survival data of 111 operative survivors were available from six studies, and their pooled survival rates at 1-, 2-, and 3-year were 82.4, 75.6, and 68.7%, respectively. Immediate and intermediate survival rates of patients>80 years old after open repair of RAAA are acceptable. These findings suggest a more confident approach toward emergency repair of RAAA in the very elderly.

Part Two: Against the Motion: It is not necessary to perform a randomised trial to compare open and endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

anticipated from the literature. Irrespective of the reports of the good outcomes after endovascular repair from single expert centres or administrative databases, all these results are heavily confounded by patient selection and risks are under-reported. We need better evidence to guarantee the best outcomes for future patients with aneurysm rupture. We need to know whether an attempt at endovascular repair would be beneficial for all patients. It is only such knowledge that will drive changes in the provision of healthcare services to benefit future patients. The front cover of the Lancet issue of 26th September 2009, which published the IDEAL statements, carried this sentence: “It is incumbent on academic surgeons worldwide to transform what was once considered a comic opera into a dynamic world-class specialty”. We need to assess surgical innovations, including endovascular repair for ruptured aneurysm, rapidly in large, pragmatic RCTs.

VS18P IS ENDOVASCULAR REPAIR OF RUPTURED ABDOMINAL AORTIC ANEURYSMS CHANGING THE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR INTERVENTION? – A 5 YEAR RETROSPECTIVE AUDIT IN A SMALL TEACHING HOSPITAL

Purpose Endovascular repair (EVR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAA) holds great promise in the treatment of this usually fatal condition. We aim to demonstrate how the impact of EVR of RAAA has started to alter our practise.Methodology A retrospective review of all patients presenting with RAA to a small tertiary referral teaching hospital.Results Between January 2001 and September 2006, 76 patients presented with RAAA. One refused surgery and 26 were treated palliatively, all but one died. Forty four underwent conventional open repair (OR) of RAAA (32 men, mean age 68.3 years) and 5 had EVR (4 men, mean age 78.5 years). All patients who underwent EVR would previously have been declined OR due to medical co‐morbidities. The mean annual 30 day mortality for OR was 57% but this has fallen from 70% in 2002 to 25% in 2006. The 30 day mortality for EVR of RAAA was 0%. Mean hospital stay following OR was 20.4 days and following EVR was 17.5 days but mean ICU length of stay was unchanged at 10 days.Conclusion Despite recent improvements in survival following OR of RAAA, our initial experience of EVR suggests that we can still do better. Should we be offering this new technology to patients we would previously have declined OR?