-
Journal of Vascular Surgery Jul 2018Although follow-up after open surgical and endovascular procedures is generally regarded as an important part of the care provided by vascular surgeons, there are no... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Although follow-up after open surgical and endovascular procedures is generally regarded as an important part of the care provided by vascular surgeons, there are no detailed or comprehensive guidelines that specify the optimal approaches with regard to testing methods, indications for reintervention, and follow-up intervals. To provide guidance to the vascular surgeon, the Clinical Practice Council of the Society for Vascular Surgery appointed an expert panel and a methodologist to review the current clinical evidence and to develop recommendations for follow-up after vascular surgery procedures. For those procedures for which high-quality evidence was not available, recommendations were based on observational studies, committee consensus, and indirect evidence. Recognizing that there are numerous published reports on the role of duplex ultrasound for surveillance of infrainguinal vein bypass grafts, the Society commissioned a systematic review and meta-analysis on this topic. The panel classified the strength of each recommendation and the corresponding quality of evidence on the basis of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system: recommendations were graded either strong or weak, and the quality of evidence was graded high, moderate, or low. The resulting recommendations represent a wide variety of open surgical and endovascular procedures involving the extracranial carotid artery, thoracic and abdominal aorta, mesenteric and renal arteries, and lower extremity arterial revascularization. The panel also identified many areas in which there was a lack of high-quality evidence to support their recommendations. This suggests that there are opportunities for further clinical research on testing methods, threshold criteria, and the role of surveillance as well as on the modes of failure and indications for reintervention after vascular surgery procedures.
Topics: Arteries; Consensus; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Predictive Value of Tests; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonography, Doppler, Duplex; Vascular Diseases; Vascular Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 29937033
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.04.018 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2022This work aims to review recent literature on penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) and intramural hematomas (IMHs), in order to identify clinical and imaging factors... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This work aims to review recent literature on penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) and intramural hematomas (IMHs), in order to identify clinical and imaging factors connected to aortic-related adverse events (AAE).
METHODS
We performed a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Metanalyses (PRISMA) guidelines. An electronic search was conducted on Medline and Embase databases. We included articles reporting on PAUs and/or IMHs localized in the descending thoracic and/or abdominal aorta and analyzing clinical and/or radiological markers of AAE.
RESULTS
Of 964 records identified through database searching, 17 were incorporated in the present review, including 193 and 1298 patients with type B PAUs and IMHs, respectively. The 30-days aortic-related mortality (ARM) was 4.3% and 3.9% for PAUs and IMHs. A total of 21% of patients with IMHs underwent intervention during the follow-up period, and 32% experienced an AAE. PAU markers of AAE were minimum depth (ranging from 9.5 to 15 mm) and diameter (≥12.5 mm). Maximum aortic diameter (MAD) cut-off values ranging from 38 to 44.75 mm were related to AAE for IMHs, together with ulcer-like projection (ULP) of the aortic wall.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite data heterogeneity in the literature, this PAU- and IMH-focused review has highlighted the imaging and clinical markers of disease progression, thus identifying patients that could benefit from an early intervention in order to reduce the AAE rate.
PubMed: 36359569
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12112727 -
European Journal of Vascular and... Jan 2011Small aneurysms of the abdominal aorta (3.0-5.5 cm in diameter) often are managed by regular surveillance, rather than surgery, because the risk of surgery is considered... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Small aneurysms of the abdominal aorta (3.0-5.5 cm in diameter) often are managed by regular surveillance, rather than surgery, because the risk of surgery is considered to outweigh the risk of aneurysm rupture. The risk of small aneurysm rupture is considered to be low. The purpose of this review is to summarise the reported estimates of small aneurysm rupture rates.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We conducted a systematic review of the literature published before 2010 and identified 54 potentially eligible reports. Detailed review of these studies showed that both ascertainment of rupture, patient follow-up and causes of death were poorly reported: diagnostic criteria for rupture were never reported. There were only 14 studies from which rupture rates (as ruptures per 100 person-years) were available. These 14 published studies included 9779 patients (89% male) over the time period 1976-2006 but only 7 of these studies provided rupture rates specifically for the diameter range 3.0-5.5 cm, which ranged from 0 to 1.61 ruptures per 100 person-years.
CONCLUSIONS
Rupture rates of small abdominal aortic aneurysms would appear to be low, but most studies have been poorly reported and did not have clear ascertainment and diagnostic criteria for aneurysm rupture.
Topics: Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Aortic Rupture; Humans; Research Design; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 20952216
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2010.09.005 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery Dec 2021The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effect of accessory renal artery (ARA) coverage on renal function in terms of acute kidney injury... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effect of accessory renal artery (ARA) coverage on renal function in terms of acute kidney injury (AKI), renal infarction, chronic renal failure (CRF), and mortality in patients undergoing standard endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) or endovascular repair of complex aneurysms.
METHODS
An electronic search of the English language medical literature from 2000 to September 2020 was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases with the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) method for studies reporting on ARA management in patients undergoing endovascular repair of aneurysms in the abdominal and thoracoabdominal aorta. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1, patients with ARA coverage; and group 2, patients without an ARA or without coverage of the ARA. Each group included two arms, one of patients who had undergone standard EVAR and one of patients who had undergone endovascular treatment of a complex aortic aneurysm. The GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, evaluation) approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and summary of the findings. The primary outcomes included the incidence of AKI, renal infarction, CRF, and mortality.
RESULTS
Ten retrospective, nonrandomized, control studies were included in the systematic review reporting on 1014 patients (302 with a covered ARA vs 712 without an ARA or without ARA coverage). In six studies, the mean diameter of the covered ARA was <4 mm (range, 2.7-3.4 mm). The mean follow-up was 22.74 months (range, 1-42 months). In the standard EVAR subgroup, the risk of AKI (odds ratio [OR], 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-2.51; I = 0%] in the early period, and CRF (OR, 4.44; 95% CI, 0.46-42.61; I = 87%) and death (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.36-2.31; I = 0%) during follow-up were similar between groups 1 and 2. Only the risk of renal infarction was greater in group 1 than in group 2 (OR, 93.3; 95% CI, 1.48-5869; I = 92%). In the complex aneurysm repair subgroup, the risk of AKI (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 0.61-5.64; I = 42%) in early period and CRF (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.88-3.07; I = not applicable) and death (OR, 3.63; 95% CI, 0.14-96.29; I = 56%) during follow-up were similar between groups 1 and 2. Only the risk of renal infarction was greater for group 1 compared with group 2 (OR, 8.58; 95% CI, 4.59-16.04; I = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
ARA (<4 mm) coverage in patients undergoing standard EVAR or endovascular repair of complex aneurysms is associated with an increased risk of renal infarction. However, we found no clinical effects of ARA coverage on renal function or mortality in early postoperative and follow-up period. Preservation of an ARA >4 mm should be considered.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Endovascular Procedures; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Renal Artery; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34197943
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.06.032 -
European Journal of Vascular and... May 2020To investigate the effect of hostile aortic anatomy on the outcomes of endovascular and open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Outcomes of Open and Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in Patients with Hostile vs. Friendly Aortic Anatomy.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effect of hostile aortic anatomy on the outcomes of endovascular and open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).
METHODS
Electronic bibliographic sources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) were searched using a combination of thesaurus and free text terms to identify studies comparing treatment outcomes of ruptured AAA in patients with hostile vs. friendly aortic anatomy. A systematic review was conducted that conformed to the PRISMA guidelines using a registered protocol (CRD42019127307). The primary outcomes were peri-operative mortality, freedom from aneurysm related mortality, and overall survival. Pooled estimates of dichotomous outcomes were calculated using odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A time to event data meta-analysis was conducted using the inverse variance method and the results were reported as summary hazard ratio (HR) and associated 95% CI. Subgroup analysis for type of treatment (endovascular aneurysm repair [EVAR] or open repair) was undertaken. Random effects models of meta-analysis were developed.
RESULTS
Ten observational studies were included reporting a total of 1284 patients (748 with hostile anatomy and 536 with friendly anatomy). Patients with hostile anatomy had a higher peri-operative mortality than patients with friendly anatomy (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.13-2.66; p = .01). Subgroup analysis showed a significant difference in peri-operative mortality in favour of friendly anatomy in patients treated by EVAR (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.01-3.08; p = .05), but not in those treated by open repair (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.83-2.27; p = .22). Patients with hostile anatomy treated by EVAR had a significantly higher hazard of death in follow up than patients with friendly aortic anatomy (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.18-3.44, p = .01), whereas for open surgical repair, the survival was similar in patients with hostile and those with friendly aortic anatomy (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61-1.32, p = .58).
CONCLUSION
Hostile aortic anatomy is associated with increased mortality in patients with ruptured AAA treated by EVAR.
Topics: Aorta; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Aortic Rupture; Endovascular Procedures; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31948911
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.12.024 -
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma,... Jun 2023Civilian public mass shootings (CPMSs) are a major public health issue and in recent years several events have occurred worldwide. The aim of this systematic review was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Civilian public mass shootings (CPMSs) are a major public health issue and in recent years several events have occurred worldwide. The aim of this systematic review was to characterize injuries and mortality after CPMSs focusing on in-hospital management of hemorrhage and vascular injuries.
METHOD
A systematic review of all published literature was undertaken in Medline, Embase and Web of Science January 1st, 1968, to February 22nd, 2021, according to the PRISMA guidelines. Literature was eligible for inclusion if the CPMS included three or more people shot, injured or killed, had vascular injuries or hemorrhage.
RESULTS
The search identified 2884 studies; 34 were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. There were 2039 wounded in 45 CPMS events. The dominating anatomic injury location per event was the extremity followed by abdomen and chest. The median number of operations and operated patients per event was 22 (5-101) and 10.5 (4-138), respectively. A total of 899 deaths were reported with a median mortality rate of 36.1% per event (15.9-71.4%) Thirty-eight percent (13/34) of all studies reported on vascular injuries. Vascular injuries ranged from 8 to 29%; extremity vascular injury the most frequent. Specific vascular injuries included thoracic aorta 18% (42/232), carotid arteries 6% (14/232), and abdominal aorta 5% (12/232). Vascular injuries were involved in 8.3%-10% of all deaths.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review showed an overall high mortality after CPMS with injuries mainly located to the extremities, thorax and abdomen. About one quarter of deaths was related to hemorrhage involving central large vessel injuries. Further understanding of these injuries, and structured and uniform reporting of injuries and treatment protocols may help improve evaluation and management in the future. Level of Evidence Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.
Topics: Humans; Hemorrhage; Retrospective Studies; Vascular System Injuries; Wounds, Gunshot
PubMed: 37337265
DOI: 10.1186/s13049-023-01093-x -
Journal of Vascular Surgery Jan 2023At present, the rupture risk prediction of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) and, hence, the clinical decision making regarding the need for surgery, is determined by... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
At present, the rupture risk prediction of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) and, hence, the clinical decision making regarding the need for surgery, is determined by the AAA diameter and growth rate. However, these measures provide limited predictive information. In the present study, we have summarized the measures of local vascular characteristics of the aneurysm wall that, independently of AAA size, could predict for AAA progression and rupture.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed and Web of Science up to September 13, 2021 to identify relevant studies investigating the relationship between local vascular characteristics of the aneurysm wall and AAA growth or rupture in humans. A quality assessment was performed using the ROBINS-I (risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions) tool. All included studies were divided by four types of measures of arterial wall characteristics: metabolism, calcification, intraluminal thrombus, and compliance.
RESULTS
A total of 20 studies were included. Metabolism of the aneurysm wall, especially when measured by ultra-small superparamagnetic iron oxide uptake, and calcification were significantly related to AAA growth. A higher intraluminal thrombus volume and thickness had correlated positively with the AAA growth in one study but in another study had correlated negatively. AAA compliance demonstrated no correlation with AAA growth and rupture. The aneurysmal wall characteristics showed no association with AAA rupture. However, the metabolism, measured via ultra-small superparamagnetic iron oxide uptake, but none of the other measures, showed a trend toward a relationship with AAA rupture, although the difference was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS
The current measures of aortic wall characteristics have the potential to predict for AAA growth, especially the measures of metabolism and calcification. Evidence regarding AAA rupture is scarce, and, although more work is needed, aortic wall metabolism could potentially be related to AAA rupture. This highlights the role of aortic wall characteristics in the progression of AAA but also has the potential to improve the prediction of AAA growth and rupture.
Topics: Humans; Risk Factors; Aortic Rupture; Aortography; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Thrombosis; Aorta, Abdominal
PubMed: 35843510
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2022.07.008 -
Journal of the American Heart... Apr 2021Background Prior studies have suggested aortic peak wall stress (PWS) and peak wall rupture index (PWRI) can estimate the rupture risk of an abdominal aortic aneurysm... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Background Prior studies have suggested aortic peak wall stress (PWS) and peak wall rupture index (PWRI) can estimate the rupture risk of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), but whether these measurements have independent predictive ability over assessing AAA diameter alone is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to compare PWS and PWRI in participants with ruptured and asymptomatic intact AAAs of similar diameter. Methods and Results Web of Science, Scopus, Medline, and The Cochrane Library were systematically searched to identify studies assessing PWS and PWRI in ruptured and asymptomatic intact AAAs of similar diameter. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using inverse variance-weighted methods. Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of findings. Risk of bias was assessed using a modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers. Seven case-control studies involving 309 participants were included. Meta-analyses suggested that PWRI (standardized mean difference, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.14-0.70; =0.004) but not PWS (standardized mean difference, 0.13; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0.44; =0.418) was greater in ruptured than intact AAAs. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the findings were not dependent on the inclusion of any single study. The included studies were assessed to have a medium to high risk of bias. Conclusions Based on limited evidence, this study suggested that PWRI, but not PWS, is greater in ruptured than asymptomatic intact AAAs of similar maximum aortic diameter.
Topics: Aorta, Abdominal; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Aortic Rupture; Aortography; Asymptomatic Diseases; Biomechanical Phenomena; Humans
PubMed: 33855866
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.019772 -
Health Technology Assessment... Dec 2014Patients with large abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are usually offered reparative treatment given the high mortality risk. There is uncertainty about how to treat... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Patients with large abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are usually offered reparative treatment given the high mortality risk. There is uncertainty about how to treat juxtarenal AAAs (JRAAAs) or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). Endovascular repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR) is often seen as safer and easier than open surgical repair (OSR). However, endovascular treatment of JRAAAs or TAAAs requires specially manufactured stent grafts, with openings to allow blood to reach branches of the aorta. Commissioners are receiving increasing requests for fenestrated EVAR (fEVAR) and branched EVAR (bEVAR), but it is unclear whether or not the extra cost of fEVAR or bEVAR is justified by advantages for patients.
OBJECTIVE(S)
To assess the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of fEVAR and bEVAR in comparison with conventional treatment (i.e. no surgery) or OSR for two populations: JRAAAs and TAAAs.
DATA SOURCES
Resources were searched from inception to October 2013, including MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley) and, additionally, for cost-effectiveness, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED; Wiley) and EconLit (EBSCOhost). Conference abstracts were also searched.
REVIEW METHODS
Studies were included based on an intervention of either fEVAR or bEVAR and a comparator of either OSR or no surgery. For clinical effectiveness, observational studies were excluded only if they were not comparative, i.e. explicitly selected on the basis of prognosis.
RESULTS
For clinical effectiveness, searches retrieved 5253 records before deduplication. Owing to overlap between the databases, 1985 duplicate records were removed. Of the remaining 3268 records, based on titles and abstracts, 3244 records were excluded, leaving 24 publications to be ordered. All 24 studies were excluded as none of them satisfied the inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies were excluded on study design, six on intervention and two on comparator. Five out of 16 studies excluded on study design reported a comparison. However, all of the studies acknowledged that they had groups that were not comparable at baseline given that they had selectively assigned younger, fitter patients to OSR. Therefore, these studies were considered 'non-comparative'. For cost-effectiveness, searches identified 104 references before deduplication. Owing to overlap between the databases, 34 duplicate records were removed. Of the remaining 70 records, seven were included for the full assessment based on initial screening. After a full-text review, no studies were included. Because of the lack of clinical effectiveness evidence and difficulty in estimating costs given the rapidly changing and variable technology, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was not performed. Instead a detailed description of modelling methods was provided.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite a thorough search, no studies could be found that met the inclusion criteria. All studies that compared either fEVAR or bEVAR with either OSR or no surgery explicitly selected patients based on prognosis, i.e. essentially the populations for each comparator were not the same. Despite not being able to conduct a CEA, we have provided detailed methods for the conduct if data becomes available.
FUTURE WORK
We recommend at least one clinical trial to provide an unbiased estimate of effect for fEVAR/bEVAR compared with OSR or no surgery. This trial should also collect data for a CEA.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006051.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aortic Aneurysm; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Databases, Factual; Endovascular Procedures; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Stents; Young Adult
PubMed: 25522080
DOI: 10.3310/hta18700 -
Biomedicines Jun 2022(1) Successful endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms is based on the complete exclusion of the aneurysm sac from the systemic circulation. Type Ia endoleak... (Review)
Review
(1) Successful endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms is based on the complete exclusion of the aneurysm sac from the systemic circulation. Type Ia endoleak (ELIA) is defined as the persistent perfusion of the aneurysm sac due to incomplete proximal sealing between aorta and endograft, with a consequent risk of rupture and death. Endoleak embolization has been sporadically reported as a viable treatment for ELIA. (2) A systematic literature search in PubMed of all publications in English about ELIA embolization was performed until February 2022. Research methods and reporting were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Data regarding patient numbers, technical success (endoleak absence at control angiography), reinterventions, clinical and imaging follow-up, and outcomes were collected and examined by two independent authors. (3) Twenty-one papers (12 original articles, 9 case reports) reported on 126 patients (age range 58-96 years) undergoing ELIA embolization 0-139 months after the index procedure. Indication for embolization was most often founded on unfavorable anatomy and patient comorbidities. Embolic agents used include liquid embolic agents, coils, plugs and combinations thereof. Technical success in this highly selected cohort ranged from 67-100%; the postprocedural complication rate within 30 days was 0-24%. ELIA recurrence was reported as 0-42.8%, with a secondary ELIA-embolization-intervention success rate of 50-100%. At a follow-up at 0-68 months, freedom from sac enlargement amounted to 76-100%, freedom from ELIA to 66.7-100%. (4) Specific literature about ELIA embolization is scant. ELIA embolization is a valuable bailout strategy for no-option patients; the immediate technical success rate is high and midterm and long-term outcomes are acceptable.
PubMed: 35740463
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10061442