Witheford Miranda, Brandsma Amarins, Mastracci Tara M, Prent Anna
Division of Vascular Surgery, Complex Aortic Team, Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Department of Vascular Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Division of Vascular Surgery, Complex Aortic Team, Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
J Vasc Surg. 2022 Jan;75(1):126-135.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.07.128. Epub 2021 Jul 26.
Varying opinions on optimal elective and emergent surgical management of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms are expressed by the most recent Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS), European Society for Vascular Surgery, vs UK National Institutes for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. The UK National Institutes for Health and Care Excellence guidelines propose that open surgical repair serve as the default treatment for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. The rationale for this approach relied on data from the early era of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and are in contrast to the more balanced approaches of the SVS and European Society for Vascular Surgery. We hypothesize that significant differences in patient selection, management, and postoperative outcome are related to the era in which treatment was undertaken, contextualizing the outcomes reported in early-era EVAR randomized controlled trials.
Retrospectively, two cohorts representing all EVAR patients from "early" (n = 167; 2008-2010) and "late" (n = 129; 2015-2017) periods at a single treating institution were assembled. Primary outcomes of era-related changes in preoperative demographics, anatomy, and intraoperative events were assessed; anatomy was compared using the SVS anatomic severity grading system. These era-related differences were then placed in the context of early perioperative outcomes and at follow-up to 1 year.
Choice of surgical strategy differed by era, despite the same patient preoperative comorbidities between EVAR groups. Preoperative anatomic severity was significantly worse in the early cohort (P < .001), with adverse proximal and distal seal zone features (P < .001). Technical success was 16.2% higher in the late cohort, with significantly fewer type 1A/B endoleaks perioperatively (P < .001). In-hospital complications, driven by higher acute kidney injury and surgical site complications in the early cohort, resulted in a 16.5% difference between cohorts (P < .05). At 1 year of follow-up, outcome differences persisted; late-era patients had fewer 1A endoleaks, fewer graft complications, and better reintervention-free survival.
From a granular dataset of EVAR patients, we found an impact of EVAR repair era on early clinical outcomes; late cohort infrarenal EVAR patients had less severe preoperative anatomy and improved perioperative and follow-up outcomes to 1 year, suggesting that the results of early EVAR randomized controlled trials may no longer be generalizable to modern practice.
血管外科学会(SVS)、欧洲血管外科学会与英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)的最新指南对肾下腹主动脉瘤的最佳择期和急诊手术管理存在不同观点。英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所的指南建议开放手术修复作为肾下腹主动脉瘤的默认治疗方法。这种方法的依据是来自血管腔内动脉瘤修复(EVAR)早期的数据,与SVS和欧洲血管外科学会更为平衡的方法形成对比。我们假设患者选择、管理和术后结果的显著差异与治疗所处的时代有关,以此来解释早期EVAR随机对照试验中报告的结果。
回顾性地收集了代表单个治疗机构“早期”(n = 167;2008 - 2010年)和“晚期”(n = 129;2015 - 2017年)所有EVAR患者的两个队列。评估术前人口统计学、解剖结构和术中事件与时代相关变化的主要结果;使用SVS解剖严重程度分级系统比较解剖结构。然后将这些与时代相关的差异置于早期围手术期结果和1年随访的背景下。
尽管EVAR组患者术前合并症相同,但手术策略的选择因时代而异。早期队列的术前解剖严重程度明显更差(P <.001),近端和远端密封区特征不良(P <.001)。晚期队列的技术成功率高16.2%,围手术期1A/B型内漏明显更少(P <.001)。早期队列中较高的急性肾损伤和手术部位并发症导致住院并发症,队列之间存在16.5%的差异(P <.05)。在1年随访时,结果差异仍然存在;晚期患者的1A型内漏更少,移植物并发症更少,无再干预生存率更高。
从EVAR患者的详细数据集中,我们发现EVAR修复时代对早期临床结果有影响;晚期队列的肾下EVAR患者术前解剖结构不那么严重,围手术期和1年随访结果有所改善,这表明早期EVAR随机对照试验的结果可能不再适用于现代实践。