| 1. |
- Bath, Jonathan, et al.
(författare)
-
Contemporary outcomes after treatment of aberrant subclavian artery and Kommerell's diverticulum
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Vascular Surgery. - : Elsevier BV. - 0741-5214 .- 1097-6809. ; 77:5, s. 1339-1348.e6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: Aberrant subclavian artery (ASA) and Kommerell's diverticulum (KD) are rare vascular anomalies that may be associated with lifestyle-limiting and life-threatening complications. The aim of this study is to report contemporary outcomes after invasive treatment of ASA/KD using a large international dataset.Methods: Patients who underwent treatment for ASA/KD (2000-2020) were identified through the Vascular Low Frequency Disease Consortium, a multi-institutional collaboration to investigate uncommon vascular disorders. We report the early and mid-term clinical outcomes including stroke and mortality, technical success, and other operative outcomes including reintervention rates, patency, and endoleak.Results: Overall, 285 patients were identified during the study period. The mean patient age was 57 years; 47% were female and 68% presented with symptoms. A right-sided arch was present in 23%. The mean KD diameter was 47.4 mm (range, 13.0-108.0 mm). The most common indication for treatment was symptoms (59%), followed by aneurysm size (38%). The most common symptom reported was dysphagia (44%). A ruptured KD was treated in 4.2% of cases, with a mean diameter of 43.9 mm (range, 18.0-100.0 mm). An open procedure was performed in 101 cases (36%); the most common approach was ASA ligation with subclavian transposition. An endovascular or hybrid approach was performed in 184 patients (64%); the most common approach was thoracic endograft and carotid-subclavian bypass. A staged operative strategy was employed more often than single setting repair (55% vs 45%). Compared with endovascular or hybrid approach, those in the open procedure group were more likely to be younger (49 years vs 61 years; P < .0001), female (64% vs 36%; P < .0001), and symptomatic (85% vs 59%; P < .0001). Complete or partial symptomatic relief at 1 year after intervention was 82.6%. There was no association between modality of treatment and symptom relief (open 87.2% vs endovascular or hybrid approach 78.9%; P = .13). After the intervention, 11 subclavian occlusions (4.5%) occurred; 3 were successfully thrombectomized resulting in a primary and secondary patency of 95% and 96%, respectively, at a median follow-up of 39 months. Among the 33 reinterventions (12%), the majority were performed for endoleak (36%), and more reinterventions occurred in the endovascular or hybrid approach than open procedure group (15% vs 6%; P = .02). The overall survival rate was 87.3% at a median follow-up of 41 months. The 30-day stroke and death rates were 4.2% and 4.9%, respectively. Urgent or emergent presentation was independently associated with increased risk of 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 19.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.3-116.6), overall mortality (OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.2-11.2) and intraoperative complications (OR, 8.3; 95% CI, 2.8-25.1). Females had a higher risk of reintervention (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.0-6.5). At an aneurysm size of 44.4 mm, receiver operator characteristic curve analysis suggested that 60% of patients would have symptoms.Conclusions: Treatment of ASA/KD can be performed safely with low rates of mortality, stroke and reintervention and high rates of symptomatic relief, regardless of the repair strategy. Symptomatic and urgent operations were associated with worse outcomes in general, and female gender was associated with a higher likelihood of reintervention. Given the worse overall outcomes when symptomatic and the inherent risk of rupture, consideration of repair at 40 mm is reasonable in most patients. ASA/KD can be repaired in asymptomatic patients with excellent outcomes and young healthy patients may be considered better candidates for open approaches versus endovascular or hybrid modalities, given the lower likelihood of reintervention and lower early mortality rate.
|
|
| 2. |
- Budtz-Lilly, Jacob, et al.
(författare)
-
European Multicentric Experience With Fenestrated-branched ENDOvascular Stent Grafting After Previous FAILed Infrarenal Aortic Repair The EU-FBENDO-FAIL Registry
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgery. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 0003-4932 .- 1528-1140. ; 278:2, s. E389-E395
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective:To report the mid-term outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR) following a failed previous endovascular aneurysm repair (pEVAR) or previous open aneurysm repair (pOAR).Methods:Data from consecutive patients who underwent F-BEVAR for pEVAR or pOAR from 2006 to 2021 from 17 European vascular centers were analyzed. Endpoints included technical success, major adverse events, 30-day mortality, and 5-year estimates of survival, target vessel primary patency, freedom from reinterventions, type I/III endoleaks, and sac growth >5 mm.Background:Treatment of a failed previous abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is a complex undertaking. F-BEVAR is becoming an increasingly attractive option, although comparative data are limited regarding associated risk factors, indications for treatment, and various outcomes.Results:There were 526 patients included, 268 pOAR and 258 pEVAR. The median time from previous repair to F-BEVAR was 7 (interquartile range, 4-12) years, 5 (3-8) for pEVAR, and 10 (6-14) for pOAR, P<0.001. Predominant indication for treatment was type Ia endoleak for pEVAR and progression of the disease for pOAR. Technical success was 92.8%, pOAR (92.2%), and pEVAR (93.4%), P=0.58. The 30-day mortality was 6.5% overall, 6.7% for pOAR, and 6.2% for pEVAR, P=0.81. There were 1853 treated target vessels with 5-year estimates of primary patency of 94.4%, pEVAR (95.2%), and pOAR (94.4%), P=0.03. Five-year estimates for freedom from type I/III endoleaks were similar between groups; freedom from reintervention was lower for pEVAR (38.3%) than for pOAR (56.0%), P=0.004. The most common indication for reinterventions was for type I/III endoleaks (37.5%).Conclusions:Repair of a failed pEVAR or pOARis safe and feasible with comparable technical success and survival rates. While successful treatment can be achieved, significant rates of reintervention should be anticipated, particularly for issues related to instability of target vessels/bridging stents.
|
|
| 3. |
- D'Oria, Mario, et al.
(författare)
-
A scoping review of the rationale and evidence for cost-effectiveness analysis of fenestrated-branched endovascular repair for intact complex aortic aneurysms
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of Vascular Surgery. - : MOSBY-ELSEVIER. - 0741-5214 .- 1097-6809. ; 72:5, s. 1772-1782
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Cost-effectiveness analysis of new interventions is increasingly required by policymakers. For intact complex aortic aneurysms (CAAs), fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR) offers a minimally invasive alternative option for patients who are physically ineligible for open surgical repair (OSR). Thus, F/B-EVAR is increasingly used, but whether it represents a cost-effective treatment option remains unknown.Methods: A scoping review of the literature was conducted from the PubMed, Ovid Embase, and Scopus databases. They were searched to identify relevant English-language articles published from inception to December 31, 2019. All costs in the identified literature were transformed to U.S. dollar values by the following exchange rate: 1 GBP = 1.3 USD; 1 EUR = 1.1 USD.Results: At this literature search, no randomized clinical trials assessing cost-effectiveness of F/B-EVAR vs OSR for intact CAAs were found. Also, no health economic evaluation studies were found regarding use of F/B-EVAR in patients unfit for OSR. A Markov model analysis based on seven observational center- or registry-based studies published from 2006 to 2014 found that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for F/B-EVAR vs OSR was $96,954/quality-adjusted life-year. In the multicenter French Medical and Economical Evaluation of Fenestrated and Branched Stent-grafts to Treat Complex Aortic Aneurysms (WINDOW) registry (2010-2012), F/B-EVAR had a higher cost than OSR for a similar clinical outcome and was therefore economically dominated. At 2 years, costs were higher with F/B-EVAR for juxtarenal/pararenal aneurysms and infradiaphragmatic thoracoabdominal aneurysms but similar for supradiaphragmatic thoracoabdominal aneurysms. The higher costs were related to a $24,278 cost difference of the initial admission (95% of the difference at 2 years) due to stent graft costs. Both these studies, however, included a highly varying center experience with complex endovascular aortic repair, and their retrospective design is subject to selection bias for chosen treatment, which could affect the studied outcome. In contrast, in amore recent U.S. database analysis (879 thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repairs, 45% OSRs), the unadjusted total hospitalization cost of OSR was significantly higher compared with F/B-EVAR (median, $44,355 vs $36,612; P = .004). In-hospital mortality as well as major complications were two to three times higher after OSR, indicating that endovascular repair might be the economically dominant strategy.Conclusions: The literature regarding cost-effectiveness analysis of F/B-EVAR for intact CAAs is scarce and ambiguous. Based on the limited nonrandomized available evidence, stent grafts are the main driver for F/B-EVAR expenses, whereas cost-effectiveness in relation to OSR may vary by health care setting and selection of patients.
|
|
| 4. |
- D'Oria, Mario, et al.
(författare)
-
An International Expert-Based CONsensus on Indications and Techniques for aoRtic balloOn occLusion in the Management of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms (CONTROL-RAAA)
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Endovascular Therapy. - : Sage Publications. - 1526-6028 .- 1545-1550.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To report on the recommendations of an expert-based consensus on the indications, timing, and techniques of aortic balloon occlusion (ABO) in the management of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA).METHODS: Eleven facilitators created appropriate statements regarding the study issues that were voted on using a 4-point Likert scale with open-comment fields, by a selected panel of international experts (vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists) using a 3-round modified Delphi consensus procedure (study period: January-April 2023). Based on the experts' responses, only the statements reaching grade A (full agreement ≥75%) or B (overall agreement ≥80% and full disagreement <5%) were included in the final study report. The consistency of each round's answers was also graded using Cohen's kappa, the intraclass correlation coefficient, and, in case of double resubmission, Fleiss kappa.RESULTS: Sixty-three experts were included in the final analysis and voted on 25 statements related to indication and timing (n=6), and techniques (n=19) of ABO in the setting of rAAA. Femoral sheath or ABO should be preferably placed in the operating room, via a percutaneous transfemoral access, on a stiff wire (grade B, consistency I), ABO placement should be suprarenal and last less than 30 minutes (grade B, consistency II), postoperative peripheral vascular status (grade A, consistency II) and laboratory testing every 6 to 12 hours (grade B, consistency) should be assessed to detect complications. Formal training for ABO should be implemented (grade B, consistency I). Most of the statements in this international expert-based Delphi consensus study might guide current choices for indications, timing, and techniques of ABO in the management of rAAA. Clinical practice guidelines should incorporate dedicated statements that can guide clinicians in decision-making.CONCLUSIONS: At arrival and during both open or endovascular procedures for rAAA, selective use of intra-aortic balloon occlusion is recommended, and it should be performed preferably by the treating physician in aortic pathology.CLINICAL IMPACT: This is the first consensus study of international vascular experts aimed at defining the indications, timing, and techniques of optimal use of ABO in the clinical setting of rAAA. Aortic occlusion by endovascular means (or ABO) is a quick procedure in properly trained hands that may play an important role as a temporizing measure until the definitive aortic repair is achieved, whether by endovascular or open means. Since data on its use in hemodynamically unstable patients are limited in the literature, owing to practical challenges in the performance of well-conducted prospective studies, understanding real-world use by experts is of importance in addressing critical issues and identifying main gaps in knowledge.
|
|
| 5. |
- D'Oria, Mario, et al.
(författare)
-
Center volume and failure to rescue after open or endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Vascular Surgery. - : Elsevier BV. - 0741-5214 .- 1097-6809. ; 76:6, s. 1565-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The correlation between center volume and elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair outcomes is well established; however, these effects for either endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) or open aneurysm repair (OAR) of ruptured AAA (rAAA) remains unclear. Notably, the capacity to either avert or manage complications associated with postoperative mortality is an important cause of outcome disparities after elective procedures; however, there is a paucity of data surrounding nonelective presentations. Therefore, the purpose of this analysis was to describe the association between annual center volume, complications, and failure to rescue (FtR) after EVAR and OAR of rAAA.Methods: All consecutive endovascular and open rAAA repairs from 2010 to 2020 in the Vascular Quality Initiative were examined. Annual center volume (procedures/year per center) was grouped into quartiles: EVAR-Q1 (<14), 3.4%; Q2 (14-23), 12.8%; Q3 (24-37), 24.7%; and Q4 (>38), 59.1%; OAR-Q1 (<3), 5.4%; Q2 (4-6), 12.8%; Q3 (7-10), 22.7%; and Q4 (>10), 59.1%. The primary end point was FtR, defined as in-hospital death after experiencing one of six major complications (cardiac, renal, respiratory, stroke, bleeding, colonic ischemia). Risk-adjusted analyses for intergroup comparisons were completed using multivariable logistic regression.Results: The unadjusted in-hospital death rate was 16.5% and 28.9% for EVAR and OAR, respectively. Complications occurred in 45% of EVAR (n = 1439/3188) and 70% of OAR (n = 1366/1961) patients with corresponding FtR rates of 14% (EVAR) and 26% (OAR). For OAR, Q4-centers had a 43% lower FtR risk (odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-0.9; P =.017) compared with Q1 centers. Centers performing fewer than five OARs/year had a 43% lower risk (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7; P <.001) of FtR and this decreased 4% for each additional five procedures performed annually (95% CI, 0.93-0.991; P =.013). However, there was no significant relationship between center volume and FtR after EVAR. The risk of FtR was strongly associated with a greater number of complications for both procedures (OR multiplied by 6.5 for EVAR and 1.5 for OAR for each additional complication; P <.0001). Among OAR patients with a single recorded complication, return to the operating room for bleeding had highest risk of in-hospital mortality (OR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.8; P =.034), whereas no specific type of complication increased FtR risk after EVAR.Conclusions: FtR occurs commonly after EVAR and OAR of rAAA within Vascular Quality Initiative centers. Importantly, increasing center volume was associated with decreased FtR risk after OAR, but not EVAR. Complication pattern and frequency predicted FtR after either repair strategy. For stable patients, especially those deemed anatomically ineligible for EVAR, these findings emphasize the need to improve the coordination of regional referral networks that centralize rAAAs to high-volume centers. Moreover, hospitals that treat rAAA should invest in resources that develop protocols targeting specific complications to mitigate risk of preventable postoperative death.
|
|
| 6. |
- D'Oria, Mario, et al.
(författare)
-
Narrative review on endovascular techniques for left subclavian artery revascularization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair and risk factors for postoperative stroke
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1569-9293 .- 1569-9285. ; 32:5, s. 764-772
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVESThe aim of this study was to present a narrative review on endovascular techniques (ET) for revascularization of the left subclavian artery (LSA) during zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and on risk factors for postoperative stroke following TEVAR procedures.METHODSNon-systematic search of the literature from the PubMed, Ovid and Scopus databases to identify relevant English-language articles fully published in the period 1 January 2010–1 August 2020.RESULTSCurrent general agreement is that LSA revascularization should be always attempted in the elective setting. Under urgent circumstances, it can be delayed but might be considered during the same session on a case-by-case basis. Three ET are currently available: (i) chimney/snorkels (also known as parallel grafts), (ii) fenestrations or branches and (iii) proximal scallops. The main issue with ET is the potential for increased peri-operative stroke risk owing to increased manipulation within the aortic arch. Also, they are relatively novel and further assessment of their long-term durability is needed. Intra-operative embolism and loss of left vertebral artery perfusion are hypothesized as the main causes of stroke in patients undergoing TEVAR.CONCLUSIONSThe overall risk of stroke seems higher without LSA revascularization during zone 2 TEVAR. As LSA revascularization might have a direct effect in preventing posterior stroke, it should be routinely performed in elective cases, while a case-by-case evaluation can be made under urgent circumstances. While ET can provide effective options for LSA revascularization during zone 2 TEVAR, they are novel and need further durability assessment. Stroke after TEVAR is a multifactorial pathological process and preventing TEVAR-related cerebral injury remains a significant unmet clinical need.
|
|
| 7. |
- D'Oria, Mario, et al.
(författare)
-
PRINciples of optimal antithrombotiC therapy and coagulation managEment during elective fenestrated and branched EndovaScular aortic repairS (PRINCE2SS) : An International Expert Based Delphi Consensus Study
- 2022
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. - : Elsevier. - 1078-5884 .- 1532-2165. ; 63:6, s. 838-850
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- ObjectiveManagement of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing elective fenestrated branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR) is not standardised, nor are there any recommendations from current guidelines. By designing an international expert based Delphi consensus, the study aimed to create recommendations on the pre-, intra-, and post-operative management of antithrombotic therapy in patients scheduled for elective F-BEVAR in high volume centres.MethodsEight facilitators created appropriate statements regarding the study topic that were voted on, using a four point Likert scale, by a selected panel of international experts using a three round modified Delphi consensus process. Based on the experts’ responses, only those statements reaching Grade A (full agreement ≥ 75%) or B (overall agreement ≥ 80% and full disagreement < 5%) were included in the final document. The round answers’ consistency was graded using Cohen’s k, the intraclass correlation coefficient, and, in case of double re-submission, the Fleiss k.ResultsSixty-seven experts were included in the final analysis and voted the initial 43 statements related to pre- (n = 15), intra- (n = 10), and post-operative (n = 18) management of antithrombotic drugs. At the end of the process, six statements (13%) were rejected, 20 statements (44%) received a Grade B consensus, and 18 statements (40%) reached a Grade A consensus. Most statements (27; 71%) exhibited very high or high consistency grades, and 11 (29%) a fair or poor grading. The intra-operative statements mostly concentrated on threshold for and monitoring of proper heparinisation. The pre- and post-operative statements mainly focused on indications for dual antiplatelet therapy and its management, considering the possible need for cerebrospinal fluid drainage.ConclusionBased on the elevated strength and high consistency of this international expert based Delphi consensus, most of the statements might guide current clinical management of antithrombotic therapy for elective F-BEVAR. Future studies are needed to clarify the debated issues.
|
|
| 8. |
- DOria, Mario, et al.
(författare)
-
Robustness of Longitudinal Safety and Efficacy After Paclitaxel-Based Endovascular Therapy for Treatment of Femoro-Popliteal Artery Occlusive Disease : An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Annals of Vascular Surgery. - : Elsevier. - 0890-5096 .- 1615-5947. ; 101, s. 164-178
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background:The aims of this study were: i) to assess fragility indices (FIs) of individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared paclitaxel-based drug-coated balloons (DCBs) or drug-eluting stents (DESs) versus standard endovascular devices, and ii) to meta-analyze mid-term and long-term safety and efficacy outcomes from available RCT data while also estimating the FI of pooled results.Methods:This systematic review has been registered in the PROSPERO public database (CRD42022304326 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO). A query of PubMed (Medline), EMBASE (Excerpta Medical Database), Scopus, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases was performed to identify eligible RCTs. Rates of primary patency (PP) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) were assessed as efficacy outcomes, while lower limb amputation (LLA) consisting of major amputation that is. below or above the knee and all-cause mortality were estimated as safety outcomes. All outcomes were pooled with a random effects model to account for any clinical and study design heterogeneity. The analyses were performed by dividing the RCTs according to their maximal follow-up length (mid-term was defined as results up to 2-3 years, while long-term was defined as results up to 4-5 years). For each individual outcome, the FI and reverse fragility index (RFI) were calculated according to whether the outcome results were statistically significant or not, respectively. The fragility quotient (FQ) and reverse fragility quotient (RFQ), which are the FI or RFI divided by the sample size, were also calculated.Results:A total of 2,337 patients were included in the systematic review and meta -analysis. There were 2 RCTs examining DES devices and 14 RCTs evaluating different DCBs. For efficacy outcomes, there was evidence that paclitaxel-based endovascular therapy increased the PP rate and reduced the TLR rate at mid-term, with a calculated pooled risk ratio (RR) of 1.66 for patency (95% CI, 1.55-1.86; P < 0.001), with a corresponding number needed -totreat (NNT) of 3 patients (95% CI, 2.9-3.8) and RR of 0.44 for TLR (95% CI, 0.35-0.54; P = 0.027), respectively. Similarly, there was evidence that paclitaxel-based endovascular therapy both increased PP and decreased TLR rates at long-term, with calculated pooled RR values of 1.73 (95% CI, 1.12-2.61; P = 0.004) and 0.53 (95% CI, 0.45-0.62; P = 0.82), respectively. For safety outcomes, there was evidence that paclitaxel-based endovascular therapy increased all -cause mortality at mid-term, with a calculated pooled RR of 2.05 (95% CI, 1.21-3.24). However, there was no difference between treatment arms in LLA at mid-term (95% CI, 0.1-2.7; P = 0.68). Similarly, neither all -cause mortality nor LLA at long-term differed between treatment arms, with a calculated pooled RR of 0.66, 1.02 (95% CI, 0.31-3.42) and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.305.21; P = 0.22), respectively. The pooled estimates of PP at mid-term were robust (FI = 28 and FQ = 1.9%) as were pooled rates of TLR (FI = 18 and FQ = 0.9%). However, when safety outcomes were analyzed, the robustness of the meta -analysis decreased significantly. In fact, the relationship between the use of paclitaxel-coated devices and all -cause mortality at mid-term showed very low robustness (FI = 4 and FQ = 0.2%). At 5 years, only the benefit of paclitaxel-based devices to reduce TLR remained robust, with an FI of 32 and an FQ of 3.1%.Conclusions:The data supporting clinical efficacy endpoints of RCTs that examined paclitaxelbased devices in the treatment of femoral-popliteal arterial occlusive disease were robust; however, the pooled safety endpoints were highly fragile and prone to bias due to loss of patient follow-up in the original studies. These findings should be considered in the ongoing debate concerning the safety of paclitaxel-based devices.
|
|
| 9. |
- D'Oria, Mario, et al.
(författare)
-
The Association Between Body Mass Index and Death Following Elective Endovascular and Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in the Vascular Quality Initiative
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. - : Elsevier BV. - 1078-5884 .- 1532-2165. ; 66:1, s. 27-36
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: The effect of body mass index (BMI) on post-operative outcomes after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair remains poorly defined. The association between BMI and death following elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open aneurysm repair (OAR) of AAA in a large national quality registry is investigated.Methods: All elective AAA repairs within the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI; 2010 to September 2021) were reviewed (EVAR, n = 53 426; OAR, n = 9 479). All analyses were conducted separately for EVAR and OAR patients. The primary end points were 30 day mortality and five year survival rates. Study cohorts were divided into World Health Organisation BMI categories (C1 < 18.5, C2 18.5 <= BMI < 25, C3 25 <= BMI < 30, C4, 30 <= BMI < 35, C5 35 <= BMI < 40, C6 >= 40). BMI was examined as both a categorical and continuous variable. Logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression were used for risk adjustment.Results: Among EVAR patients, BMI distribution was C1, 1 216 (2%); C2, 14 687 (28%); C3, 20 516 (38%); C4, 11 352 (21%); C5, 3 947 (7%); C6, 1 708 (3%). Class 1, 2, and 6 BMI patients experienced an increased 30 daymortality rate (C1 2.6%; C2 1.3%; C6 1.4% vs. C3 - 5 0.7%; p < .001) and C1 and C2 had correspondingly inferior long termsurvival (five years: C1 69 +/- 3%; C2 79 +/- 1% vs. C3 - 6 86 - 88 +/- 2%; log rank p <.001). These survival disparities persisted after risk adjustment formultiple confounders. In the OAR cohort, BMI distribution was C1, 280 (3%); C2, 2 862 (30%); C3, 3 587 (38%); C4, 1 940 (21%); C5, 581 (6%); C6, 229 (2%). Crude 30 day mortality rates were increased for both the lowest and highest BMI patients (C1 12%, C6 7% vs. C2 - 5 3 - 4%; p < .001); these differences also persisted in long term survival (five years: C1 71 +/- 6%, C6 82 +/- 6% vs. C2 - 6 85 - 88 +/- 3%; log rank p <.001). In risk adjusted analysis, both low and high BMI OAR patients had an increased 30 day and long term mortality rate.Conclusion: Within the VQI, both the extreme low (< 18.5) and high (>= 40) BMI groups experienced an increased 30 day mortality rate after both elective EVAR and OAR. By comparison, while the lowest BMI cohort was significantly associated with decreased long term survival after both procedures, the highest BMI group only experienced reduced long termsurvival after OAR. Based upon this large real world registry analysis of elective AAA repairs, differential metabolic signatures exist within extreme BMI categories, which may inform peri-operative risk stratification and clinical decision making.
|
|
| 10. |
- Grandi, Alessandro, et al.
(författare)
-
Risk Prediction Models for Peri-Operative Mortality in Patients Undergoing Major Vascular Surgery with Particular Focus on Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms : A Scoping Review
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Medicine. - : MDPI. - 2077-0383. ; 12:17
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose. The present scoping review aims to describe and analyze available clinical data on the most commonly reported risk prediction indices in vascular surgery for perioperative mortality, with a particular focus on ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA). Materials and Methods. A scoping review following the PRISMA Protocols Extension for Scoping Reviews was performed. Available full-text studies published in English in PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE databases (last queried, 30 March 2023) were systematically reviewed and analyzed. The Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) framework used to construct the search strings was the following: in patients with aortic pathologies, in particular rAAA (population), undergoing open or endovascular surgery (intervention), what different risk prediction models exist (comparison), and how well do they predict post-operative mortality (outcomes)? Results. The literature search and screening of all relevant abstracts revealed a total of 56 studies in the final qualitative synthesis. The main findings of the scoping review, grouped by the risk score that was investigated in the original studies, were synthetized without performing any formal meta-analysis. A total of nine risk scores for major vascular surgery or elective AAA, and 10 scores focusing on rAAA, were identified. Whilst there were several validation studies suggesting that most risk scores performed adequately in the setting of rAAA, none reached 100% accuracy. The Glasgow aneurysm score, ERAS and Vancouver score risk scores were more frequently included in validation studies and were more often used in secondary studies. Unfortunately, the published literature presents a heterogenicity of results in the validation studies comparing the different risk scores. To date, no risk score has been endorsed by any of the vascular surgery societies. Conclusions. The use of risk scores in any complex surgery can have multiple advantages, especially when dealing with emergent cases, since they can inform perioperative decision making, patient and family discussions, and post hoc case-mix adjustments. Although a variety of different rAAA risk prediction tools have been published to date, none are superior to others based on this review. The heterogeneity of the variables used in the different scores impairs comparative analysis which represents a major limitation to understanding which risk score may be the "best" in contemporary practice. Future developments in artificial intelligence may further assist surgical decision making in predicting post-operative adverse events.
|
|
