Survival and durability after endovascular aneurysm repair reflect era-related surgical judgement.

OBJECTIVE: Abdominal aortic aneurysm management guidelines from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in 2020, based heavily on randomized controlled trials in an early era of infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), suggested that the long-term outcomes after EVAR jeopardize its use in elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. We hypothesized that, in a rapidly evolving surgical field, the era of aneurysm repair may have a significant influence on long-term patient outcomes. METHODS: Using a single-center retrospective cohort design, we identified two EVAR cohorts, the early cohort (n = 166) who underwent EVAR from 2008 to 2010, and a contemporary late cohort (n = 129) from 2015 to 2017. We assessed patient preoperative demographics and era of repair against the primary outcomes of reinterventions, reintervention-free survival, and mortality, addressing their relationships to anatomic selection criteria, graft durability, endoleak, and aneurysm diameter to 5 years after the procedure. RESULTS: Early cohort patients had decreased reintervention-free survival (early 80.1% vs late 93.3%) and decreased overall survival (early 71.3% vs late 81%) at 3 years and throughout follow-up. The preoperative anatomy judged suitable for EVAR in early cohort patients was more variable than for late cohort patients, including 104% larger proximal and 106% larger distal landing zone diameters, with a mean 11.6-mm shorter length infrarenal aortic and 13.3-mm shorter length iliac sealing zones in the early group. Early cohort patients had more complications during follow-up, including graft kinking and endoleaks, and 24.4% of early vs 8.5% of late patients underwent one or more reinterventions. CONCLUSIONS: Although technical skill in EVAR implantation may not evolve significantly after a threshold of cases, surgical judgement, relating to anatomic selection and device sizing, requires feedback from long-term sequalae and significantly impacted EVAR outcomes by era. EVAR patients from an early repair era had significantly worse outcomes, with more complications, reinterventions, and a decrease in survival.

Era of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair is linked to preoperative anatomic severity and perioperative patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incidence and severity of acute appendicitis: a comparison between 2019 and 2020.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, a decrease in the number of patients presenting with acute appendicitis was observed. It is unclear whether this caused a shift towards more complicated cases of acute appendicitis. We compared a cohort of patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic with a 2019 control cohort. METHODS: We retrospectively included consecutive adult patients in 21 hospitals presenting with acute appendicitis in a COVID-19 pandemic cohort (March 15 - April 30, 2020) and a control cohort (March 15 - April 30, 2019). Primary outcome was the proportion of complicated appendicitis. Secondary outcomes included prehospital delay, appendicitis severity, and postoperative complication rates. RESULTS: The COVID-19 pandemic cohort comprised 607 patients vs. 642 patients in the control cohort. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a higher proportion of complicated appendicitis was seen (46.9% vs. 38.5%; p = 0.003). More patients had symptoms exceeding 24 h (61.1% vs. 56.2%, respectively, p = 0.048). After correction for prehospital delay, presentation during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was still associated with a higher rate of complicated appendicitis. Patients presenting > 24 h after onset of symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic were older (median 45 vs. 37 years; p = 0.001) and had more postoperative complications (15.3% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Although the incidence of acute appendicitis was slightly lower during the first wave of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, more patients presented with a delay and with complicated appendicitis than in a corresponding period in 2019. Spontaneous resolution of mild appendicitis may have contributed to the increased proportion of patients with complicated appendicitis. Late presenting patients were older and experienced more postoperative complications compared to the control cohort.

Prohemostatic interventions in liver surgery.

Surgical procedures of the liver, such as partial liver resections and liver transplantation, are major types of abdominal surgery. Liver surgery can be associated with excessive intraoperative blood loss, not only because the liver is a highly vascularized organ, but also because it plays a central role in the hemostatic system. Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion of blood products have been shown to be negatively associated with postoperative outcome after liver surgery. Dysfunction of the liver is frequently accompanied with a dysfunctional hemostatic system. However, in general, there is a poor correlation between preoperative coagulation tests and the intraoperative bleeding risk in patients undergoing liver surgery. Strategies to avoid excessive blood loss in liver surgery have been an active field of research and include three different areas: surgical methods, anesthesiological methods, and pharmacological agents.Surgeons can minimize blood loss by clamping the hepatic vasculature, by using specific dissection devices, and by using topical hemostatic agents. Anesthesiologists play an important role in minimizing blood loss by avoiding intravascular fluid overload. Maintaining a low central venous pressure has shown to be very effective in reducing blood loss during partial liver resections. Prophylactic transfusion of blood products such as fresh frozen plasma (FFP) has not been shown to reduce intraoperative bleeding and even seems counterproductive as it results in an increase of the intravascular filling status, which may enhance the bleeding risk. In patients with liver cirrhosis, there is increasing evidence that factors such as portal hypertension and the hyperdynamic circulation play a more important role in the bleeding tendency than changes in the coagulation system. Therefore, intravenous fluid restriction rather than prophylactic administration of large volumes of blood products (i.e., FFP) is recommended in patients undergoing major liver surgery. Pharmacological agents such as antifibrinolytic drugs or recombinant factor VIIa may be indicated in selected individual patients, but these agents do not have a routine role in the management of patients undergoing liver surgery.