RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Post-dissection abdominal aortic aneurysms (pDAAA) may develop in up to 7% of patients affected by aortic dissection. However, there is no consensus on the optimal management. Different endovascular and open surgical techniques have been reported. This case-series describes the open surgical technique employed at a tertiary vascular surgery center to manage this complex pathology to allow future treatment of the visceral aorta if needed. A systematic review of the relevant literature on surgical and endovascular management of pDAAA was conducted. METHOD: Consecutive patients surgically treated at a single center for pDAAA metachronous to a Stanford type A or type B aortic dissection from January 2018 to March 2023 were retrospectively retrieved. The surgical technique we employed entails the use of large-diameter bifurcated grafts (≥ 9 mm branches) with longer main body, fenestration of the septum at renal arteries ostia and landing on a common femoral artery in case of small caliber iliac arteries (< 8 mm) to provide a suitable landing zone and access route for future endovascular thoracoabdominal repair in case of subsequent aneurysmal degeneration. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were major complications, late mortality, aortic-related mortality, and aortic-related reinterventions. Then, a systematic review of the literature until March 2023 was conducted. RESULTS: Five patients were included, all males with a mean age of 61 years. 30-day mortality was 0. One patient suffered from post-operative acute kidney injury and acute distress respiratory syndrome, and another one underwent repeat laparotomy for abdominal seroma. The mean follow-up was 44 months with no aortic-related reinterventions to date. One patient died from non-aortic-related causes 9 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Open repair of pDAAA appears to be an effective treatment in selected patients, with low mortality rates, and technical choices should consider future endovascular treatment of the thoracoabdominal aorta.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: A critical issue in the preoperative assessment of a patient with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) is death risk prediction. The traditional and modified Harborview Risk Score (tHRS and mHRS) consider readily available variables to estimate 30-day mortality. The aim of the study was to validate tHRS and mHRS in a rAAA external population. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing rAAA repair from January 2012 to January 2024 at a tertiary Vascular Surgery Center were retrospectively reviewed. The scores were calculated for each patient; receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC), area under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and calibration plots were built to evaluate discrimination and calibration. Furthermore, the relationship of mortality with score variables was updated running a multivariate logistic model, and then applied to one thousand bootstrap samples. RESULTS: One hundred and five patients treated for rAAA (97 males, 92.4%) were included in the study (77 ± 8.5 years). An endovascular repair (rEVAR) was performed in 35 patients (3 women, 80 ± 9.0 years) while an open repair (rOAR) in 70 patients (5 women, 75 ± 8.0 years). The 30-day mortality rate was 31.4%, (33/105), 25.7% (9/35), and 34.3% (24/70) for rEVAR and rOAR, respectively (p 0.5). Eight patients (7.6%) were on therapy with warfarin at the time of admission. AUC for tHRS was 0.56 while AUC for mHRS was 0.68 (DeLong test = 0.29). The tHRS' calibration showed underestimation for patients with predicted mortality <25% and overestimation for the remaining; for mHRS, the predictions were well calibrated for patients with estimated mortality <40% with overprediction afterward. The model update demonstrated that the wider effects are due to the interaction between the HRS factors. CONCLUSIONS: tHRS and mHRS showed limited prediction capability with 30-day mortality overestimation in an external validation, raising many concerns about their extended and systematic application. Interaction between factors should be taken into account to enhance the score's performance, especially in high risk patients.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Comparison of hybrid and total endovascular aortic arch repair at two tertiary vascular surgery centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing hybrid (HG) or total endovascular (TEG) total aortic arch repair for aneurysms or dissections were included (2008-2022). Primary outcome measure was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were major complications, technical success (defined as absence of surgical conversion/mortality, high-flow endoleaks or branch/limb occlusion), clinical success (defined as absence of disabling clinical sequelae), late and aortic-related mortality/reinterventions, freedom from endoleaks, aortic diameter growth > 5 mm, graft migration and supra-aortic trunks (SAT) patency. RESULTS: In total, 30 patients were included, 17 in HG and 13 in TEG. TEG presented shorter intervention time (240.5 vs 341 min, p = 0.01), median ICU stay (1 vs 4.5 days, p < 0.01) and median length of stay (8 vs 17.5 days, p < 0.01). No intraoperative deaths occurred. Technical success was 100%; clinical success was 70.6% in HG and 100% in TEG (p = 0.05). Thirty-day mortality was 13.3%, exclusively in HG (p = 0.11). Nine major complications occurred in 8 patients, 5 in HG and 3 in TEG (p = 0.99), among which five strokes, two in HG and three in TEG (p = 0.62). Late mortality was 38.5%, six patients in HG and four in TEG, p = 0.6. Two late aortic-related deaths occurred in HG (p = 0.9). Two aortic-related reinterventions, no graft migration or SAT occlusion was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Total endovascular repair seems to shorten operative times and provide higher clinical success compared with hybrid solutions, without significant 30-day mortality differences. The most common major complication is stroke.
Assuntos
Aneurisma do Arco Aórtico , Aneurisma , Aneurisma da Aorta Torácica , Implante de Prótese Vascular , Procedimentos Endovasculares , Acidente Vascular Cerebral , Humanos , Prótese Vascular , Aneurisma da Aorta Torácica/diagnóstico por imagem , Aneurisma da Aorta Torácica/cirurgia , Aneurisma da Aorta Torácica/etiologia , Endoleak/cirurgia , Implante de Prótese Vascular/efeitos adversos , Resultado do Tratamento , Procedimentos Endovasculares/efeitos adversos , Aneurisma/cirurgia , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/cirurgia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Despite promising early results, midterm failures of the Nellix endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) system (Endologix Inc, Irvine, Calif) have been reported at higher than expected rates. The management of proximal endoleaks and migration differs from those after conventional endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) owing to the peculiar design of the Nellix device. In the present study, we report a monocentric experience in the management of EVAS complications using various techniques. We also performed a comprehensive review of the relevant literature on both open surgical and endovascular management of proximal failure of EVAS from the MEDLINE database. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the reinterventions for type Ia endoleak and migration after elective infrarenal EVAS at our institution. We collected preoperative, intraoperative, and follow-up data. Open and endovascular techniques are described. Overall survival, aortic-related mortality, and the technical success rate (rate of exclusion of endoleaks) with endovascular techniques were the primary outcomes. RESULTS: We performed 101 infrarenal elective EVAS procedures from 2013 to 2018. Of the 101 patients, 20 (19.8%) had required reintervention for proximal sealing failure. The indications were type Ia (Is2, Is3) endoleak, migration >5 mm, sac expansion >5 mm, and secondary rupture. Of the 20 patients, 6 (30%) were treated with endovascular techniques-2 with a chimney Nellix-in-Nellix application and 4 with proximal relining with a covered stent. The remaining 14 patients (70%) were treated with late open conversion (OC). The average time from EVAS to reintervention was 36.1 months (range, 3-65 months). Six patients (30%) had undergone OC in an emergent setting because of secondary rupture. The technical success rate for the patients treated with endovascular reinterventions was 100%. The 30-day mortality was 20% (4 of 20), all emergent cases (four of six emergent repairs; 67%). The overall survival for the 20 patients was 75% (n = 15) at a mean follow-up of 15.1 months (range, 2-47 months). One patient had died after 7 months of non-aortic-related causes. CONCLUSIONS: The high reintervention rate of the Nellix graft mandates careful evaluation for its further use with the revised instructions for use, and it should not be used off-label. OC remains the strategy of choice when managing Nellix proximal sealing failures in fit patients. Chimney Nellix-in-Nellix application and transcatheter embolization are feasible alternative techniques. Proximal relining also appears to be an effective alternative to more complex interventions, although it requires further studies for validation.
Assuntos
Aneurisma da Aorta Abdominal/cirurgia , Implante de Prótese Vascular/efeitos adversos , Remoção de Dispositivo , Endoleak/cirurgia , Procedimentos Endovasculares/efeitos adversos , Migração de Corpo Estranho/cirurgia , Falha de Prótese , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Aneurisma da Aorta Abdominal/diagnóstico por imagem , Aneurisma da Aorta Abdominal/mortalidade , Prótese Vascular , Implante de Prótese Vascular/instrumentação , Implante de Prótese Vascular/mortalidade , Remoção de Dispositivo/efeitos adversos , Remoção de Dispositivo/mortalidade , Endoleak/diagnóstico por imagem , Endoleak/etiologia , Endoleak/mortalidade , Procedimentos Endovasculares/instrumentação , Procedimentos Endovasculares/mortalidade , Feminino , Migração de Corpo Estranho/diagnóstico por imagem , Migração de Corpo Estranho/etiologia , Migração de Corpo Estranho/mortalidade , Humanos , Itália , Masculino , Desenho de Prótese , Reoperação , Estudos Retrospectivos , Medição de Risco , Fatores de Risco , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective multicenter study was to compare antibiotic therapy and appendectomy as treatment for patients with uncomplicated appendicitis confirmed by ultrasound and/or computed tomography. METHODS: The study was conducted from January 2017 to January 2018. Data regarding all patients discharged from the participating centers with a diagnosis of uncomplicated appendicitis were collected prospectively. RESULTS: Of the 318 patients enrolled in the study, 27.4% underwent antibiotic-first therapy, and 72.6% underwent appendectomy. The matched group was composed of 87 patients in both study arms. Of the 87 patients available of 1-year follow-up in the antibiotic-first group, 64 (73.6%) did not require appendectomy. The complication-free treatment success in the antibiotic-first group was 64.4%. A statistically significant higher complication-free treatment success was found in the appendectomy group: 81.8% in the pre-matching sample and 83.9% in the post-matching sample. Patients in the antibiotic-first group reported lower VAS scores compared to those treated with an appendectomy, both at discharge (2.0 ± 1.7 vs 3.6 ± 2.3) and at 30-day follow-up (0.3 ± 0.6 vs 2.1 ± 1.7). The mean of the days of absence from work was higher in the appendectomy group (ß 0.63; 95% CI 0.08-1.18). CONCLUSION: Although laparoscopic appendectomy remains the gold standard of treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis, conservative treatment with antibiotics is a safe option in most cases. Approximately 65% of patients treated with antibiotics are symptom-free at 1 year, without increased risk of adverse events should symptoms recur, and better outcomes in terms of less pain and shorter period of absence from work compared to patients undergoing an appendectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT03080103.
Assuntos
Apendicectomia , Apendicite , Doença Aguda , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Apendicite/tratamento farmacológico , Apendicite/cirurgia , Tratamento Conservador , Humanos , Assistência Centrada no Paciente , Pontuação de Propensão , Estudos Prospectivos , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: A limited number of studies investigating perioperative risk factors associated with emergency appendectomy in elderly patients have been published to date. Whether older age may be associated with poorer outcomes following appendectomy is still a matter of debate. The primary aim of this study was to determine the predictors of postoperative morbidity following appendectomy in patients aged ≥ 65 years. METHODS: Data regarding all elderly patients who underwent emergency appendectomy from January 2017 to June 2018 admitted 36 Italian surgical departments were prospectively collected and analyzed. Baseline demographics and perioperative variables were evaluated. Uni- and multivariate analyses adjusted for differences between groups were carried out to determine possible predictors of adverse outcomes after appendectomy. RESULTS: Between January 2017 and June 2018, 135 patients aged ≥ 65 years with a diagnosis of AA met the study inclusion criteria. Twenty-six patients (19.3%) were diagnosed with some type of postoperative complication. Decreasing the preoperative hemoglobin level showed a statistically significant association with postoperative complications (OR 0.77, CI 0.61-0.97, P = 0.03). Preoperative creatinine level (P = 0.02, OR 2.04, CI 1.12-3.72), and open appendectomy (P = 0.03, OR 2.67, CI 1.11-6.38) were significantly associated with postoperative morbidity. After adjustment, the only independent predictor of postoperative morbidity was preoperative creatinine level (P = 0.04, OR 2.01, CI 1.05-3.89). CONCLUSIONS: In elderly patients with AA, perioperative risk assessment in the emergency setting must be as accurate as possible to identify modifiable risk factors that can be addressed before surgery, such as preoperative hemoglobin and creatinine levels.
Assuntos
Apendicite , Laparoscopia , Idoso , Apendicectomia/efeitos adversos , Apendicite/cirurgia , Humanos , Tempo de Internação , Morbidade , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Estudos Prospectivos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) is an innovative alternative to conventional endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). EVAS relies on sac anchoring without proximal fixation to achieve sealing and should have allowed for the treatment of a broader range of anatomic features compared with standard EVAR. Despite the encouraging early reports, the mid- and long-term follow-up data have shown increased rates of failure. To address the issue, the manufacturer introduced revised instructions for use (IFU) in 2016. The present study reports the outcomes of this system after a median follow-up of 45 months. METHODS: Data for all patients electively treated with EVAS at our institution were retrospectively collected. The patients were retrospectively reclassified according to the 2016 revised IFU of the device. All patients in the present series had undergone EVAS for the treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). The primary end point was therapeutic failure: graft migration >5 mm, sac expansion >5 mm, type IA endoleak (Is2 and Is3 using the Van den Ham classification), type Ib endoleak, and secondary rupture. The overall mortality, aortic-related mortality, and reintervention rates were also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients had undergone elective treatment by EVAS from 2013 to 2018 for infrarenal AAAs. The median follow-up was 3.75 years. Therapeutic failure was observed in 31 of the 101 patients (30.7%), with no significant difference between the in-IFU and off-IFU 2016 subgroups. Failure occurred at a median interval of 34 months from the index procedure. Of the 101 patients, 6.9% had presented with secondary rupture. Freedom from aneurysm-related mortality was 96.9% at 1 and 2 years and 89.9% at 5 years. Freedom from reintervention decreased over time: 94.7% at 1 year, 77% at 4 years, and 52.1% at 6 years. Of the 101 patients, 14 (13.9%) had undergone emergent or elective graft explantation. CONCLUSIONS: EVAS performed worse than conventional endografts for several critical end points, regardless of any preoperative anatomic parameters. The incidence of therapeutic failures tended to increase over time, especially 4 years after the index procedure.
Assuntos
Aneurisma da Aorta Abdominal/cirurgia , Ruptura Aórtica/etiologia , Implante de Prótese Vascular/instrumentação , Prótese Vascular , Endoleak/etiologia , Procedimentos Endovasculares/instrumentação , Migração de Corpo Estranho/etiologia , Falha de Prótese , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Aneurisma da Aorta Abdominal/diagnóstico por imagem , Aneurisma da Aorta Abdominal/mortalidade , Ruptura Aórtica/diagnóstico por imagem , Ruptura Aórtica/mortalidade , Ruptura Aórtica/cirurgia , Implante de Prótese Vascular/efeitos adversos , Implante de Prótese Vascular/mortalidade , Remoção de Dispositivo , Endoleak/diagnóstico por imagem , Endoleak/mortalidade , Endoleak/cirurgia , Procedimentos Endovasculares/efeitos adversos , Procedimentos Endovasculares/mortalidade , Feminino , Migração de Corpo Estranho/diagnóstico por imagem , Migração de Corpo Estranho/mortalidade , Migração de Corpo Estranho/cirurgia , Humanos , Masculino , Intervalo Livre de Progressão , Desenho de Prótese , Reoperação , Estudos Retrospectivos , Medição de Risco , Fatores de Risco , Fatores de Tempo , Falha de TratamentoRESUMO
Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common causes of acute lower abdominal pain leading patients to the emergency department. Significant debate remains on whether AA should be operated or not. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed in seven Italian Hospitals, with the aim to assess safety and feasibility both nonoperative management with antibiotics (AT) and surgical therapy with appendectomy (ST) for patients with AA. Data regarding all patients discharged from the participating centers with a diagnosis of appendicitis from January 1st, 2014 to December 31st, 2014 were collected retrospectively. Follow-up data were collected from January 1st, 2015 to December 31st, 2016. The complication-free treatment success of AT (53.7%) was significantly inferior to that of ST (86.4%) (P < 0.0001). Patients initially treated with antibiotics reported an index admission AT failure rate of 20.9% and a recurrence rate at 1-year follow-up of 20.3%. No statistically significant difference was found when comparing AT and ST groups for the outcome of interest post-operative complications (13.5 vs 13.6%, P = 0.834). Patients treated with AT were discharged home earlier than patients in the ST group (3.38 ± 1.89 vs 4.84 ± 2.69 days, P < 0.0001). Due to the low rates of complications occurred in the ST group and the high efficacy of the surgical therapy, laparoscopic appendectomy still represents the most effective treatment for patients with AA. AT is associated with shorter hospital stay and faster return to normal activity, and may prevent from appendectomies around 80% of patients who leave the hospital with clinical recovery.
Assuntos
Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Apendicectomia/métodos , Apendicite/terapia , Adulto , Apendicite/tratamento farmacológico , Apendicite/cirurgia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pontuação de PropensãoRESUMO
PURPOSE: Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common causes of lower abdominal pain and admissions to the emergency department. Over the past 20 years, there has been a renewed interest in the conservative management of uncomplicated AA, and several studies demonstrated that an antibiotic-first strategy is a viable treatment option for uncomplicated AA. The aim of this prospective non-randomized controlled, multicenter trial is to compare antibiotic therapy and emergency appendectomy as treatment for patients with uncomplicated AA confirmed by US and/or CT or MRI scan. METHODS: All adult patients in the age range 18 to 65 years with suspected AA, consecutively admitted to the Surgical Department of the 13 participating Italian Hospitals, will be invited to take part in the study. A multicenter prospective collected registry developed by surgeons, radiologists, and pathologists with expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis represents the best research method to assess the long-term role of antibiotics in the management of the disease. Comparison will be made between surgical and antibiotic-first approaches to uncomplicated AA through the analysis of the primary outcome measure of complication-free treatment success rate based on 1-year follow-up. Quality of life, length of hospital stay, pain evaluation, and time to return to normal activity will be evaluated as secondary outcome measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03080103.