Influence of psoas muscle area on mortality following elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: The effect of sarcopenia based on the total psoas muscle area (TPMA) on CT is inconclusive in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) intervention. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate morphometric sarcopenia as a method of risk stratification in patients undergoing elective AAA intervention. METHODS: TPMA was measured on preintervention CT images of patients undergoing elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) or open aneurysm repair. Mortality was assessed in relation to preintervention TPMA using Cox regression analysis, with calculation of hazard ratios at 30 days, 1 year and 4 years. Postintervention morbidity was evaluated in terms of postintervention care, duration of hospital stay and 30-day readmission. Changes in TPMA on surveillance EVAR imaging were also evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 382 patient images acquired between March 2008 and December 2016 were analysed. There were no significant intraobserver and interobserver differences in measurements of TPMA. Preintervention TPMA failed to predict morbidity and mortality at all time points. The mean(s.d.) interval between preintervention and surveillance imaging was 361·3(111·2) days. A significant reduction in TPMA was observed in men on surveillance imaging after EVAR (mean reduction 0·63(1·43) cm2 per m2 ; P < 0·001). However, this was not associated with mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1·00, 95 per cent c.i. 0·99 to 1·01; P = 0·935). CONCLUSION: TPMA is not a suitable risk stratification tool for patients undergoing effective intervention for AAA.

The role of cardiopulmonary exercise testing and echocardiography prior to elective endovascular aneurysm repair.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) are common preparative investigations prior to elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Whether these investigations can predict survival following EVAR and contribute to shared decision making is unknown. METHODS: Patients who underwent EVAR at a tertiary centre between June 2007 and December 2014 were identified from the National Vascular Registry. Variables obtained from preoperative investigations were assessed for their association with survival at three years. Regression analysis was used to determine variables that independently predicted survival at three years. RESULTS: A total of 199 patients underwent EVAR during the study period. Of these, 120 had preoperative CPET and 123 had TTE. Lower forced expiratory ventilation (FEV1), ratio of FEV1 to forced vital capacity, work at peak oxygen consumption and higher ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide were associated with increased mortality. Variables obtained from TTE were not associated with survival at three years although there was a low incidence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction and significant valvular disease in this cohort. CONCLUSIONS: CPET might be a useful adjunct to assist in shared decision making in patients undergoing elective EVAR and may influence anaesthetic technique. TTE does not appear to be able to discriminate between high and low risk individuals. However, a low rate of significant ventricular dysfunction and valvular disease in patients undergoing elective EVAR may account for these findings.

Cadaveric allograft implantation to maintain limb viability in a case of traumatic pseudoaneurysm and poor native vessels.

Infected pseudoaneurysms are a vascular emergency, necessitating urgent surgical management. Owing to the infected field, a synthetic graft may be inappropriate in patients for whom autografting is impossible. Ligation of the artery is the usual management, often leading to amputation. We report a case of cadaveric allografting of the common femoral artery in a patient with a traumatic, infected pseudoaneurysm, who was taking immunosuppressive therapy for a liver transplant. The patient was followed up with ultrasound at 12 months and was found to have a significant graft stenosis, which was treated successfully with angioplasty. At 18 months, the patient remained well. This case describes the successful implantation of a cadaveric allograft into a patient with an infected pseudoaneurysm, negating the for need primary ligation.

Meta-analysis of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair versus open surgical repair of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms over the last 10 years.

Background: Juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms pose a significant challenge whether managed endovascularly or by open surgery. Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is now well established, but few studies have compared it with open surgical repair (OSR). The aim of this systematic review was to compare short- and long-term outcomes of FEVAR and OSR for the management of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms. Methods: A literature search was conducted of the Ovid Medline, EMBASE and PubMed databases. Reasons for exclusion were series with fewer than 20 patients, studies published before 2007 and those concerning ruptured aneurysms. Owing to variance in definitions, the terms 'juxta/para/suprarenal' were used; thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms were excluded. Primary outcomes were 30-day/in-hospital mortality and renal insufficiency. Secondary outcomes included major complication rates, rate of reintervention and rates of endoleak. Results: Twenty-seven studies were identified, involving 2974 patients. Study designs included 11 case series, 14 series within retrospective cohort studies, one case-control study and a single prospective non-randomized trial. The pooled early postoperative mortality rate following FEVAR was 3·3 (95 per cent c.i. 2·0 to 5·0) per cent, compared with 4·2 (2·9 to 5·7) per cent after OSR. After FEVAR, the rate of postoperative renal insufficiency was 16·2 (10·4 to 23·0) per cent, compared with 23·8 (15·2 to 33·6) per cent after OSR. The major early complication rate following FEVAR was 23·1 (16·8 to 30·1) per cent versus 43·5 (34·4 to 52·8) per cent after OSR. The rate of late reintervention after FEVAR was higher than that after OSR: 11·1 (6·7 to 16·4) versus 2·0 (0·6 to 4·3) per cent respectively. Conclusion: No significant difference was noted in 30-day mortality; however, FEVAR was associated with significantly lower morbidity than OSR. Long-term durability is a concern, with far higher reintervention rates after FEVAR.

Antecedentes: Los aneurismas de la aorta abdominal yuxtarrenal plantean un gran reto sobre si tratarlos de forma endovascular o mediante cirugía abierta. La reparación del aneurisma con endoprótesis fenestrada (fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair, FEVAR) no esta consolidada, sin embargo, algunos pocos estudios, la comparan con la reparación quirúrgica por vía abierta (open surgical repair, OSR). El objetivo de esta revisión sistemática fue comparar los resultados a corto y largo plazo de FEVAR y OSR para el tratamiento de los aneurismas aórticos yuxtarrenales. Métodos: Se llevó a cabo una búsqueda de la literatura en las bases de datos Ovid Medline, EMBASE y Pubmed. Las razones para exclusión fueron series con menos de 20 pacientes, aquellas publicadas antes de 2007 y los trabajos sobre aneurismas rotos. Debido a las diferencias en las definiciones, se utilizaron los términos "yuxta/para/suprarrenal"; se excluyeron los aneurismas de la aorta tóracoabdominal. Los resultados primarios fueron la mortalidad a 30 días/intrahospitalaria y la insuficiencia renal. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron las tasas de complicaciones mayores, tasa de reintervención y tasas de fugas internas. Resultados: Se identificaron un total de 27 estudios, que incluían 2.974 pacientes. Los diseños de los estudios incluían 11 series de casos, 12 estudios de cohortes retrospectivos, un estudio caso­control y un único ensayo no aleatorizado prospectivo. La mortalidad postoperatoria precoz agrupada tras FEVAR fue del 3,3% (i.c. del 95% 2,0­5,0), comparado con el 4,2% (i.c. del 95% 2,9­5,7) tras OSR. Después de FEVAR, la tasa de insuficiencia renal postoperatoria fue del 16,2% (i.c. del 95% 10,4­23,0) comparada con el 23,8% (i.c. del 95% 15,2­33,6) después de OSR. La tasa de complicaciones mayores precoces tras FEVAR fue del 23,1% (i.c. del 95% 16,8­30,1) comparada con el 43,5% (i.c. del 95% 34,4­52,8) después de OSR. La tasa de reintervención tardía tras FEVAR fue superior que tras OSR: 11,1% (i.c. del 95% 6,7­16,4) y 2,0% (i.c. del 95% 0,6­4,3), respectivamente. Conclusión: No se observaron diferencias significativas en la mortalidad a los 30 días, sin embargo, FEVAR presentó una morbilidad significativamente menor que OSR. La durabilidad a largo plazo es una preocupación con muchas mayores tasas de reintervención después de FEVAR.

Coronary subclavian steal syndrome-is there a need for routine assessment for subclavian artery stenosis following coronary bypass surgery?

Subclavian artery stenosis (SAS) resulting in coronary subclavian steal syndrome (CSSS) is a common but under recognized pathology following coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). Patients with SAS may be asymptomatic due to the sub-clinical diversion of blood flow from the myocardium and retrograde blood flow during catheter angiography in the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) may be the first suggestion of CSSS. The management of SAS, causing CSSS, may rarely require acute assessment and intervention. However, full anatomical assessment of the stenosis morphology may be limited on fluoroscopy. Correction of SAS may be essential to achieve effective reperfusion therapy.