Editor's Choice -- European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2024 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-Iliac Artery Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries in succession to the 2011 and 2019 versions, with the aim of assisting physicians and patients in selecting the best management strategy. METHODS: The guideline is based on scientific evidence completed with expert opinion on the matter. By summarising and evaluating the best available evidence, recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients have been formulated. The recommendations are graded according to a modified European Society of Cardiology grading system, where the strength (class) of each recommendation is graded from I to III and the letters A to C mark the level of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 160 recommendations have been issued on the following topics: Service standards, including surgical volume and training; Epidemiology, diagnosis, and screening; Management of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), including surveillance, cardiovascular risk reduction, and indication for repair; Elective AAA repair, including operative risk assessment, open and endovascular repair, and early complications; Ruptured and symptomatic AAA, including peri-operative management, such as permissive hypotension and use of aortic occlusion balloon, open and endovascular repair, and early complications, such as abdominal compartment syndrome and colonic ischaemia; Long term outcome and follow up after AAA repair, including graft infection, endoleaks and follow up routines; Management of complex AAA, including open and endovascular repair; Management of iliac artery aneurysm, including indication for repair and open and endovascular repair; and Miscellaneous aortic problems, including mycotic, inflammatory, and saccular aortic aneurysm. In addition, Shared decision making is being addressed, with supporting information for patients, and Unresolved issues are discussed. CONCLUSION: The ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines provide the most comprehensive, up to date, and unbiased advice to clinicians and patients on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms.

Time Dependent Correlation Between Sac Behaviour and Re-intervention after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the correlation between aneurysm sac behaviour and time to re-intervention after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study of patients who underwent EVAR at a single centre between January 2008 and November 2011 and who were followed up for a mean of 6.6 ± 2.9 years was conducted. Based on sac appearances on pre-operative imaging and imaging at the end of follow up, patients were stratified into two groups: (1) sac regression; and (2) no sac regression. The no sac regression group was further subdivided into stable sac group and sac expansion group. Sac regression and expansion throughout follow up were defined as a decrease or increase in the abdominal aortic aneurysm sac diameter of ≥ 5 mm compared with the pre-operative size. A Cox proportional hazards model using multiple failure per subject data was used to identify sac behaviour as a predictor of re-intervention free time. RESULTS: Patients with sac regression had a higher probability of freedom from re-intervention compared with those with a stable or expanding aneurysm sac (94%, 57%, and 16% at 12 years, respectively; log rank, p < .001). Mean time to re-intervention was 11.3 years for the sac regression group, 8.8 years for the stable sac group, and 5.0 years for the sac expansion group (p < .001). In the stable sac group, the risk of re-intervention increased sharply six years after EVAR, whereas in the sac expansion group a sharp rise in re-intervention was noted 3.5 years after EVAR, reaching a plateau after year 6. CONCLUSION: A time dependent correlation between aneurysm sac behaviour and re-intervention was found. Such findings have implications for surveillance strategies.

Systematic Review of the Effect of Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage on Outcomes After Endovascular Descending Thoracic/Thoraco-Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether prophylactic use of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage in endovascular descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (DTAA) and thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair contributes to a lower rate of post-operative spinal cord ischaemia (SCI). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. REVIEW METHODS: A literature review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration no. CRD42021245893). Risk of bias was assessed through the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS), and the certainty of evidence was graded using the GRADE approach. A proportion meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the pooled rate and 95% confidence interval (CI) of both early and late onset SCI. Pooled outcome estimates were calculated using the odds ratio (OR) and associated 95% CI. The primary outcome was SCI, both early and lateonset. Secondary outcomes were complications of CSF drainage, length of hospital stay, and peri-operative (30 day or in hospital) mortality rates. RESULTS: Twenty-eight observational, retrospective studies were included, reporting 4 814 patients (2 599 patients with and 2 215 without CSF drainage). The NOS showed a moderate risk of bias. The incidence of SCI was similar in patients with CSF drainage (0.05, 95% CI 0.03 ‒ 0.08) and without CSF drainage (0.05, 95% CI 0.00 ‒ 0.14). No significant decrease in SCI was found when using CSF drainage (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29 ‒ 1.55, p = .35). The incidence rate of CSF drainage related complication was 0.10 (95% CI 0.04 ‒ 0.19). The 30 day and in hospital mortality rate with CSF drainage was 0.08 (95% CI 0.05 ‒ 0.12). The 30 day and in hospital mortality rate without CSF drainage and comparison with late mortality and length of hospital stay could not be determined due to lack of data. The quality of evidence was considered very low. CONCLUSION: Pre-operative CSF drainage placement was not related to a favourable outcome regarding SCI rate in endovascular TAAA and DTAA repair. Due to the low quality of evidence, no clear recommendation on pre-operative use of CSF drainage placement can be made.

Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Using E-health Technologies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Technological advances have provided innovative, adaptive, and responsive models of care for inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD]. We conducted a systematic review to compare e-health interventions with standard care in management of IBD. METHODS: We searched electronic databases for randomised, controlled trials [RCT] comparing e-health interventions with standard care for patients with IBD. Effect measures were standardised mean difference [SMD], odds ratio [OR], or rate ratio [RR], calculated using the inverse variance or Mantel-Haenszel statistical method and random-effects models. Version 2 of the Cochrane tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was appraised with the GRADE framework. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs [n = 3111; 1754 e-health and 1357 controls] were identified. The difference in disease activity scores (SMD 0.09, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.09-0.28) and clinical remission (odds ratio [OR] 1.12, 95% CI: 0.78-1.61) between e-health interventions and standard care were not statistically significant. Higher quality of life [QoL] [SMD 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05-0.35) and IBD knowledge [SMD 0.23, 95% CI: 0.10-0.36] scores were noted in the e-health group, and self-efficacy levels [SMD -0.09, 95% CI: -0.22-0.05] were comparable. E-health patients had fewer office [RR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.78-0.93] and emergency [RR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51- 0.95] visits, with no statistically significant difference in endoscopic procedures, total health care encounters, corticosteroid use, and IBD related hospitalisation or surgery. The trials were judged to be at high risk of bias or to have some concerns for disease remission. The certainty of evidence was moderate or low. CONCLUSION: E-health technologies may have a role in value-based care in IBD.

Midterm changes in iliac limb apposition after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: Literature is scarce on the course of iliac endograft limb apposition after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), which is why this study was conducted. METHODS: A retrospective observational imaging study was performed to measure iliac apposition of endograft limbs on the first post-EVAR computed tomography angiography (CTA) scan and on the latest available follow-up CTA scan. With center lumen line reconstructions and CT-applied dedicated software, the shortest apposition length (SAL) of the endograft limbs was assessed as well as the distance between the end of the fabric and the proximal border of the internal iliac artery or the endograft-internal artery distance (EID). RESULTS: Ninety-two iliac endograft limbs were eligible for measurements, with a median follow-up of 3.3 years. At the first post-EVAR CTA, the mean SAL was 31.9±15.6 mm, and the mean EID was 19.5±11.8. At the last follow-up CTA, there was a significant decrease in apposition of 10.5±14.1 mm (P<0.001) and a significant increase in EID of 5.3±9.5 mm (P<0.001). A type Ib endoleak developed in three patients due to a reduced SAL. The apposition was <10 mm in 24% of limbs at the last follow-up vs. 3% at the first post-EVAR CTA. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study documented a significant decrease in post-EVAR iliac apposition over time, partly due to retraction of iliac endograft limbs at mid-term CTA follow-up. Further research is required to identify whether regular determination of iliac apposition may predict and prevent type IB endoleaks.

Editor's Choice - Meta-Analysis of Compliance with Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Surveillance: The EVAR Surveillance Paradox.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the survival of patients who attended surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with those who were non-compliant. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and Embase were searched using the Ovid interface. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review was conducted complying with the PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies compared survival in EVAR surveillance compliant patients with non-compliant patients. Non-compliance was defined as failure to attend at least one post-EVAR follow up. The risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were survival and aneurysm related death. Effect measures were the hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) calculated using the inverse variance or Mantel-Haenszel statistical method and random effects models. RESULTS: Thirteen cohort studies with a total of 22 762 patients were included. Eight studies were deemed high risk of bias. The pooled proportion of patients who were non-compliant with EVAR surveillance was 43% (95% CI 36 - 51). No statistically significant difference was found in the hazard of all cause mortality (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 - 1.77), aneurysm related mortality (HR 1.80, 95% CI 0.85-3.80), or secondary intervention (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.31 - 1.41) between patients who had incomplete and complete follow up after EVAR. The odds of aneurysm rupture were lower in non-compliant patients (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39 - 1.01). The certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes. Subgroup analysis for patients who had no surveillance vs. those with complete surveillance showed no significant difference in all cause mortality (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.43 - 2.80). CONCLUSION: Patients who were non-compliant with EVAR surveillance had similar survival to those who were compliant. These findings question the value of intense surveillance in all patients post-EVAR and highlight the need for further research on individualised or risk adjusted surveillance.

Pre-Emptive Embolization of the Aneurysm Sac or Aortic Side Branches in Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: To investigate outcomes of pre-emptive embolization of the aneurysm sac or aortic side branches in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: The review was reported as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 with a preregistered protocol. Bibliographic sources (MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL) were searched using subject headings and free text terms. Randomized controlled trials comparing EVAR with versus without embolization were included. Pooled estimates of dichotomous outcomes were calculated using odds ratio (OR) or risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) applying the Mantel-Haenszel method. Continuous outcomes were summarized using mean difference (MD) and 95% CI applying the inverse variance method. The certainty of evidence was appraised with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. Version 2 of the Cochrane tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Trial sequential analysis assumed alpha = 5% and power = 80%. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials were included. No significant difference was found in aneurysm-related mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), overall mortality (OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.42-8.13), aneurysm rupture (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), type II endoleak-related reintervention (RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.06), procedure time (MD 20.12, 95% CI -11.54 to 51.77), or fluoroscopy time (MD 11.17, 95% CI -11.22 to 33.56). Patients with pre-emptive embolization had significantly lower odds of type II endoleak (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26-0.78) and sac expansion (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07-0.52). The risk of bias was high for all outcomes. The certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes, except for type II endoleak, for which it was low. Trial sequential analysis showed an inconclusive result for overall mortality and type II endoleak-related reintervention but confirmed the advantage of embolization in reducing type II endoleak and sac expansion. CONCLUSIONS: Limited, low certainty data suggest pre-emptive embolization confers no clinical benefits in EVAR.

Echocardiographic Changes in Cardiac Function After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests thoracic stent grafts increase the aortic stiffness postimplantation. Our objective was to examine the effect of thoracic aortic stenting on heart function, as demonstrated with echocardiography. METHODS: We considered nonrandomized studies examining echocardiographic parameters (left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricle end-diastolic (LVED) and end-systolic diameter (LVESD), posterior wall thickness (LVPWT), interventricular septal thickness (IVST), mass, and mass index) pre and poststent graft implantation in patients with thoracic aortic diseases (aneurysm, dissection, and blunt injury). MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched (up to March 2021) for eligible studies. The National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool was used for risk of bias assessment. Echocardiographic data pre and postimplantation were compared using the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Four studies were included in the meta-analysis. Three of the studies were judged to be "good" quality and one "fair". Nonsignificant differences pre and postimplantation were found for ejection fraction (SMD = -0.53, 95% CI = -1.8 to 0.728, P = 0.406), IVST (SMD = -0.79, 95%, CI = -3.25 to 1.66, P = 0.52), EDD (SMD = -0.10, 95% CI = -0.48 to 0.28, P = 0.60), ESD (SMD = -0.66, 95% CI = -2.35 to 1.02, P = 0.44), and PWT (SMD = -2.20, 95% CI = -5.89 to 1.47, P = 0.24). A trend toward an increase in mass postimplantation was found (SMD = 0.28, 95%, CI = -0.03 to 0.60, P = 0.08), but there was no significant difference in mass index (SMD = 0, 95%, CI = -0.195 to 0.195, P = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Thoracic aortic stenting does not appear to significantly impact cardiac physiology as indicated by echocardiographic parameters.

Prognostic prediction models for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: protocol for a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has a marked short-term advantage over open surgical repair in managing abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA); however, this benefit is lost in the long term. The current trend towards stratified medicine has given rise to diverse prognostic prediction models and scoring systems for EVAR. These models could act as decision support tools that employ patient and operative factors, to improve long-term outcomes. Past literature evaluated and compared model performance for predicting one outcome, for example, mortality. None were deemed competent for clinical application. The proposed study will use a scoping review approach to capture literature on prognostic modelling in EVAR for all predictable outcomes. The results are anticipated to inform future research, identify knowledge gaps, and assist in determining the potential of models for clinical use. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The proposed study will use the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping Reviews as a framework for conducting the review. PubMed Central, Embase and Cochrane Library will be searched and screened for peer-reviewed studies on prognostic modelling for EVAR, published between 2000 and 2022. No limits exist on predictor variables used and outcomes predicted by the model for inclusion, provided they apply to AAA patients managed with EVAR. Data will be abstracted using a charting form based on the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies guidelines and PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. The Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis checklist will be used to critically appraise included studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Since scoping reviews cover secondary data from published literature, ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and presentations at key conferences.

Updated guideline for closure of abdominal wall incisions from the European and American Hernia Societies.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a frequent complication of abdominal wall incision. Surgical technique is an important risk factor for the development of incisional hernia. The aim of these updated guidelines was to provide recommendations to decrease the incidence of incisional hernia. METHODS: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed on 22 January 2022. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network instrument was used to evaluate systematic reviews and meta-analyses, RCTs, and cohort studies. The GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used to appraise the certainty of the evidence. The guidelines group consisted of surgical specialists, a biomedical information specialist, certified guideline methodologist, and patient representative. RESULTS: Thirty-nine papers were included covering seven key questions, and weak recommendations were made for all of these. Laparoscopic surgery and non-midline incisions are suggested to be preferred when safe and feasible. In laparoscopic surgery, suturing the fascial defect of trocar sites of 10 mm and larger is advised, especially after single-incision laparoscopic surgery and at the umbilicus. For closure of an elective midline laparotomy, a continuous small-bites suturing technique with a slowly absorbable suture is suggested. Prophylactic mesh augmentation after elective midline laparotomy can be considered to reduce the risk of incisional hernia; a permanent synthetic mesh in either the onlay or retromuscular position is advised. CONCLUSION: These updated guidelines may help surgeons in selecting the optimal approach and location of abdominal wall incisions.

An incisional hernia results from a weakness of the abdominal wall muscles that allows fat from the inside or organs to bulge out. These hernias are quite common after abdominal surgery at the site of a previous incision. There is research that discusses different ways to close an incision and this may relate to the chance of hernia formation. The aim of this study was to review the latest research and to provide a guide for surgeons on how best to close incisions to decrease hernia rates. When possible, surgery through small incisions may decrease the risk of hernia formation. If small incisions are used, it may be better if they are placed away from areas that are already weak (such as the belly button). If the incision is larger than 1 cm, it should be closed with a deep muscle-fascia suture in addition to skin sutures. If there is a large incision in the middle of the abdomen, the muscle should be sutured using small stitches that are close together and a slowly absorbable suture should be used. For patients who are at higher risk of developing hernias, when closing the incision, the muscle layer can be strengthened by using a piece of (synthetic) mesh. There is no good research available on recovery after surgery and no clear guides on activity level or whether a binder will help prevent hernia formation.

Editor's Choice - Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in High Risk Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in high risk patients. METHODS: Bibliographic sources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL) were searched using combinations of thesaurus and free text terms. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021287207) and reported according to PRISMA 2020. Pooled estimates were calculated using odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) applying the Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance method. EVAR peri-operative mortality in high risk patients over time was examined with mixed effects meta-regression. The GRADE framework was used to rate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: The pooled peri-operative mortality in 18 416 high risk patients who underwent EVAR was 3% (95% CI 2.3 - 4%) and has significantly reduced over time (year of publication p = .003; median study point p = .023). The peri-operative mortality was significantly lower in high risk patients treated with EVAR compared with open repair (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.45 - 0.92), but no significant difference was found in overall (HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.76 - 1.49) or aneurysm related mortality (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.21 - 1.55). No significant difference was found in overall mortality between high risk patients treated with EVAR vs. no intervention (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.14 - 1.26), but the aneurysm related mortality was significantly lower in the former (HR 0.30; 95% CI 0.14 - 0.63). The peri-operative mortality was higher in high risk than normal risk patients treated with EVAR (OR 2.33; 95% CI 1.75 - 3.10), as was the overall mortality (HR 3.50; 95% CI 2.55 - 4.80). The certainty of evidence was very low for EVAR vs. open surgery or no intervention and low for high vs. normal risk patients. CONCLUSION: The EVAR peri-operative mortality in high risk patients has improved over time. Even though the aneurysm related mortality of EVAR is lower compared with no intervention, EVAR may confer no overall survival benefit.