Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an abnormal ballooning of the major abdominal artery. Some AAAs present as emergencies and require surgery; others remain asymptomatic. Treatment of asymptomatic AAAs depends on many factors, but the size of the aneurysm is important, as risk of rupture increases with aneurysm size. Large asymptomatic AAAs (greater than 5.5 cm in diameter) are usually repaired surgically; very small AAAs (less than 4.0 cm diameter) are monitored with ultrasonography. Debate continues over the roles of early repair versus surveillance with repair on subsequent enlargement in people with asymptomatic AAAs of 4.0 cm to 5.5 cm diameter. This is the fourth update of the review first published in 1999. OBJECTIVES: To compare mortality and costs, as well as quality of life and aneurysm rupture as secondary outcomes, following early surgical repair versus routine ultrasound surveillance in people with asymptomatic AAAs between 4.0 cm and 5.5 cm in diameter. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, two other databases, and two trials registers to 10 July 2019. We handsearched conference proceedings and checked reference lists of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials where people with asymptomatic AAAs of 4.0 cm to 5.5 cm were randomly allocated to early repair or imaging-based surveillance at least every six months. Outcomes had to include mortality or survival. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data, which were cross-checked by other team members. Outcomes were mortality, costs, quality of life, and aneurysm rupture. For mortality, we estimated risk ratios (RR) (endovascular aneurysm repair only), hazard ratios (HR) (open repair only), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on Mantel-Haenszel Chi2 statistics at one and six years (open repair only) following randomisation. MAIN RESULTS: We found no new studies for this update. Four trials with 3314 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two trials compared early open repair with surveillance and two trials compared early endovascular repair (EVAR) with surveillance. We used GRADE to access the certainty of the evidence for mortality and cost, which ranged from high to low. We downgraded the certainty in the evidence from high to moderate and low due to risk of bias concerns and imprecision (some outcomes were only reported by one study). All four trials showed an early survival benefit in the surveillance group (due to 30-day operative mortality with repair) but no evidence of differences in long-term survival. One study compared early open repair with surveillance with an adjusted HR of 0.88 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.02, mean follow-up 10 years; HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.54, mean follow-up 4.9 years). Pooled analysis of participant-level data from the two trials comparing early open repair with surveillance (maximum follow-up seven to eight years) showed no evidence of a difference in survival (propensity score-adjusted HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.18; 2226 participants; high-certainty evidence). This lack of treatment effect did not vary to three years by AAA diameter (P = 0.39), participant age (P = 0.61), or for women (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.11). Two studies compared EVAR with surveillance and there was no evidence of a survival benefit for early EVAR at 12 months (RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.73 to 5.06; 846 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two trials reported costs. The mean UK health service costs per participant over the first 18 months after randomisation were higher in the open repair surgery than the surveillance group (GBP 4978 in the repair group versus GBP 3914 in the surveillance group; mean difference (MD) GBP 1064, 95% CI 796 to 1332; 1090 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was a similar difference after 12 years. The mean USA hospital costs for participants at six months after randomisation were higher in the EVAR group than in the surveillance group (USD 33,471 with repair versus USD 5520 with surveillance; MD USD 27,951, 95% CI 25,156 to 30,746; 614 participants; low-certainty evidence). After four years, there was no evidence of a difference in total medical costs between groups (USD 48,669 with repair versus USD 46,112 with surveillance; MD USD 2557, 95% CI -8043 to 13,156; 614 participants; low-certainty evidence). All studies reported quality of life but used different assessment measurements and results were conflicting. All four studies reported aneurysm rupture. There were very few ruptures reported in the trials of EVAR versus surveillance up to three years. In the trials of open surgery versus surveillance, there were ruptures to at least six years and there were more ruptures in the surveillance group, but most of these ruptures occurred in aneurysms that had exceeded the threshold for surgical repair. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of an advantage to early repair for small AAA (4.0 cm to 5.5 cm), regardless of whether open repair or EVAR is used and, at least for open repair, regardless of patient age and AAA diameter. Thus, neither early open nor early EVAR of small AAAs is supported by currently available evidence. Long-term data from the two trials investigating EVAR are not available, so, we can only draw firm conclusions regarding outcomes after the first few years for open repair. Research regarding the risks related to and management of small AAAs in ethnic minorities and women is urgently needed, as data regarding these populations are lacking.

Editor's Choice - Sex Related Differences in Peri-operative Mortality after Elective Repair of an Asymptomatic Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in the Netherlands: a Retrospective Analysis of 2013 to 2018.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare peri-operative (30 day and/or in hospital) mortality between women and men in the Netherlands after elective repair of an asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). METHODS: This was a retrospective study using data from the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA), a mandatory nationwide registry of patients undergoing AAA repair in the Netherlands. Patients who underwent elective open surgical (OSR) or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of an asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) between 2013 and 2018 were included. Absolute risk differences (ARDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in peri-operative mortality between women and men were estimated. Logistic regression analyses were performed to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for mortality. Confounders included pre-operative cardiac and pulmonary comorbidity, serum haemoglobin, serum creatinine, type of AAA repair, and AAA diameter. RESULTS: Some 1662 women and 9637 men were included, of whom 507 (30.5%) women and 2056 (21.3%) men underwent OSR (p < .001). Crude peri-operative mortality was 3.01% in women and 1.60% in men (ARD = 1.41%, 95% CI 0.64-2.37). This significant difference was also observed for OSR (ARD = 2.63%, 95% CI 0.43-5.36), but not for EVAR (ARD = 0.36%, 95% CI -0.16 to 1.17). Female sex remained associated with peri-operative mortality after adjusting for confounders (OR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.20-2.65, p = .004), which was similarly observed for OSR (OR = 1.85, 95% CI 1.16-2.94, p = .01), but not for EVAR (OR = 1.46, 95% CI 0.72-2.95, p = .29). CONCLUSIONS: Peri-operative mortality after elective repair of an asymptomatic AAA in the Netherlands is higher in women than in men. This disparity might be explained by the higher peri-operative mortality in women undergoing OSR, because no such difference was found in patients undergoing EVAR. Yet, it is likely that there are unaccounted factors at play since female sex remained significantly associated with mortality after adjusting for type of repair.

Dual-Imaging Stress Echocardiography for Prognostic Assessment of High-Risk Asymptomatic Patients with Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: In patients with diabetes, the utility of diagnostic screening cardiac tests in subjects without clinical coronary artery disease remains controversial. The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic meaning of dual-imaging stress echocardiography (conventional wall motion analysis and Doppler-derived coronary flow velocity reserve [CFVR] of the left anterior descending coronary artery) in high-risk asymptomatic individuals with diabetes. METHODS: This was a prospective analysis of 230 asymptomatic patients with diabetes (128 men; mean age, 66 ± 9 years) with no clinical evidence of coronary artery disease, no Q waves or deep negative waves on the electrocardiogram, and no wall motion abnormalities on resting echocardiography. Of these subjects, 147 (64%) had target organ damage and 83 (36%) had two or more associated cardiovascular risk factors. All patients underwent dipyridamole stress echocardiography with CFVR assessment of the left anterior descending coronary artery by transthoracic Doppler, and test results were entered into a database at the time of testing for a clinical and outcome follow-up (mean, 4.6 ± 2.7 years). RESULTS: Inducible ischemia and reduced CFVR (≤2) were detected in six and 52 patients, respectively. A total of 54 subjects (23%) had abnormal test results (ischemia or reduced CFVR). During follow-up, 39 major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) occurred: 22 hard events (18 deaths and four nonfatal myocardial infarctions) and 17 coronary revascularizations. The yearly incidence rates of hard events and MACEs in the entire study population were 2.1% and 3.6%, respectively. Abnormal test results were the only multivariate indicator of both hard events (hazard ratio, 3.69; 95% CI, 1.54-8.80) and MACEs (hazard ratio, 6.12; 95% CI, 3.22-11.62). CONCLUSIONS: Abnormal test results were obtained in one of four cases and were a strong and independent predictor of future hard events and MACEs.

Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an abnormal ballooning of the major abdominal artery. Some AAAs present as emergencies and require surgery; others remain asymptomatic. Treatment of asymptomatic AAAs depends on many factors, but an important one is the size of the aneurysm, as risk of rupture increases with aneurysm size. Large asymptomatic AAAs (greater than 5.5 cm in diameter) are usually repaired surgically; very small AAAs (less than 4.0 cm diameter) are monitored with ultrasonography. Debate continues over the appropriate roles of immediate repair and surveillance with repair on subsequent enlargement in people presenting with asymptomatic AAAs of 4.0 cm to 5.5 cm diameter. This is the third update of the review first published in 1999. OBJECTIVES: To compare mortality, quality of life, and cost effectiveness of immediate surgical repair versus routine ultrasound surveillance in people with asymptomatic AAAs between 4.0 cm and 5.5 cm in diameter. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (February 2014) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 1). We checked reference lists of relevant articles for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in which men and women with asymptomatic AAAs of diameter 4.0 cm to 5.5 cm were randomly allocated to immediate repair or imaging-based surveillance at least every six months. Outcomes had to include mortality or survival. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three members of the review team independently extracted the data, which were cross-checked by other team members. Risk ratios (RR) (endovascular aneurysm repair only), hazard ratios (HR) (open repair only), and 95% confidence intervals based on Mantel-Haenszel Chi(2) statistic were estimated at one and six years (open repair only) following randomisation. We included all relevant published studies in this review. MAIN RESULTS: For this update, four trials with a combined total of 3314 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two trials compared surveillance with immediate open repair; two trials compared surveillance with immediate endovascular repair. Overall, the risk of bias within the included studies was low and the quality of the evidence high. The four trials showed an early survival benefit in the surveillance group (due to 30-day operative mortality with surgery) but no significant differences in long-term survival (adjusted HR 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.02, mean follow-up 10 years; HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.54, mean follow-up 4.9 years; HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.93, median follow-up 32.4 months; HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.07, mean follow-up 20 months). A pooled analysis of participant-level data from two trials (with a maximum follow-up of seven to eight years) showed no statistically significant difference in survival between immediate open repair and surveillance (propensity score-adjusted HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.18), and that this lack of treatment effect did not vary by AAA diameter (P = 0.39) or participant age (P = 0.61). The meta-analysis of mortality at one year for the endovascular trials likewise showed no significant association (RR at one year 1.15, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.17). Quality-of-life results among trials were conflicting. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results from the four trials to date demonstrate no advantage to immediate repair for small AAA (4.0 cm to 5.5 cm), regardless of whether open or endovascular repair is used and, at least for open repair, regardless of patient age and AAA diameter. Thus, neither immediate open nor immediate endovascular repair of small AAAs is supported by currently available evidence.

Risk scoring system to predict 3-year survival in patients treated for asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors and stratify their effect of compromising 3-year survival in patients treated for asymptomatic carotid disease based upon recently updated guidelines from the Society for Vascular Surgery. METHODS: Outcomes of 506 patients who underwent carotid intervention for asymptomatic carotid disease (1999-2008) were analyzed. Hospital computerized medical records were reviewed. When local records were sparse, Social Security Death Index was queried to confirm mortality. Following multivariable Cox regression analysis, a score was assigned based on the calculated hazard ratio (HR) in the following fashion: HR 1.5-1.9 = 1 point; HR 2.0-3.0 = 2 points; and HR >3 = 3 points. The sum of those points comprised the final score for each patient. Kaplan-Meier analyses were then performed to delineate survival differences. RESULTS: Seventy patients (13.83%) did not survive beyond 3 years after the procedure. Age >80 years (HR, 1.79; P = .05; score 1), diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.99; P < .05; score 1), coronary artery intervention (HR, 2.03; P < .01; score 2), severe chronic kidney disease defined as glomerular filtration rate <30 and not on dialysis (HR, 2.46; P = .03; score 2), dialysis patients (HR, 5.67; P = .001; score 3), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 3.53; P < .001; score 3) negatively influenced 3-year survival. Patients with score ≤2 experienced 3-year mortality of 6.0%, whereas score >2 was associated with 31.6% 3-year mortality (HR, 6.10; P < .001). The score value was not associated with the stroke rate at any time point. The resultant score was validated in a separate population of patients with symptomatic carotid disease. CONCLUSIONS: This easy predictive score underscores the association of medical risk factors with decreased 3-year survival. This finding may impact future clinical decisions for management of asymptomatic carotid disease.