Editor's Choice - Renal complications after EVAR with suprarenal versus infrarenal fixation among all users and routine users.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies comparing endografts with suprarenal and infrarenal fixation for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) have found conflicting results and did not account for differences in patient selection. This study aims to evaluate the differences in outcomes among surgeons who routinely use either suprarenal or infrarenal fixation, as well as all surgeons in the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE). METHODS: All patients undergoing EVAR in the VSGNE from 2003 to 2014 were identified. All ruptured aneurysms, repairs with concomitant procedures, and infrequently used stent grafts (<50) were excluded. Suprarenal endografts included Talent, Zenith, and Endurant; infrarenal endografts included AneuRx and Excluder. Grafts were compared among surgeons who used only one type of endograft (suprarenal or infrarenal) for >80% of cases, as well as all surgeons. Multivariate regression and Cox hazard models were utilised to account for patient demographics, comorbidities, operative differences, and procedure year. RESULTS: This study identified 2574 patients (suprarenal, 1264; infrarenal, 1310) with 888 endografts placed by routine users (suprarenal, 409; infrarenal, 479). There were no differences in baseline comorbidities, including the estimated glomerular filtration rate, between suprarenal and infrarenal fixation, or between patients with endografts placed by routine and non-routine users. Patients treated with suprarenal endografts received more contrast than all users (102 mL vs. 100 mL, p = .01) and routine users (110 mL vs. 88 mL, p < .01), but other vascular and operative details were similar. Among all users, patients treated with suprarenal grafts had higher rates of creatinine increase >.5 mg/dL (3.7% vs. 2.0%, p = .01), length of stay >2 days (27% vs. 19%, p < .01), and discharge to a skilled nursing facility (9.2% vs. 6.7%, p = .02). There were no differences in 30 day or 1 year mortality. Following adjustment, suprarenal stent grafts remained associated with an increased risk of renal deterioration (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.2-3.4) and prolonged length of stay (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.4-2.2). Among routine users, suprarenal fixation was also associated with higher rates of renal dysfunction (3.7% vs. 1.3%, p = .02; OR 2.9; 95% CI 1.1-7.8). CONCLUSION: Despite potential differences in patient selection, endografts with suprarenal fixation among all users and routine users were associated with higher rates of renal deterioration and longer length of hospital stay. Longer-term data are needed to determine the duration and severity of renal function decline and to identify potential benefits of decreased migration or endoleak.

Comparison of outcomes after endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in low-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: In randomized trials endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been shown to have superior perioperative outcomes compared with open aneurysm repair (OAR). However, outcomes in patients at low risk of complications are unclear and many surgeons still prefer OAR in this cohort. The objective was to analyse perioperative and longer-term outcomes of OAR and EVAR in this low-risk group of patients. METHODS: All elective infrarenal EVARs and OARs in the Vascular Study Group of New England database were reviewed from 2003 to 2014. The Medicare scoring system was used to identity patients at low risk of perioperative complications and death. Perioperative and longer-term outcomes were analysed in this cohort. A Kaplan-Meier plot was constructed for evaluation of longer-term survival. Further propensity matching and multivariable analysis were performed to analyse additional differences between the two groups. RESULTS: Some 1070 patients who underwent EVAR and 476 who had OAR were identified. Mean(s.d.) age was 67·3(5·7) and 65·1(6·3) years respectively (P < 0·001). EVAR was associated with a lower overall perioperative complication rate (4·2 versus 26·5 per cent; P < 0·001). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (0·4 versus 0·6 per cent; P = 0·446). Overall survival at 3 years was similar after EVAR and OAR (92·5 versus 92·1 per cent respectively; P = 0·592). In multivariable analyses there was no difference in freedom from reintervention (odds ratio 1·69, 95 per cent c.i. 0·73 to 3·90; P = 0·220) or survival (hazard ratio 0·85, 0·61 to 1·20; P = 0·353). CONCLUSION: In patients predicted to be at low risk of perioperative death following aneurysm repair, EVAR resulted in fewer perioperative complications than OAR. However, perioperative mortality, reinterventions and survival rates in the longer term appeared similar between endovascular and open repair.

Significant lethality following liver resection in A20 heterozygous knockout mice uncovers a key role for A20 in liver regeneration.

Hepatic expression of A20, including in hepatocytes, increases in response to injury, inflammation and resection. This increase likely serves a hepatoprotective purpose. The characteristic unfettered liver inflammation and necrosis in A20 knockout mice established physiologic upregulation of A20 as integral to the anti-inflammatory and anti-apoptotic armamentarium of hepatocytes. However, the implication of physiologic upregulation of A20 in modulating hepatocytes' proliferative responses following liver resection remains controversial. To resolve the impact of A20 on hepatocyte proliferation and the liver's regenerative capacity, we examined whether decreased A20 expression, as in A20 heterozygous knockout mice, affects outcome following two-third partial hepatectomy. A20 heterozygous mice do not demonstrate a striking liver phenotype, indicating that their A20 expression levels are still sufficient to contain inflammation and cell death at baseline. However, usually benign partial hepatectomy provoked a staggering lethality (>40%) in these mice, uncovering an unsuspected phenotype. Heightened lethality in A20 heterozygous mice following partial hepatectomy resulted from impaired hepatocyte proliferation due to heightened levels of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, p21, and deficient upregulation of cyclins D1, E and A, in the context of worsened liver steatosis. A20 heterozygous knockout minimally affected baseline liver transcriptome, mostly circadian rhythm genes. Nevertheless, this caused differential expression of >1000 genes post hepatectomy, hindering lipid metabolism, bile acid biosynthesis, insulin signaling and cell cycle, all critical cellular processes for liver regeneration. These results demonstrate that mere reduction of A20 levels causes worse outcome post hepatectomy than full knockout of bona fide liver pro-regenerative players such as IL-6, clearly ascertaining A20's primordial role in enabling liver regeneration. Clinical implications of these data are of utmost importance as they caution safety of extensive hepatectomy for donation or tumor in carriers of A20/TNFAIP3 single nucleotide polymorphisms alleles that decrease A20 expression or function, and prompt the development of A20-based liver pro-regenerative therapies.

Technological advancements in the care of the trauma patient.

INTRODUTION: Medical technology has benefited many types of patients, but trauma care has arguably benefited more from technologic development than almost any other field. METHODS: A literature review to identify key technological advances in the care of trauma patients was performed. RESULTS: The advances in trauma care are in great measure due to the integration of many different systems. Medical technology impacts care in the field at the site of the trauma, in the transport to trauma facilities, and care at the trauma center itself. Once at the hospital, technology has impacted care in the trauma bay, intensive care units, the operating room, and in postoperative and long-term care settings. The integration of advancements, however, needs to be examined in a careful systematic fashion to insure that patients will actually derive benefit.