Acute kidney injury in patients undergoing endovascular or open repair of juxtarenal or pararenal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this cohort study was to report the proportion of patients who develop periprocedural acute kidney injury (AKI) after endovascular repair (ER) and open surgery (OS) in patients with juxta/pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysm and to assess potential risk factors for AKI. The study also aimed to report the short- and long-term outcomes of patients with and without AKI. METHODS: This was a multicenter cohort study of five European academic high-volume centers (>50 OS or 50 ER infrarenal AAA repairs, plus >15 complex AAA repairs per year). All consecutively treated patients were extracted from a prospective vascular surgical registry and the data were scrutinized retrospectively. The primary end point for this study was the development of AKI. AKI was diagnosed when there is a two-fold increase of serum creatinine or decrease of glomerular filtration rate of >50% within 1 week of AAA repair. Secondary end points included long-term mortality and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). RESULTS: AKI occurred in 16.6% of patients in the ER group vs 30.3% in the OS group (P < .001). The 30-day mortality rate was higher among patients with AKI in both ER (15.4% vs 3.1%; P = .006) and OS (13.2% vs 5.3%; P = .001) groups. Age, chronic kidney disease, presence of significant thrombus burden in the pararenal region, >1000 mL blood loss in ER group were associated with development of AKI. Age, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, presence of significant thrombus burden in the pararenal region, and a proximal clamping time of >30 minutes in the OS group were associated with the development of AKI, whereas renal perfusion during clamping was the protective factor against AKI development. After a median follow-up of 91 months, AKI was associated with higher mortality rates in both the ER group (58.9% vs 29.7%; P < .001) and the OS group (61.5% vs 27.3%; P < .001). After the same follow-up period, AKI was associated with a higher incidence of ESRD in both the ER group (12.8% vs 3.6%; P = .009) and the OS group (9.9% vs 2.9%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The current study identified important pre and postoperative factors associated with AKI after juxta/pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Patients with postoperative AKI had significantly higher short- and long term mortality and higher incidence of ESRD than patients without AKI.

Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Ruptures in a Well-defined Geographical Area during 2012-2020-A Paradigm Shift.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm ruptures (rAAA) has changed from open to endovascular repair (rEVAR) during the last decade. The immediate survival benefit after endovascular treatment method is well-known, yet without conclusive support from randomized controlled studies. The aim of this study is to report the survival benefit of rEVAR during the transition between 2 treatment methods and to highlight the in-hospital protocol for rAAA patients, with continuous simulation training and a designated team. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of rAAA patients diagnosed at Helsinki University Hospital during 2012-2020, including a total of 263 patients. Patients were divided by treatment method, and the primary end point was 30-day mortality. The secondary end points were 90-days mortality, one year mortality, and the length of stay in intensive care. RESULTS: Patients were divided into the rEVAR group (n = 119) and open repair group (rOR n = 119). The turndown rate was 9.5% (n = 25). The 30-day short-term survival favored endovascular treatment (rEVAR 83.2% vs. rOR 68.9%, P = 0.015). The 90-day postdischarge survival was higher in the rEVAR group (rEVAR 80.7% vs. rOR 67.2%, P = 0.026). One-year survival was also higher in the rEVAR group, however with less statistical significance (rEVAR 74.8% vs. rOR 64.7%, P = 0.120). The effect of the revised rAAA protocol was seen in improved survival, when comparing the first 3 years of the cohort (2012-2014) to the last 3 years of the cohort (2018-2020). Survival rates were higher at 30 days, 90 days, and one year in the late cohort (74% vs. 84%, 72% vs. 81%, and 70% vs. 77%). CONCLUSIONS: The rEVAR has its place as a first-line treatment option for most patients and reduces short-term and midterm mortality at least to 1-year follow-up compared to rOR. Dedicated vascular surgeons for rEVAR and continuous simulation training for the operating room staff are key elements of a low turndown and successful rAAA treatment. The use of an occlusive aortic balloon reduces overall mortality in both operative methods.

Short Term and Long Term Clinical Outcomes of Endovascular versus Open Repair for Juxtarenal and Pararenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Using Propensity Score Matching: Results from Juxta- and pararenal aortic Aneurysm Multicentre European Study (JAMES).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the short and long term clinical outcomes of endovascular (EVAR) vs. open surgical repair (OSR) of juxtarenal (JAAAs) and pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (PAAAs) in five high volume European academic centres. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicentre cohort study of five high volume European academic centres (> 50 open or 50 endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs annually) including 834 consecutive patients who were operated on and prospectively followed. Using propensity score matching (PSM) each patient who underwent OSR was matched with one patient who underwent EVAR in a 1:1 ratio (145 patients per group). The primary endpoint was long term all cause mortality, while the secondary endpoint was freedom from aortic related re-intervention. RESULTS: After a follow up of 87 months, no difference in overall survival between the two groups was observed (38.6% for EVAR vs. 42.1% for OSR; p = .88). Patients undergoing EVAR underwent aortic related re-interventions more frequently (24.1% vs. 6.9%; p < .001). Acute kidney injury (AKI) occurred more frequently in patients in the OSR group (40.7% vs. 24.8%; p = .006). However, most patients who suffered from AKI recovered without further progression to renal failure. In hospital (3.4% for EVAR vs. 4.1% for OSR; p = 1.0) and 30 day (4.1% for EVAR vs. 5.5% for OSR; p = .80) mortality rates did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: Both open and endovascular treatment can be performed in high volume aortic centres with low short term mortality and morbidity rates, and good long term outcomes. These data provide useful information to help patients choose between the two procedures when both are feasible.

Routine Inferior Mesenteric Artery Embolisation is Unnecessary Before Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: A type II endoleak is the most common complication during surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), and a patent inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) is a known risk factor for an endoleak. The effect of routine IMA embolisation prior to EVAR on overall outcome is unknown. The aim of the study was to compare two strategies: routine attempted IMA embolisation prior to EVAR (strategy in centre A) and leaving the IMA untouched (strategy in centre B). METHODS: Patients were treated with EVAR in two centres during the period 2005 - 2015, and the data were reviewed retrospectively. The primary endpoints were re-intervention rate due to type II endoleaks and the late IMA embolisation rate. Secondary endpoints included EVAR related re-intervention, sac enlargement, aneurysm rupture, and open conversion rates. RESULTS: Strategy A was used to treat 395 patients. The IMA was patent in 268 (67.8%) patients, and embolisation was performed in 164 (41.5%). The corresponding figures for strategy B were 337 patients with 279 (82.8%) patent IMAs, two (0.6%) of which were embolised. The mean duration of follow up was 70 months for strategy A and 68.2 months for strategy B. The re-intervention rates due to a type II endoleak were 12.9% and 10.4%, respectively (p = .29), with no significant difference in the rate of re-interventions to occlude a patent IMA (2.0% and 4.7%, respectively; p = .039). The EVAR related re-intervention rate was similar, regardless of strategy (24.1% and 24.6%, respectively; p = .93). Significant sac enlargement was seen in 20.3% of cases treated with strategy A and in 19.6% treated with strategy B (p = .82). The rupture and conversion rates were 2.5% and 2.1% (p = .69) and 1.0% and 1.5% (p = .40), respectively. CONCLUSION: The strategy of routinely embolising the IMA does not seem to yield any significant clinical benefit and should therefore be abandoned.