Death rates and rupture rates due to abdominal aortic aneurysms are not always the same
In a commendable study, Abdulameer et al1 report on mortality by ruptured aortic aneurysms (rAAs) in the United States between 1999 and 2016. The main criticism of this study is that the terms death rate and rupture rate are used interchangeably as being the same. Evidently, death rate is the appropriate term and does not include the patients surviving a rupture. Perhaps these two terms were similar during the earlier study period of open repair. However, their difference becomes greater in the study's recent years, when endovascular aneurysm repair for rupture is increasingly used with significantly lower mortality.
The aim was to study outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in four geographically adjacent populations with identical demographics and variable EVAR rates.
To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of single Proglide use per access site for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA).
Evidence for the use of neuraxial anesthesia (NA) in the context of open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair is sparse. The purpose of this study was to determine the 90-day outcomes of combined general and NA versus general anesthesia without neuraxial (GA) for elective open AAA repair.
A retrospective analysis was conducted of the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2013 and 2018.
A retrospective review was conducted of Medicare beneficiaries>65 years of age between 2013 and 2014 with data from the Vascular Quality Initiative used to estimate total hospital annual volume of open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair.
To assess the effect of various preventative interventions, such as remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC), versus standard therapy or placebo for reducing the incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair.
I read the editorial by Llapis et al.1 with great interest. The title is absolutely correct with the NICE guidelines swinging the pendulum too far. However, I was left disappointed with some of the arguments in the editorial as they swung the pendulum too far the other way.
Roosendaal et al.1 conducted an up to date meta-analysis of mortality outcomes following ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) in the over 80s, totalling 7 526 patients. The pooled results of eight studies identified an overall mortality rate of 43% at 30 days (27% endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), 52% o pen) with a significant advantage of EVAR over open repair. In addition, four studies totalling 2 550 patients reported one year mortality of 47%, also with a relative risk of 0.65 between EVAR and open.
With a focus on renal function, the goal of this multicentre study was to assess peri-operative complications and late mortality of open surgical repair (OSR) of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (JRAAA).
Abstract OBJECTIVES: With a focus on renal function, the goal of this multicentre study was to assess peri-operative complications and late mortality of open surgical repair (OSR) of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (JRAAA). METHODS: From February 2005 to December 2015, 315 consecutive patients undergoing elective OSR of a JRAAA in five French academic centres were evaluated retrospectively. The definition of JRAAA was an aortic aneurysm extending up to but not involving the renal arteries, i.e., a short neck