Outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair among patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we compared the outcomes of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in patients with and without rheumatoid arthritis (RA) stratified by the type of surgery. METHODS: A retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted from 2003 to 2016. Linked administrative health data from Ontario, Canada were used to identify all patients aged ≥65 years who had undergone elective open or endovascular AAA repair during the study period. Patients were identified using validated procedure and billing codes and matching using propensity scores. The primary outcome was survival. The secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)-free survival (defined as freedom from death, myocardial infarction, and stroke), reintervention, and secondary rupture. RESULTS: Of 14,816 patients undergoing elective AAA repair, a diagnosis of RA was present for 309 (2.0%). The propensity-matched cohort included 234 pairs of RA and control patients. The matched cohort was followed up for a mean ± standard deviation of 4.93 ± 3.35 years, and the median survival was 6.76 and 7.31 years for the RA and control groups, respectively. Cox regression analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences in the hazards for death, MACE, reintervention, or secondary rupture. Analysis of the differences in outcomes stratified by repair approach also showed no statistically significant differences in the hazards for death, MACE, reintervention, or secondary rupture. CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant differences in survival, MACE, reintervention, or secondary rupture among patients with RA undergoing elective AAA repair compared with controls. Further studies are required to evaluate the impact of comorbidities and antirheumatic medications on the outcomes of elective AAA repair.

Population-based long-term outcomes of open versus endovascular aortic repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Existing data regarding endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) are conflicting in their findings. The purpose of this paper was to determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR vs open surgical repair (OSR) for treatment of rAAA. METHODS: A population-based retrospective cohort study of all patients 40 years or more that underwent OSR or EVAR of rAAA in Ontario, Canada, from 2003 to 2016 was conducted. Administrative data from the province of Ontario was used as the data source. The propensity for repair approach was calculated using a logistic regression model including all covariates and used for inverse probability of treatment weighting. Cox proportional hazards regression was conducted using the weighted cohort to determine the survival and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-free survival of EVAR relative to OSR for rAAA up to 10 years after repair. RESULTS: A total of 2692 rAAA (261 EVAR [10%] and 2431 OSR [90%]) repairs were recorded from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2016. Mean follow-up for the entire cohort was 3.4 years (standard deviation [SD], 3.9 years), with a maximum follow-up of 14.0 years. OSR patients were followed for a mean of 3.5 years (SD, 4.0 years) and maximum of 14.0 years, and EVAR patients were followed for a mean of 2.7 years (SD, 2.7 years) and a maximum of 11.4 years. Median survival was 2.7 years overall, and 2.5 and 3.7 years for OSR and EVAR patients, respectively. There were no significant baseline differences between EVAR and OSR patients after inverse probability of treatment weighting. EVAR patients were at lower hazard for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.65; P < .01), and MACE (hazard ratio, 0.51, 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.66; P < .01) within 30 days of repair. There were no statistically significant differences between EVAR and OSR in the hazard for all-cause mortality or MACE from 30 days to 5 years, and 5 to 10 years. Despite this, the upfront mortality and MACE benefits of EVAR persisted for more than 4.5 years after repair. CONCLUSIONS: This population-based cohort study using administrative data from Ontario, Canada, demonstrated lower hazards for all-cause mortality and MACE within 30 days of operation in favor of EVAR, but no differences in the mid- or longer-term results. More work is needed to understand and improve the long-term outcomes of ruptured endovascular aortic aneurysm repair and ruptured open surgical repair.

Comparison of Outcomes in Elective Endovascular Aortic Repair vs Open Surgical Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

Importance: Knowledge regarding the long-term outcomes of elective treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is increasing. However, data with greater than 10 years' follow-up remain sparse and are lacking from population-based studies. Objective: To determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR compared with open surgical repair (OSR) for elective treatment of AAA. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, population-based cohort study used linked administrative health data from Ontario, Canada, to identify all patients 40 years and older who underwent elective EVAR or OSR for AAA repair from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2016, with follow-up terminating on March 31, 2017. A total of 17 683 patients were identified using validated procedure and billing codes and were propensity score matched. Analysis was conducted from June 26, 2018, to January 16, 2019. Exposures: Elective EVAR or OSR for AAA. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival, defined as being free of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; reintervention; and secondary rupture. Results: Among 17 683 patients who received elective AAA repairs (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [7.8] years; 14 286 [80.8%] men), 6100 (34.5%) underwent EVAR and 11 583 (65.5%) underwent OSR. From these patients, 4010 well-balanced propensity score-matched pairs of patients were defined, with a mean (SD) age of 73.0 (7.6) years and 6583 (82.1%) men. In the matched cohort, the mean (SD) follow-up was 4.4 (2.7) years, and maximum follow-up was 13.8 years. The overall median survival was 8.9 years. Compared with OSR, EVAR was associated with a higher survival rate up to 1 year after repair (91.0% [95% CI, 90.1%-91.9%] vs 94.0% [95% CI, 93.3%-94.7%]) and a higher major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival rate up to 4 years after repair (69.9% [95% CI, 68.3%-71.3%] vs 72.9% [95% CI, 71.4%-74.4%]). Cumulative incidence of reintervention was higher among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR at the 7-year follow-up (45.9% [95% CI, 44.1%-47.8%] vs 42.2% [95% CI, 40.4%-44.0%]). Survival analyses demonstrated no statistically significant differences in long-term survival, reintervention, and secondary rupture for patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR. Kaplan-Meier analysis suggested superior long-term major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR (32.6% [95% CI, 26.9%-38.4%] vs 14.1% [95% CI, 4.0%-30.4%]; stratified log-rank P < .001) during a maximum follow-up of 13.8 years. Conclusions and Relevance: Endovascular aortic repair was not associated with a difference in long-term survival during more than 13 years' maximum follow-up. The reasons for these findings will require studies to consider specific graft makes and models, adherence to instructions for use, and types and reasons for reintervention.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the long-term outcomes of endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: This study synthesized the literature comparing the long-term (5-9 years) and very long-term (≥10 years) all-cause mortality, reintervention, and secondary rupture rates between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception to May 2018 for studies comparing EVAR to OSR with a minimum follow-up period of 5 years. Study selection, data abstraction, and quality assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers, with a third author resolving discrepancies. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane and Newcastle-Ottawa scales. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. RESULTS: Our search yielded 3431 unique articles. Three randomized controlled trials and 68 observational studies comparing 151,092 EVAR to 148,692 OSR patients were included. Inter-rater agreement was excellent at the screening (κ = 0.78) and full-text review (κ = 0.89) stages. Overall, the risk of bias was low to moderate. For long-term outcomes, 54 studies reported all-cause mortality (n = 203,246), 23 reported reintervention (n = 157,151), and 4 reported secondary rupture (n = 150,135). EVAR was associated with higher long-term all-cause mortality (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06-1.33; P = .003, I2 = 91%), reintervention (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.67-2.69; P < .00001, I2 = 96%), and secondary rupture rates (OR, 4.84; 95% CI, 2.63-8.89; P < .00001, I2 = 92%). For very long-term outcomes, 15 studies reported all-cause mortality (n = 48,721), 9 reported reintervention (n = 7511), and 1 reported secondary rupture (n = 1116). There was no mortality difference between groups, but EVAR was associated with higher reintervention (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.71-3.57; P < .00001, I2 = 84%) and secondary rupture rates (OR, 8.10; 95% CI, 1.01-64.99; P = .05). Subanalysis of more recent studies, with last year of patient recruitment 2010 or after, demonstrated no long-term mortality differences between EVAR and OSR. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR is associated with higher long-term all-cause mortality, reintervention, and secondary rupture rates compared with OSR. In the very long-term, EVAR is also associated with higher reintervention and secondary rupture rates. Notably, EVAR mortality has improved over time. Vigilant long-term surveillance of EVAR patients is recommended.

Trends in elective and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair by practice setting in Ontario, Canada, from 2003 to 2016: a population-based time-series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recent years have seen centralization of vascular surgery services in Ontario. We sought to examine the trends in overall and approach-specific elective and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair by hospital type (teaching v. community). METHODS: We conducted a population-based time-series analysis of elective and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs in Ontario, Canada, from 2003 to 2016. Quarterly cumulative incidences of repairs per 100 000 Ontarians aged 40 years and older were calculated. We fit exponential smoothing models to the data stratified by approach and hospital type to examine repair trends. RESULTS: We identified 19 219 elective and 2722 ruptured repairs between 2003 and 2016. The cumulative incidences of overall elective repair and elective open surgical repair decreased by 1.15% (p = 0.008) and 67% (p < 0.001), respectively, in teaching hospitals and by 23% (p < 0.001) and 60% (p < 0.001), respectively, in community hospitals. The cumulative incidence of elective endovascular repair increased 667% in teaching hospitals (p < 0.001). Elective endovascular repair began in community centres after 2010 and increased to 0.98/100 000 (p < 0.001), resulting in a rebound in overall elective repair in the community. Overall ruptured repairs and ruptured open repairs decreased by 84% (p < 0.001) and 88% (p = 0.002), respectively, at community hospitals. Ruptured endovascular repairs at community hospitals increased from no procedures before 2006 to 0.03/100 000 in 2016 (p = 0.005). INTERPRETATION: There has been substantial uptake of endovascular aortic repair in teaching and community hospitals in Ontario, and community hospital uptake of endovascular repair has begun decentralization of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Increased experience and training in endovascular repair and reduced specialized care requirements will probably lead to continued decentralization.

The Current Status of Lithoplasty in Vascular Calcifications: A Systematic Review.

Background. Lithoplasty is a method of alleviating vessel stenosis by using localized high-speed pressure waves to disrupt calcium deposits. A systematic review of the literature was performed to summarize the early outcomes of lithoplasty in peripheral and coronary artery disease. Methods. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception to July 2018 for original studies describing the use of lithoplasty. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate, with a third author resolving discrepancies. Results. A total of 9 records were included from the 201 studies eligible for screening. In total, 211 patients with vascular calcification lesions underwent lithoplasty. The patients on average had an age of 73.2 years and had a maximum follow-up period of 5.5 months. Most lesions (72%, 152/212) were in peripheral artery beds, with the remainder occurring in coronary vessels. Lesioned vessels typically had severe calcium burden 62.6% (131/210), with an average initial stenosis of 76.6% (range, 68.1%-77.8%). After treatment, the average residual stenosis was 21.0% (range, 13.3%-26.2%), with a mean acute gain of vessel diameter of 2.5 mm. A limited number of type D dissections occurred, with a total of 2.4% (5/211) of patients requiring stent implantation. Conclusions. Recent studies suggest that lithoplasty is a promising intervention to decrease vessel stenosis in both peripheral artery disease and coronary artery disease, with minimal occurrence of major adverse events. Further research studies, with more rigorous study designs, are needed to determine the effectiveness of lithoplasty in vascular calcifications.

Perceptions of Canadian Vascular Surgeons Toward Pharmacologic Risk Reduction in Patients with Peripheral Artery Disease: 2018 Update.

BACKGROUND: Vascular surgeons have a central role in managing peripheral artery disease (PAD). This study assessed their knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding pharmacologic risk reduction in PAD and results were compared to a similar 2004 survey conducted by our group. METHODS: An online questionnaire was administered to 161 active members of the Canadian Society for Vascular Surgery. RESULTS: Forty-eight participants (30%) completed the survey. Recommended targets for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose were known by 52%, 38%, and 50% of vascular surgeons, respectively. Almost all participants recognized antiplatelet dosages and statin indications, but less than half could identify indications (29%) and precautions (44%) for angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor therapy. A majority (58%) routinely evaluate risk factors in <50% of their patients. Most vascular surgeons regularly provide risk reduction counseling, but less than 10% initiate or modify antihypertensive or ACE inhibitor therapy. Compared to 2004, knowledge of targets and indications/precautions for common cardiovascular medications and frequency of risk factor assessment have not changed. Rates of counseling for diabetes control and statin prescription have improved, but remain suboptimal. Regarding newer medications with cardiovascular benefit, less than 10% would prescribe proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors if they were available. The majority of vascular surgeons rate their PAD risk reduction knowledge as average and support an up-to-date Canadian PAD guideline. Most participants believe that risk reduction therapy is best provided by family physicians and internists, but also acknowledge that vascular surgeons should be well-versed in assessing and managing risk factors in PAD. CONCLUSIONS: Significant knowledge and action gaps exist among Canadian vascular surgeons with regards to pharmacologic cardiovascular risk reduction in PAD. Although there is recognition that vascular surgeons are central to the medical management of patients with PAD, few routinely evaluate risk factors and prescribe medications. There is little evidence of sufficient improvement since 2004. New educational and clinical strategies are needed to improve PAD risk reduction pharmacotherapy among Canadian vascular surgeons.

Prevalence of and risk factors for peripheral arterial disease in Saudi Arabia. A pilot cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of and the risk factors for Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in a primary health care setting in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study of Saudi patients aged >or= 45 years, who attended the primary health care center at King Khalid University Hospital between February 2006 and March 2006. A pre-designed questionnaire was used for each patient. Peripheral arterial disease was diagnosed, if the Ankle-Brachial index by Doppler were <0.90 and if the patient had signs or symptoms suggestively for PAD. Prevalence was estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and multivariable logistics regression analyses were preformed to identify factors associated with PAD. RESULTS: A total of 471 patients were recruited. The mean age was 56 years and 32.3% were women. The prevalence of PAD was 11.7% (95% CI: 8.9-14.9%), and 92.7% of them were asymptomatic. Patients with PAD were slightly older than patients without PAD, suffered more often from diabetes, hypertension, lipid disorders, smoking, cerebrovascular event, and coronary artery disease. CONCLUSION: Prevalence of and risk factors for PAD in Saudi Arabia seem to be higher. A nationwide screening program is needed to confirm these results.