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 Renal Complications between Endografts with Suprarenal and Infrarenal Fixation.

OBJECTIVES: Surgeons have multiple grafts options available for the endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR), and some hypothesize that suprarenal fixation endografts may result in higher rates of renal complications than infrarenal endografts. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of contemporary suprarenal and infrarenal endografts. METHODS: The Targeted Vascular Module of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project was utilised to identify patients undergoing EVAR for infrarenal aneurysm from 2011 to 2013. Pre-operative and operative variables and 30 day outcomes were compared among suprarenal (Zenith and Endurant) and infrarenal fixation devices (Excluder). Renal complications included creatinine increase > 2 mg/dL or new dialysis, as defined by NSQIP. Multivariate regression was completed to account for patient demographics, comorbidities, and operative characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 3587 patients were evaluated including 2273 (63%) with suprarenal grafts and 1314 (37%) with infrarenal grafts. Patients with suprarenal grafts were less commonly white (84% vs. 88%, p < .01) and more commonly male (83% vs. 80%, p = .03). There were no differences in age or comorbidities. Renal complications (1.1% vs. 0.1%, p < .01) and length of stay more than 2 days (34% vs. 25%, p < .01) occurred more commonly after suprarenal fixation. After adjustment, suprarenal grafts had significantly higher rates of renal complications (OR, 12.0; 95% CI, 1.6-91) and length of stay more than 2 days (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7). CONCLUSION: Overall rates of renal complications following EVAR are low. Patients selected for suprarenal stent grafts are at increased risk of renal complications and prolonged length of stay, which may be due to selection bias, deployment techniques, or the presence of a bare stent overlying the renal arteries. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the mechanism and duration of renal dysfunction and important long-term outcomes of interest.

Use of propofol as an induction agent in the acutely injured patient.

PURPOSE: Etomidate is a commonly used agent for rapid sequence induction (RSI) in trauma due to its limited hemodynamic effects. Given a recent nationwide shortage of etomidate, alternative induction agents may be required. Propofol is a frequent substitute; however, concern exists regarding its potential hypotensive effects. The study attempts to determine the hemodynamic effects of propofol and etomidate following RSI in trauma bay. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed on 76 consecutive trauma patients requiring RSI at a single academic medical center. Patients were stratified by age, gender, mechanism of injury, Injury Severity Score (ISS), and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). Pre-induction and post-induction hemodynamic parameters were evaluated, and a multivariate regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: The mean age was 42, ISS was 13, and GCS was 9.8. The mean dose of propofol was 127 ± 5 mg and the mean dose of etomidate was 21 ± 6 mg. Patients who received propofol were younger and had a lower ISS. The etomidate group had significantly increased post-induction systolic blood pressure but no difference in mean arterial pressure or heart rate when compared to pre-induction parameters. The propofol group had no significant changes in any post-induction parameter compared to pre-induction parameter. CONCLUSION: RSI with propofol did not result in hypotension in our patient population, suggesting that a reduced dose of propofol may represent a reasonable alternative to etomidate in hemodynamically stable trauma patient. Further research is warranted to assess the safety of propofol in the acutely injured patient.