Systematic Review on Abdominal Penetrating Atherosclerotic Aortic Ulcers: Outcomes of Endovascular Repair.

Johannes Hatzl, Dittmar B��ckler, Jonathan Fiering, Samuel Zimmermann, Moritz Sebastian Biscshoff, Eva Kalkum, Rosa Klotz, Christian Uhl
Author Information
  1. Johannes Hatzl: Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. ORCID
  2. Dittmar B��ckler: Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
  3. Jonathan Fiering: Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. ORCID
  4. Samuel Zimmermann: Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
  5. Moritz Sebastian Biscshoff: Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
  6. Eva Kalkum: Study Center of the German Society of Surgery (SDGC), University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
  7. Rosa Klotz: Study Center of the German Society of Surgery (SDGC), University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
  8. Christian Uhl: Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

Abstract

PURPOSE: To systematically review existing evidence on outcomes of endovascular repair of abdominal atherosclerotic penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cochrane Central Registry of Registered Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via PubMed), and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. The systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis protocol (PRISMA-P 2020). The protocol was registered in the international registry of systematic reviews (PROSPERO CRD42022313404). Studies reporting on technical and clinical outcomes of endovascular PAU repair in 3 or more patients were included. Random effects modeling was used to estimate pooled technical success, survival, reinterventions, and type 1 and type 3 endoleaks. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I statistic. Pooled results are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Study quality was assessed using an adapted version of the Modified Coleman Methodology Score.
RESULTS: Sixteen studies including 165 patients with a mean/median age ranging from 64 to 78 years receiving endovascular therapy for PAU between 1997 and 2020 were identified. Pooled technical success was 99.0% (CI: 96.0%-100%). In all, 30-day mortality was 1.0% (CI: 0%-6.0%) with an in-hospital mortality of 1.0% (CI: 0.0%-13.0%). There were no reinterventions, type 1, or type 3 endoleaks at 30 days. Median/mean follow-up ranged from 1 to 33 months. Overall, there were 16 deaths (9.7%), 5 reinterventions (3.3%), 3 type 1 (1.8%), and 1 type 3 endoleak (0.6%) during follow-up. The quality of studies was rated low according to the Modified Coleman score at 43.4 (+/- 8.5) of 85 points.
CONCLUSION: There is low-level evidence on outcomes of endovascular PAU repair. While in the short-term endovascular repair of abdominal PAU seems safe and effective, mid-term and long-term data are lacking. Recommendations with regard to treatment indications and techniques in asymptomatic PAU should be made cautiously.
CLINICAL IMPACT: This systematic review demonstrated that evidence on outcomes of endovascular abdominal PAU repair is limited. While in the short-term endovascular repair of abdominal PAU seems safe and effective, mid-term and long-term data are lacking. In the context of a benign prognosis of asymptomatic PAU and lacking standardization in current reporting, recommendations with regard to treatment indications and techniques in asymptomatic PAUs should be made cautiously.

Keywords

References

  1. Int Angiol. 2012 Feb;31(1):54-61 [PMID: 22330625]
  2. Ann Vasc Surg. 2022 Apr;81:129-137 [PMID: 34775025]
  3. Ann Vasc Surg. 2020 Nov;69:382-390 [PMID: 32504793]
  4. J Vasc Surg. 2016 May;63(5):1182-8 [PMID: 26852004]
  5. Int J Surg. 2021 Nov;95:106138 [PMID: 34637951]
  6. Circulation. 2021 Oct 5;144(14):1091-1101 [PMID: 34376058]
  7. J Vasc Surg. 2002 May;35(5):1029-35 [PMID: 12021724]
  8. Int J Vasc Med. 2021 Oct 04;2021:7439173 [PMID: 34646581]
  9. Int Orthop. 2007 Oct;31(5):639-45 [PMID: 17021833]
  10. Circulation. 2002 Jul 16;106(3):342-8 [PMID: 12119251]
  11. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2020 May;31(5):771-777 [PMID: 32127313]
  12. Ann Vasc Surg. 1986 May;1(1):15-23 [PMID: 3504683]
  13. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2020 Jul - Aug;63(4):488-495 [PMID: 32497587]
  14. J Vasc Surg. 2002 May;35(5):1048-60 [PMID: 12021727]
  15. J Vasc Bras. 2021 Sep 06;20:e20200230 [PMID: 34630539]
  16. Int J Surg. 2007 Jun;5(3):172-5 [PMID: 17509499]
  17. Evid Based Ment Health. 2019 Nov;22(4):153-160 [PMID: 31563865]
  18. ANZ J Surg. 2013 Oct;83(10):758-63 [PMID: 23336937]
  19. Circulation. 2022 Apr 5;145(14):1056-1066 [PMID: 35209732]
  20. J Vasc Surg. 2003 Aug;38(2):383-8 [PMID: 12891125]
  21. J Endovasc Ther. 2010 Aug;17(4):510-4 [PMID: 20681767]
  22. J Endovasc Ther. 2011 Jun;18(3):263-71 [PMID: 21679059]
  23. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2019 Jan;57(1):8-93 [PMID: 30528142]
  24. Herz. 2011 Sep;36(6):498-504 [PMID: 21887528]
  25. Ann Vasc Surg. 2014 Jul;28(5):1316.e15-22 [PMID: 24365079]
  26. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2021 Sep;74(9):790-799 [PMID: 34446261]
  27. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013 Oct;24(10):1437-49.e3 [PMID: 23932417]
  28. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2005 Jan;29(1):35-42 [PMID: 15570269]
  29. Vascular. 2011 Dec;19(6):346-50 [PMID: 21940759]
  30. Ann Vasc Surg. 1991 Nov;5(6):491-9 [PMID: 1837729]
  31. J Endovasc Ther. 2021 Dec;28(6):871-877 [PMID: 34190634]
  32. Grudn Khir. 1988 Nov-Dec;(6):84-6 [PMID: 3220297]

MeSH Term

Aged
Humans
Middle Aged
Aorta, Abdominal
Aortic Diseases
Atherosclerosis
Blood Vessel Prosthesis
Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation
Endovascular Procedures
Postoperative Complications
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Ulcer

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0endovascularPAU1repair3type0%outcomesabdominalreviewevidencesystematictechnicalreinterventionsCI:lackingasymptomaticsystematicallypenetratingaorticPAUsaccordingSystematicprotocol2020reportingpatientssuccessendoleaksassessedusingPooledqualityModifiedColemanstudiesmortality0follow-up5short-termseemssafeeffectivemid-termlong-termdataregardtreatmentindicationstechniquesmadecautiouslyulcerPURPOSE:existingatheroscleroticulcersMATERIALANDMETHODS:CochraneCentralRegistryRegisteredTrialsCENTRALMEDLINEviaPubMedWebSciencedatabasessearchedperformedPreferredReportingItemsReviewsMeta-AnalysisPRISMA-PregisteredinternationalregistryreviewsPROSPEROCRD42022313404StudiesclinicalincludedRandomeffectsmodelingusedestimatepooledsurvivalStatisticalheterogeneitystatisticresultsreported95%confidenceintervalsCIsStudyadaptedversionMethodologyScoreRESULTS:Sixteenincluding165mean/medianageranging6478yearsreceivingtherapy1997identified99960%-100%30-day0%-6in-hospital0%-1330daysMedian/meanranged33monthsOverall16deaths97%3%8%endoleak6%ratedlowscore434+/-885pointsCONCLUSION:low-levelRecommendationsCLINICALIMPACT:demonstratedlimitedcontextbenignprognosisstandardizationcurrentrecommendationsReviewAbdominalPenetratingAtheroscleroticAorticUlcers:OutcomesEndovascularRepairEVARcoveredstents

Similar Articles

Cited By