Developments in Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Treatment

Interventional Cardiology, 2009;4(1):109-112

Abstract

The endovascular treatment of infra-renal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has become an established treatment modality over the last 10 years. This technique is now arguably the first-line therapy for the majority of patients. Data to support this position can be derived regarding early mortality rates, cost-effectiveness and reduction of re-intervention rates. Endovascular repair of AAA requires further refinement with regard to enhancing long-term durability through the use of better intra-operative techniques and patient selection. Adoption of 3D computed tomography (CT) imaging and better methods of intra-operative quality control are essential to ensure continuing improvement of technical results. Future developments will see the adoption of endovascular repair for ruptured and supra-renal aneurysms.
Keywords
Aneurysm, endovascular, rupture, volume–outcome, quality control
Disclosure Matt Thompson receives consulting fees from Medtronic and Cook Medical.
Received: July 21, 2009 Accepted August 11, 2009
Correspondence: Matt Thompson, Professor of Vascular Surgery, St George’s Vascular Institute, 4th Floor, St James Wing, St George’s Hospital, London, SW17 0QT, UK. E: matt.thompson@stgeorges.nhs.uk

Since its inception in the early 1990s, endovascular repair (EVR) of aneurysms has been subjected to analysis in several randomised controlled trials. Now it is a mainstay of treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). As the technique has moved from conception through competitive analysis and finally into mainstream practice, several issues have remained controversial. These will be addressed in this brief review.

Endovascular or Open Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Despite a wealth of comparative evidence,1,2 there is still fierce debate as to whether EVR should be positioned as the first-line therapy for AAA. This may be illustrated by the take-up rates for EVR across individual countries in Europe, with the percentage of patients treated by endovascular therapy ranging from the high teens to just under 50%. At present, approximately 70–80% of patients with an infra-renal AAA may be suitable for an EVR using morphological indications unrestricted by the device manufacturers’ indications for use. Without any doubt, those treating AAA should be able to assess patients for both open and endovascular therapies and offer both. It is the author’s belief, however, that there are now compelling data to suggest that most aneurysms should be considered for an endovascular first approach.

All of the randomised trials published to date have suggested that EVR offers an early mortality advantage of approximately 4% – an advantage that is maintained (for aneurysm-related mortality) in the mid-term.3 Similarly, robust administrative data sets from the US4 and the UK have demonstrated that EVR has a significantly lower overall mortality than open repair for elective aneurysm surgery in all age groups (1.2 versus 4.8%). The difference in mortality is particularly important in older patients (respective mortality in patients >85 years of age: 2.7 versus 11.2%). Perhaps as importantly, the percentage of patients over 80 years of age discharged home following EVR is 10% higher than those undergoing open repair (90 versus 80%, Holt and Thompson, unpublished data). These early mortality data are reflected in patient preference for operative technique. Winterborne et al.5 surveyed 100 patients with small aneurysms and reported that 84% of patients preferred endovascular over open repair. The most important factors defining this choice were post-operative mortality and morbidity.

References:
  1. EVAR trial participants, Lancet, 2005;365:2179–86.
  2. Blankensteijn JD, de Jong SE, Prinssen M, et al., N Engl J Med, 2005;352:2398–2405.
  3. Drury D, Michaels JA, Jones L, et al., Br J Surg, 2005;92:937–46.
  4. Schermerhorn ML, O’Malley AJ, Jhaveri A, et al., N Engl J Med, 2008;358(5):464–74.
  5. Winterborn RJ, Amin I, Lyratzopoulos G, et al., J Vasc Surg, 2009;49:576–81.e3.
  6. Franks SC, Sutton AJ, Bown MJ, et al., Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 2007;33:154–71.
  7. Bohm N, Wales L, Dunckley M, et al., Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 2008;36(2):172–7.
  8. Barnes M, Boult M, Maddern G, et al., Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 2008;35:571–9.
  9. Leurs LJ, Kievit J, Dagnelie PC, et al., J Endovasc Ther, 2006;13:640–48.
  10. Biasi L, Ali T, Hinchliffe R, Morgan R, et al., Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 2009;32:535–8.
  11. Biasi L, Ali T, Ratnam LA, Morgan R, et al., J Vasc Surg, 2009;49(2):288–95.
  12. Holt PJ, Poloniecki JD, Gerrard D, et al., Br J Surg, 2007;94:395–403.
  13. Holt PJ, Poloniecki JD, Loftus IM, et al., Br J Surg, 2007;94:441–8.
  14. Hinchliffe RJ, Powell JT, Cheshire NJ, et al., J Vasc Surg, 2009;49:1077–80.
  15. Hinchliffe RJ, Bruijstens L, MacSweeney ST, et al., Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 2006;32:506–13, discussion 14–15.
  16. Nordon IM, Hinchliffe RJ, Holt PJ, et al., Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 2009;38:35–41.
  17. Greenberg RK, Lu Q, Roselli EE, et al., Circulation, 2008;118(8):808–17.