The impact of hemodynamic status on outcomes of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair for rupture

Manish Mehta, Philip S K Paty, John Byrne, Sean P Roddy, John B Taggert, Yaron Sternbach, Kathleen J Ozsvath, R Clement Darling
Journal of Vascular Surgery 2013, 57 (5): 1255-60

OBJECTIVE: To date, there are no published reports comparing hemodynamically (Hd)-stable and Hd-unstable patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (r-AAAs) undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). This study evaluates outcomes of EVAR for r-AAA based on patient's Hd status

METHODS: From 2002 to 2011, 136 patients with r-AAAs underwent EVAR and were categorized into two groups based on systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurements before EVAR: 92 (68%) Hd-stable (SBP ≥ 80 mm Hg) and 44 (32%) Hd-unstable (SBP <80 mm Hg for >10 minutes). All data were prospectively entered in a database and retrospectively analyzed. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, postoperative complications, the need for secondary reinterventions, and midterm mortality. The effect of potential predictors on 30-day mortality was assessed by χ(2) and logistic regression.

RESULTS: Of the 136 r-AAA patients with EVAR, the Hd-stable and Hd-unstable groups had similar comorbidities (coronary artery disease, 63% vs 59%; hypertension, 72% vs 75%; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 21% vs 26%; and chronic renal insufficiency, 18% vs 18%), mean AAA maximum diameter (6.6 vs 6.4 cm), need for on-the-table conversion to open surgical repair (3% vs 7%), and incidences of nonfatal complications (43% vs 38%) and secondary interventions (23% vs 25%). Preoperative computed tomography scan was available in significantly fewer Hd-unstable patients (64% vs 100%; P < .05). Compared with Hd-stable patients, the Hd-unstable patients had a significantly higher intraoperative need for aortic occlusion balloon (40% vs 6%; P < .05), mean estimated blood loss (744 vs 363 mL; P < .05), incidence of developing abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS; 29% vs 4%; P < .01), and death (33% vs 18%; P < .05). ACS was a significant predictor of death; death in all r-EVAR with ACS was significantly higher compared with all r-EVAR without ACS (10 of 17 [59%] vs 22 of 119 [18%]; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS: EVAR for r-AAA is feasible in Hd-stable and Hd-unstable patients, with a comparable incidence of conversion to open surgical repair, nonfatal complications, and secondary interventions. Hd-stable patients have reduced mortality at 30 days, whereas Hd-unstable patients require intraoperative aortic occlusion balloon more frequently, and have an increased risk for developing ACS and death.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article


You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.


Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"