Key result
Implementation of an emergency EVAR protocol for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm was associated with a risk-adjusted 30-day mortality of 23.2% versus 35.8% preprotocol (P=0.0727).
Why the study?
To characterize the longstanding impact of an emergency endovascular aneurysm repair protocol for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm on 30-day mortality.
Does an emergency EVAR protocol reduce 30-day mortality in adult patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm?
Cohort (n=376)
No
Does an emergency EVAR protocol reduce 30-day mortality in adult patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm?
Absolute Event Rate: 23.2% vs 35.8%
p-value: p=0.0727
Implementation of an emergency EVAR protocol for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm was associated with significantly improved 30-day mortality in hemodynamically unstable patients.
Protocol adoption linked to lower mortality in unstable rAAA; leaves open need for prospective trials before broader adoption.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the longstanding impact of an emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) protocol for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) on 30-day mortality. METHODS: All adult patients with an rAAA who underwent a surgical or endovascular intervention at a tertiary care center between March 2001 and December 2018 were evaluated. An emergency EVAR protocol was introduced in January 2004. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality, which was calculated using risk-adjusted logistic regression for the preprotocol and postprotocol periods. A risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis examined changes in 30-day mortality after protocol implementation. RESULTS: We identified 376 patients with rAAA between 2001 and 2018 (75 preprotocol and 301 postprotocol), with a decreasing incidence of rAAA during the study period. The introduction of the protocol in 2004 was associated with increased EVAR use (63.6% vs 6.7%; P < .001). Patients managed according to the protocol were more frequently unstable (systolic blood pressure [SBP] of ≤80 mm Hg, 46.5% postprotocol vs 22.7% preprotocol; P < 0.001), with a lower average SBP (87.4 mm Hg postprotocol vs 106 mm Hg preprotocol; P < .001) and worse renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate 61.5 mL/min postprotocol vs 83.2 mL/min preprotocol; P < .001). The risk-adjusted 30-day mortality was 23.2% with the emergency EVAR protocol, versus 35.8% preprotocol (P = .0727). A subgroup analysis demonstrated improved the 30-day mortality for unstable patients (SBP of ≤80 mm Hg) at 38.0% (vs 62.4% preprotocol introduction; P = .0190). A cumulative sum analysis demonstrated worse than expected mortality outcomes in the preprotocol period, and stability of surgical performance over 15 years after protocol introduction. CONCLUSIONS: On reflection of a 17-year experience with EVAR for rAAA, the implementation of an emergency EVAR protocol demonstrated stable surgical performance for all patients with an rAAA and evidence of improved 30-day mortality for unstable patients with an rAAA. Since the protocol introduction, EVAR has become a mainstay intervention and, despite an increase in comorbid patients, the overall incidence of rAAA is declining. EVAR should be considered the first-line intervention for the appropriate patient unstable with an rAAA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jones et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) (n=376). Emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) protocol vs. Preprotocol management was evaluated on 30-day mortality (p=0.0727). Implementation of an emergency EVAR protocol for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm was associated with a risk-adjusted 30-day mortality of 23.2% versus 35.8% preprotocol (P=0.0727).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: