I TUOI DATI
I TUOI ORDINI
N. prodotti: 0
Totale ordine: € 0,00
I TUOI ABBONAMENTI
I TUOI ARTICOLI
Rivista di Angiologia
Official Journal of the , the International Union of Phlebology and the
Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,899
International Angiology 2005 Marzo;24(1):70-4
What is the best management for abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients at high surgical risk? A single-center review
Sbarigia E. 1, Speziale F. 1, Ducasse E. 2, Giannoni M. F. 1, Ruggiero M. 1, Palmieri A. 1, Fiorani P. 1
1 Department of Vascular Surgery, Umberto I Polyclinic, La Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
2 Unit of Vascular Surgery, Pellegrin Hospital, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
Aim. To determine the best treatment for high-risk patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA).
Methods. We reviewed a prospective database of all patients who underwent conventional (OPEN) or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) between January 1998 and December 2002. Patients were preoperatively classified according to the American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA). Comorbidities and medical risk factors were categorized according to the Ad Hoc Committee on Reporting Standards. Perioperative mortality and morbidity rates were analyzed according to the type of surgical procedure (OPEN vs EVAR) and ASA class. Patients in ASA classes I and II were excluded. Continuous data were expressed as mean±standard deviation. All data were calculated using the cumulated actuarial method of event outcome probability. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed and the log-rank statistic and c2 test were used for comparative data. P values less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance.
Results. Of the total 375 patients who underwent AAA repair, 168 (45%) belonged in ASA classes III and IV (85 submitted OPEN and 83 EVAR to repair). Among general risk factors only coronary artery disease differed significantly between the 4 groups (P=0.04). The Bonferroni correction identified a statistically significant difference between ASA classes III and IV for the OPEN technique and for EVAR (P=0.007 and P=0.012). Neither 30-day morbidity or mortality differed significantly according to ASA class and surgical technique. The median follow-up was 19 months (range 5-60 months). The overall survival was 78% at 60 months. Survival rates during follow-up differed significantly in the 2 risk classes (ASA III 5/123, 4% vs ASA IV 9/38, 24%), (P=0.0001). The deaths in the ASA class 4 patients (12/14; 86%) were caused by preexisting medical comorbidities (in 9 patients cardiovascular, in 1 cancer and in 2 cirrhosis).
Conclusion. Except patients with small aneurysms (<6 cm), in whom the risk of death at 1-year due to comorbidities exceeds the risk of a ruptured aneurysm, all patients at high surgical risk (ASA class IV) benefit from AAA repair. Patients with small aneurysms must undergo strict surveillance to assess growth and aneurysmal wall changes to prevent unexpected rupture.