BACKGROUND: Conventional surgery (CS) for treatment of mycotic aortic aneurysm has rather high surgical morbidity and mortality rates. The use of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) might simplify the procedure and provide a good alternative for this critical condition, but this remains to be proved. We analyzed all mycotic abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) cases treated by CS or EVAR in our institute and the reported cases treated by EVAR from the literature to determine the risk factors for aneurysm-related mortality and morbidity and to clarify the efficacy of the EVAR technique. METHODS AND RESULTS: All relevant literature reports of EVAR management of mycotic AAA and all cases treated in our institute, 41 cases, were included and analyzed. Of the 20 cases treated by EVAR, one had early mortality (1/20, 5%); of the remaining 21 cases that received CS, the early mortality rate was 4.8% (1/21). Patients in the CS group had a higher late mortality rate than those in the EVAR group (45% vs. 10.5%, p<0.05). However, the 24-month actual survival rate and actuarial aneurysm-related event-free rate were 83.9+/-8.6% and 78.3+/-9.7%, respectively, for the EVAR group and did not significantly differ from the CS group (70.4+/-10.2% and 80.1+/-8.9%). The significant predictors for aneurysm-related mortality and morbidity were age, Salmonella species infection, and leukocytosis, and possibly aortoenteric fistula and shock, but not the EVAR or CS procedures themselves. CONCLUSION: Compared with CS, EVAR might be an alternative strategy for managing mycotic AAAs. Copyright 2010 Annals of Vascular Surgery Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Conventional surgery (CS) for treatment of mycotic aortic aneurysm has rather high surgical morbidity and mortality rates. The use of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) might simplify the procedure and provide a good alternative for this critical condition, but this remains to be proved. We analyzed all mycotic abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) cases treated by CS or EVAR in our institute and the reported cases treated by EVAR from the literature to determine the risk factors for aneurysm-related mortality and morbidity and to clarify the efficacy of the EVAR technique. METHODS AND RESULTS: All relevant literature reports of EVAR management of mycotic AAA and all cases treated in our institute, 41 cases, were included and analyzed. Of the 20 cases treated by EVAR, one had early mortality (1/20, 5%); of the remaining 21 cases that received CS, the early mortality rate was 4.8% (1/21). Patients in the CS group had a higher late mortality rate than those in the EVAR group (45% vs. 10.5%, p<0.05). However, the 24-month actual survival rate and actuarial aneurysm-related event-free rate were 83.9+/-8.6% and 78.3+/-9.7%, respectively, for the EVAR group and did not significantly differ from the CS group (70.4+/-10.2% and 80.1+/-8.9%). The significant predictors for aneurysm-related mortality and morbidity were age, Salmonella species infection, and leukocytosis, and possibly aortoenteric fistula and shock, but not the EVAR or CS procedures themselves. CONCLUSION: Compared with CS, EVAR might be an alternative strategy for managing mycotic AAAs. Copyright 2010 Annals of Vascular Surgery Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Ivika Heinola; Karl Sörelius; Thomas R Wyss; Nikolaj Eldrup; Nicla Settembre; Carlo Setacci; Kevin Mani; Ilkka Kantonen; Maarit Venermo Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-06-09 Impact factor: 5.501