The development of endovascular techniques has improved abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) management over the past 2 decades. Different cardiovascular societies worldwide have recommended the endovascular approach as the standard of care in their currently available guidelines. While endovascular treatment has established its role in daily clinical practice, a new debate has arisen regarding the indications, appropriateness, limitations, and role of open surgery. To inform this debate, the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from 2010 to May 2020; the systematic search identified 5 articles published between 2011 and 2020 by 4 cardiovascular societies and the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Four debatable domains were assessed and analyzed: diagnostic methods and screening, preoperative management, indications and treatment modalities, and postoperative follow-up and endoleak management. The review addresses controversial proposals as well as widely accepted recommendations and “gray zone” issues that need to be further investigated and analyzed, such as screening in women, medical management, and follow-up imaging. While the recommendations for AAA management have significant overlap and agreement among international cardiovascular societies, the NICE guidelines diverge regarding the role of open repair in aortic disease, recommending conventional surgery in most elective cases.
KredoTBernhardssonSMachingaidzeS, et al. Guide to clinical practice guidelines: the current state of play. Int J Qual Health Care. 2016;28:122–128.
2.
BlackstoneEH.Precision medicine versus evidence-based medicine: individual treatment effect versus average treatment effect. Circulation. 2019;140:1236–1238.
3.
GrimaMJBehrendtCAVidal-DiezA, et al. Assessment of correlation between mean size of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm at time of intact repair against repair and rupture rate in nine countries. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2020;59:890–897.
4.
ScaliSTBeckAWSedrakyanA, et al. Hospital volume association with abdominal aortic aneurysm repair mortality—analysis of the international consortium of vascular registries. Circulation. 2019;140:1285–1287.
5.
BehrendtCARießHCSchwanebergT, et al. Incidence, predictors and outcomes of colonic ischaemia in abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018;56:507–513.
6.
BehrendtCASedrakyanASchwanebergT, et al. Impact of weekend treatment on short-term and long-term survival following urgent repair of ruptured aortic aneurysms in Germany. J Vasc Surg. 2018;69:792–799.e2.
7.
BehrendtCASedrakyanARießHC, et al. Short-term and long-term results of endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in Germany. J Vasc Surg. 2017;66:1704–1711.e3.
8.
Budtz-LillyJVenermoMDebusS, et al. Assessment of international outcomes of intact abdominal aortic aneurysm repair over 9 years. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017;65:13–20.
9.
Budtz-LillyJBjörckMVenermoM, et al. The impact of centralisation and endovascular aneurysm repair on treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms based on international registries. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018:56:181–188.
10.
BeckAWSedrakyanAMaoJ, et al; International Consortium of Vascular Registries. Variations in abdominal aortic aneurysm care: a report from the International Consortium of Vascular Registries. Circulation. 2016;134:1948–1958.
11.
WanhainenAVerziniFVan HerzeeleI, et al. European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2019 clinical practice guidelines on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2019;57:8–93.
12.
ChaikofELDalmanRLEskandariMK, et al. The Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines on the care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2018;67:2–77.e2.
13.
LiapisCAvgerinosEDEcksteinHH.Proposed NICE abdominal aortic aneurysm repair guidelines: swinging the pendulum too far?Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2019;58:637–638.
14.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJ, et al; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.
15.
JCS Joint Working Group. Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of aortic aneurysm and aortic dissection (JCS 2011): digest version. Circ J. 2013;77:789–828.
16.
ErbelRAboyansVBoileauC, et al. 2014 ESC guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases: Document covering acute and chronic aortic diseases of the thoracic and abdominal aorta of the adult. The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Aortic Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2873–2926.
17.
National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Abdominal aortic aneurysm: diagnosis and management. NICE guideline. Published March19, 2020. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng156. Accessed June 20, 2020.
18.
SvensjöSBjörckMWanhainenA.Update on screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: a topical review. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014;48:659–667.
19.
AltobelliERapacchiettaLProfetaVF, et al. Risk factors for abdominal aortic aneurysm in population-based studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15:2805.
20.
US Preventive Services Task Force, OwensDKDavidsonKW, et al. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2019;322:2211–2218.
21.
SweetingMJMasconiKLJonesE, et al. Analysis of clinical benefit, harms, and cost-effectiveness of screening women for abdominal aortic aneurysm. Lancet. 2018;392:487–495.
22.
MA3RS Study Investigators. Aortic wall inflammation predicts abdominal aortic aneurysm expansion, rupture, and need for surgical repair. Circulation. 2017;136:787–797.
23.
RabkinSW.The role matrix metalloproteinases in the production of aortic aneurysm. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci. 2017;147:239–265.
24.
ReisPVMorgadoMValdoleirosI, et al. Complications of endovascular aneurysm repair: mortality, myocardial infarction and acute kidney injury. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2018;46:222–228.
25.
DelaneyCLMillerMDAllanRB, et al. The impact of abdominal aortic aneurysm on muscle mass and energy expenditure: a novel preliminary investigation. Vascular. 2015;23:602–606.
26.
PowellJTWanhainenA.Analysis of the differences between the European Society for Vascular Surgery 2019 and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2020 Guidelines for abdominal aortic aneurysm. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2020;60:7–15.
27.
De RangoPCaoPParlaniG, et al. Outcome after endografting in small and large abdominal aortic aneurysms: a meta-analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2008;35:162–172.
28.
SpanosKEcksteinH-HGiannoukasAD.Small abdominal aortic aneurysms are not all the same. Angiology. 2020;71:205–207.
29.
OurielK.Randomized clinical trials of endovascular repair versus surveillance for treatment of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Endovasc Ther. 2009;16(suppl 1):I94–I105.
30.
ScaliSTBeckAWSedrakyanA, et al. Hospital volume association with abdominal aortic aneurysm repair mortality: analysis of the International Consortium of Vascular Registries. Circulation. 2019;140:1285–1287.
31.
SpeelmanLSchurinkGWBosboomEM, et al. The mechanical role of thrombus on the growth rate of an abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2010;51:19–26.
32.
FillingerMFRacusinJBakerRK, et al. Anatomic characteristics of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm on conventional CT scans: Implications for rupture risk. J Vasc Surg. 2004;39:1243–1252.
33.
LeeKMChoiSYKimMU, et al. Effects of anatomical characteristics as factors in abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture: CT aortography analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:e7236.
34.
JalalzadehHIndrakusumaRPlankenRN, et al. Inflammation as a predictor of abdominal aortic aneurysm growth and rupture: a systematic review of imaging biomarkers. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016;52:333–342.
35.
GroeneveldMEMeekelJPRubinsteinSM, et al. Systematic review of circulating, biomechanical, and genetic markers for the prediction of abdominal aortic aneurysm growth and rupture. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7:e007791.
36.
IndrakusumaRJalalzadehHPlankenRN, et al. Biomechanical imaging markers as predictors of abdominal aortic aneurysm growth or rupture: a systematic review. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016;52:475–486.
37.
LarssonELabrutoFGasserTC, et al. Analysis of aortic wall stress and rupture risk in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm with a gender perspective. J Vasc Surg. 2011;54:295–299.
38.
GreenhalghRMBrownLCKwongGP, et al. Comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair with open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1), 30-day operative mortality results: randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;364:843–848.
39.
PrinssenMVerhoevenELButhJ, et al. A randomized trial comparing conventional and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1607–1618.
40.
BecqueminJP.The ACE trial: a randomized comparison of open versus endovascular repair in good risk patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2009;50:222–224.
41.
LederleFAFreischlagJAKyriakidesTC, et al. Outcomes following endovascular vs open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: a randomized trial. Open Versus Endovascular Repair (OVER) Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group. JAMA. 2009;302:1535–1542.
42.
PowellJTSweetingMJUlugP, et al; EVAR-1, DREAM, OVER and ACE Trialists. Meta-analysis of individual-patient data from EVAR-1, DREAM, OVER and ACE trials comparing outcomes of endovascular or open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm over 5 years. Br J Surg. 2017;104:166–178.
43.
SultanSVeithFAsherE, et al. NICE guidelines for AAA repair: an enigma [published online ahead of print July 12, 2020]. J Endovasc Ther. 2020. doi:10.1177/1526602820941163
44.
MullenixPSStarnesBWRonsivalleJA, et al. The impact of an interventional vascular specialty team on institutional endovascular aneurysm repair outcomes. Am J Surg. 2005;189:577–580.
45.
LeightonPDoeMPathakS, et al. Immediate impact of centralization on abdominal aortic aneurysm repair outcomes for a vascular network in the south west of England: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Surg. 2019;269:172–176.
46.
LederleFAKyriakidesTCStroupeKT, et al. Open versus endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:2126–2135.
47.
KelsoRLLydenSPButlerB, et al. Late conversion of aortic stent grafts. J Vasc Surg. 2009;49:589–595.
48.
AntoniouGAGeorgiadisGSAntoniouSA, et al. Late rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysm after previous endovascular repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endovasc Ther. 2015;22:734–744.
49.
GiannoniMFCitoneMRossiniM, et al. Role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the follow-up of endo-vascular aortic aneurysm repair: an effective and safe surveillance method. Curr Pharm Des. 2012;18:2214–2222.
50.
ZaiemFAlmasriJTelloM, et al. A systematic review of surveillance after endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Surg. 2018;67:320–331.
51.
MacchiMFloridiCStrocchiS, et al. Role of low dose CT angiography in the follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair of abdominal aorta. Acta Radiol. 2015;56:1471–1478.
52.
ChisciEHarrisLGuidottiA, et al. Endovascular aortic repair follow up protocol based on contrast enhanced ultrasound is safe and effective. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018;56:40–47.
de MikSMLGeraedtsACMUbbinkDT, et al. Effect of imaging surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair on reinterventions and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endovasc Ther. 2019;26:531–541.
