Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35276265›Full record

ArticleJournal of vascular surgery2022

A retroperitoneal operative approach is associated with improved perioperative outcomes compared with a transperitoneal approach in open repair of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Vinamr Rastogi, Christina L Marcaccio, Priya B Patel, Rens R B Varkevisser, Virendra I Patel, Peter A Soden, Jorg L de Bruin, Hence J M Verhagen, Marc L Schermerhorn

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vascular surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Retroperitoneal versus Transperitoneal Approach for Open Repair of Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Vinamr RastogiDivision of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Vascular Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Christina L MarcaccioDivision of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Priya B PatelDivision of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Rens R B VarkevisserDivision of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Vascular Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Virendra I PatelDivision of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Interventions, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY.
Peter A SodenDivision of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Surgery, Brown University Medical Center, Providence, RI.
Jorg L de BruinDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Hence J M VerhagenDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marc L SchermerhornDivision of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Electronic address: mscherm@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Harvard University · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USErasmus MC · NLColumbia University Irving Medical Center · USUniversity Medical Center · US

Funding

The Harvard Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR002541 · NCATS · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI NADLER, LEE MARSHALL · 2018 to 2022
$93.0M
HARVARD-LONGWOOD RESEARCH TRAINING IN VASCULAR SURGERYT32HL007734 · NHLBI · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI FERRAN, CHRISTIANE, LOGERFO, FRANK W · 1993 to 2023
$10.5M
Disparities in Detection and Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm DiseaseF32HS027285 · AHRQ · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI MARCACCIO, CHRISTINA · 2020 to 2021
$154k
AHRQ HHS F32 HS027285NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002541NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007734
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSeveral studies have demonstrated the advantages of a retroperitoneal (RP) vs a transperitoneal (TP) approach during open repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). We compared the outcomes after open repair of complex AAAs (cAAAs) using an RP vs a TP approach and evaluated the relative use of these approaches over time.

methodsWe identified all patients who had undergone open intact cAAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2003 to -2019 and created 1:1-propensity score-matched cohorts stratified by the operative approach (RP vs TP). The primary outcome was perioperative mortality. The secondary outcomes included perioperative complications and approach usage over time. To create 1:1 propensity score-matched cohorts, the patients were matched for demographics, comorbidities, and anatomic and/or intraoperative characteristics, including proximal clamp site and renal revascularization. The approach usage over time was determined by plotting the proportion of RP usage over time for the overall open cAAA cohort and subgroups of repairs using a supraceliac cross clamp, repair with concomitant renal revascularization, and repairs performed at high-volume centers (highest quintile, >11 cases annually).

resultsOf a total of 4613 patients, 2843 (62%) had undergone open cAAA repair using the TP approach and 1770 (38%) using the RP approach. Of the 1256 matched pairs, the RP approach was associated with lower risk of perioperative mortality compared with the TP approach (3.9% vs 6.8%; relative risk [RR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.80; P = .001). Furthermore, the RP approach was associated with a lower risk of cardiac complications (7.2% vs 9.6%; RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.98), bowel ischemia (3.1% vs 5.4%; RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.84), and postoperative dialysis (3.3% vs 5.5%; RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.87). Overall, the proportion of patients who had undergone repair via an RP approach became lower over time (-1.0%/y; 95% CI, -1.5 to -0.5; P < .001). A similar trend in the decrease was found for the patients who had undergone repair with a supraceliac clamp (-2.3%/y; 95% CI, -3.6 to -1.0; P < .001) and in the high-volume hospitals (-2.1%/y; 95% CI, -3.4 to -0.8; P = .001), although no statistically significant decrease in RP usage was found for the patients who had undergone concomitant renal revascularization (-0.9%/y; 95% CI, -2.6 to 0.8; P = .28).

conclusionsFor open cAAA repair, an RP approach was associated with lower perioperative mortality and complications compared with a TP approach. However, the relative usage of the RP approach has been decreasing over time. An increased adoption of the RP approach, when appropriate, might lead to improved outcomes with open cAAA repair.

Indexed as

Aortic Aneurysm, AbdominalBlood Vessel Prosthesis ImplantationHumansPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeVascular Surgical ProceduresComplex abdominal aortic aneurysmsOpen repairRetroperitonealSurgical approachTransperitoneal

Identifiers

PMID35276265
PMCPMC9329186
OpenAlexW4220684106

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.