Affiliation:
1. Department of Vascular Surgery Waikato Hospital Hamilton New Zealand
2. Department of Vascular Surgery Wellington Hospital Wellington New Zealand
3. Department of Surgery University of Auckland Auckland New Zealand
4. Department of Vascular Surgery Auckland Hospital Auckland New Zealand
5. Department of Vascular Surgery Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Brisbane Queensland Australia
6. Department of Vascular Surgery Christchurch Hospital Christchurch New Zealand
7. Department of Vascular Surgery Prince of Wales Hospital Sydney New South Wales Australia
8. Department of Surgery University of Otago Otago New Zealand
Abstract
AbstractBackgroundSecondary aorto‐enteric fistulae (SAEF) are a rare, complex and life‐threatening complication following aortic repair. Traditional treatment strategy has been with open aortic repair (OAR), with emergence of endovascular repair (EVAR) as a potentially viable initial treatment option. Controversy exists over optimal immediate and long‐term management.MethodsThis was a retrospective, observational, multi‐institutional cohort study. Patients who had been treated for SAEF between 2003 and 2020 were identified using a standardized database. Baseline characteristics, presenting features, microbiological, operative, and post‐operative variables were recorded. The primary outcomes were short and mid‐term mortality. Descriptive statistics, binomial regression, Kaplan–Meier and Cox age‐adjusted survival analyses were performed.ResultsAcross 5 tertiary centres, a total of 47 patients treated for SAEF were included, 7 were female and the median (range) age at presentation was 74 years (48–93). In this cohort, 24 (51%) patients were treated with initially with OAR, 15 (32%) with EVAR‐first and 8 (17%) non‐operatively. The 30‐day and 1‐year mortality for all cases that underwent intervention was 21% and 46% respectively. Age‐adjusted survival analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in mortality in the EVAR‐first group compared to the OAR‐first group, HR 0.99 (95% CI 0.94–1.03, P = 0.61).ConclusionIn this study there was no difference in all‐cause mortality in patients who had OAR or EVAR as first line treatment for SAEF. In the acute setting, alongside broad‐spectrum antimicrobial therapy, EVAR can be considered as an initial treatment for patients with SAEF, as a primary treatment or a bridge to definitive OAR.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献