Editor's Choice – Management of Secondary Aorto-enteric and Other Abdominal Arterio-enteric Fistulas: A Review and Pooled Data Analysis. Issue 6 (December 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kakkos, S.K.; Bicknell, C.D.; Tsolakis, I.A.; Bergqvist, D.
• Is Part Of: European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery. Volume 52:Issue 6(2016:Dec.)
• Page Start: 770
• Page End: 786
• Publication Date: 2016-12
• Subjects: Aortoenteric fistula -- Arterioenteric fistula -- Endovascular -- Graft removal -- Secondary; Blood-vessels -- Endoscopic surgery -- Periodicals; Blood-vessels -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Vascular Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Vascular Surgical Procedures -- methods -- Periodicals; Vaisseaux sanguins -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Vaisseaux sanguins -- Chirurgie endoscopique -- Périodiques; Blood-vessels -- Endoscopic surgery; Blood-vessels -- Surgery; Endoscopy; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 617.413005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2016.09.014
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1078-5884

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: To compare management strategies for secondary abdominal arterio-enteric fistulas (AEFs). Methods: This study is a review and pooled data analysis. Medline and Scopus databases were searched for studies published between 1999 and 2015. Particular emphasis was given to short- and long-term outcomes in relation to AEF repair type. Results: Two hundred and sixteen publications were retrieved, reporting on 823 patients. In-hospital mortality was 30.7%. Open surgery had higher in-hospital mortality (246/725, 33.9%), than endovascular methods (7/98, 7.1%, p < .001, OR 6.7, 95% CI 3–14.7, including staged endovascular to open surgery, 0/13, 0%). In-hospital mortality after graft removal/extra-anatomical bypass grafting was 31.2% (66/226), graft removal/in situ repair 34% (137/403), primary closure of the arterial defect 62.5% (10/16), and for miscellaneous open procedures 41.3% (33/80), p = .019. Among the subgroups of in situ repair, homografts were associated with a higher mortality than impregnated prosthetic grafts ( p = .047). There was no difference in recurrent AEF-free rates between open and endovascular procedures. Extra-anatomical bypass/graft removal and in situ repair had a lower AEF recurrence rate than primary closure and homografts. Late sepsis occurred more often after endovascular surgery (2-year rates 42% vs. 19% for open, p = .001). The early survival benefit of endovascular surgery was blunted during follow-up, although it remained significant ( p < .001). Within the in situ repair group, impregnated prosthetic grafts were associated with the worst overall and AEF related mortality free rates and vein grafts with the best. No recurrence, sepsis, or mortality was reported following staged endograft placement to open repair after a mean follow-up of 16.8 months ( p = .18, p = .22, and p = .006, respectively, compared with patients in other groups). Conclusions: Endovascular surgery, where appropriate, is associated with better early survival than open surgery for secondary AEFs. Most of this benefit is lost during long-term follow-up, implying that a staged approach with early conversion to in situ vein grafting may achieve the best results in selected patients.