Objective: The aim of this was to analyze differences between saccularshaped abdominal aortic aneurysms (SaAAAs) and fusiform abdominal aortic aneurysms (FuAAAs) regarding patient characteristics,... Show moreObjective: The aim of this was to analyze differences between saccularshaped abdominal aortic aneurysms (SaAAAs) and fusiform abdominal aortic aneurysms (FuAAAs) regarding patient characteristics, treatment, and outcome, to advise a threshold for intervention for SaAAAs.Background: Based on the assumption that SaAAAs are more prone to rupture, guidelines suggest early elective treatment. However, little is known about the natural history of SaAAAs and the threshold for intervention is not substantiated.Methods: Observational study including primary repairs of degenerative AAAs in the Netherlands between 2016 and 2018 in which the shape was registered, registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA). Patients were stratified by urgency of surgery; elective versus acute (symptomatic/ruptured). Patient characteristics, treatment, and outcome were compared between SaAAAs and FuAAAs.Results: A total of 7659 primary AAA-patients were included, 6.1% (n = 471) SaAAAs and 93.9% (n = 7188) FuAAAs. There were 5945 elective patients (6.5% SaAAA) and 1714 acute (4.8% SaAAA). Acute SaAAApatients were more often female (28.9% vs 17.2%, P = 0.007) compared with acute FuAAA-patients. SaAAAs had smaller diameters than FuAAAs, in elective (53.0mm vs 61 mm, P = 0.000) and acute (68mm vs 75 mm, P = 0.002) patients, even after adjusting for sex. In addition, 25.2% of acute SaAAA-patients presented with diameters <55mm and 8.4% <45 mm, versus 8.1% and 0.6% of acute FuAAA-patients (P = 0.000). Postoperative outcomes did not significantly differ between shapes in both elective and acute patients.Conclusions: SaAAAs become acute at smaller diameters than FuAAAs in DSAA patients. This study therefore supports the current idea that SaAAAs should be electively treated at smaller diameters than FuAAAs. The exact diameter threshold for elective treatment of SaAAAs is difficult to determine, but a diameter of 45mm seems to be an acceptable threshold. Show less
Dijk, L.J.D. van; Noord, D. van; Geelkerken, R.H.; Harki, J.; Berendsen, S.A.; Vries, A.C. de; ... ; Dutch Mesenteric Ischemia Study Gr 2019
Background and objective: The objective of this article is to externally validate and update a recently published score chart for chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI). Methods: A multicenter... Show moreBackground and objective: The objective of this article is to externally validate and update a recently published score chart for chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI). Methods: A multicenter prospective cohort analysis was conducted of 666 CMI-suspected patients referred to two Dutch specialized CMI centers. Multidisciplinary consultation resulted in expert-based consensus diagnosis after which CMI consensus patients were treated. A definitive diagnosis of CMI was established if successful treatment resulted in durable symptom relief. The absolute CMI risk was calculated and discriminative ability of the original chart was assessed by the c-statistic in the validation cohort. Thereafter the original score chart was updated based on the performance in the combined original and validation cohort with inclusion of celiac artery (CA) stenosis cause. Results: In 8% of low-risk patients, 39% of intermediate-risk patients and 94% of high-risk patients of the validation cohort, CMI was diagnosed. Discriminative ability of the original model was acceptable (c-statistic 0.79). The total score of the updated chart ranged from 0 to 28 points (low risk 19% absolute CMI risk, intermediate risk 45%, and high risk 92%). The discriminative ability of the updated chart was slightly better (c-statistic 0.80). Conclusion: The CMI prediction model performs and discriminates well in the validation cohort. The updated score chart has excellent discriminative ability and is useful in clinical decision making. Show less
Dijk, L.J.D. van; Harki, J.; Noord, D. van; Verhagen, H.J.M.; Kolkman, J.J.; Geelkerken, R.H.; ... ; Dutch Mesenteric Ischemia Study Gr 2019
Background: Chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI) is the result of insufficient blood supply to the gastrointestinal tract and is caused by atherosclerotic stenosis of one or more mesenteric arteries... Show moreBackground: Chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI) is the result of insufficient blood supply to the gastrointestinal tract and is caused by atherosclerotic stenosis of one or more mesenteric arteries in > 90% of cases. Revascularization therapy is indicated in patients with a diagnosis of atherosclerotic CMI to relieve symptoms and to prevent acute-on-chronic mesenteric ischemia, which is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Endovascular therapy has rapidly evolved and has replaced surgery as the first choice of treatment in CMI. Bare-metal stents (BMS) are standard care currently, although retrospective studies suggested significantly higher patency rates for covered stents (CS). The Covered stents versus Bare-metal stents in chronic atherosclerotic Gastrointestinal Ischemia (CoBaGI) trial is designed to prospectively assess the patency of CS versus BMS in patients with atherosclerotic CMI.Methods/design: The CoBaGI trial is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-and investigator-blinded, superiority, multicenter trial conducted in six centers of the Dutch Mesenteric Ischemia Study group (DMIS). Eighty-four patients with a consensus diagnosis of atherosclerotic CMI are 1:1 randomized to either a balloon-expandable BMS (Palmaz Blue with rapid-exchange delivery system, Cordis Corporation, Bridgewater, NJ, USA) or a balloon-expandable CS (Advanta V12 over-the-wire, Atrium Maquet Getinge Group, Hudson, NH, USA). The primary endpoint is the primary stent-patency rate at 24 months assessed with CT angiography. Secondary endpoints are primary stent patency at 6 and 12 months and secondary patency rates, freedom from restenosis, freedom from symptom recurrence, freedom from re-intervention, quality of life according the EQ-5D-5 L and SF-36 and cost-effectiveness at 6, 12 and 24 months.Discussion: The CoBaGI trial is designed to assess the patency rates of CS versus BMS in patients treated for CMI caused by atherosclerotic mesenteric stenosis. Furthermore, the CoBaGI trial should provide insights in the quality of life of these patients before and after stenting and its cost-effectiveness. The CoBaGI trial is the first randomized controlled trial performed in CMI caused by atherosclerotic mesenteric artery stenosis. Show less
Dijk, L.J.D. van; Noord, D. van; Vries, A.C. de; Kolkman, J.J.; Geelkerken, R.H.; Verhagen, H.J.M.; ... ; Dutch Mesenteric Ischemia Study 2019
