Linee guida e registri nelle procedure aortiche
Download
1 / 42

Chirurgia Vascolare ed Endovascolare Università di Perugia Az.Osp.Perugia - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 123 Views
  • Uploaded on

Linee guida e registri nelle procedure aortiche Linee guida SICVE. Fabio Verzini. Chirurgia Vascolare ed Endovascolare Università di Perugia Az.Osp.Perugia. SIGN Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network, http://www.sign.ac.uk. METODOLOGIA AHA-ACC. Perché Linee Guida SICVE?.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Chirurgia Vascolare ed Endovascolare Università di Perugia Az.Osp.Perugia' - andie


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Linee guida e registri nelle procedure aortiche

Linee guida SICVE

Fabio Verzini

Chirurgia Vascolare ed Endovascolare

Università di Perugia

Az.Osp.Perugia




Perché Linee Guida SICVE?

  • Implementare Linee guida ESVS

  • Aggiornare LG

  • Contestualizzare LG



Punti critici

Open vs EVAR


Nuovi HTA?

  • l’EVAR riduce la mortalità a 30 giorni, ma non offre nessun beneficio significativo nella mortalità associata all’aneurisma e nella mortalità totale a lungo termine

  • L’EVAR, infine, risulta associato ad un numero di re-interventi più elevato rispetto alla CA, non compensato da un miglioramento dell’HRQoL.

  • L’unico studio che ha analizzato l’EVAR rispetto alla CA nei pazienti con AAA rotto trattati in urgenza, non ha osservato la differenza ipotizzata, sulla base di studi osservazionali precedenti, nella mortalità e nelle complicanze gravi tra i pazienti trattati con EVAR e con CA.


Nice national institute for clinical excellence
NICE – National Institute For Clinical Excellence

Guidance TA 167 – Febbraio 2009


NICE – National InstituteForClinicalExcellence

Guidance TA 167 – Febbraio 2009


NICE – National InstituteForClinicalExcellence

Guidance TA 167 – Febbraio 2009


81.9% open

70.4% EVAR

69.9% open

68.9% EVAR


DREAM Conclusions

  • Similar survival rates

  • Higher incidence of secondary intervention with EVAR


DREAM analysis

  • Mostly men (94%)

  • ASA I 6 & II = 85%

  • Erollment target (400 pts.) not achieved

  • > 10% AneuRx, Ancure, Quantum, Lifepath

  • Cluster of reinterventions after 5 yy in EVAR


DREAM analysis

  • Power calculation based on early (30 days) mortality

  • Few late events

  • Few CTs in Open group after 2 yy


EVAR 1 Conclusions

  • Lower per-operative mortality

  • Equal total & AAA related mortality

  • EVAR : increased graft related complications & reinterventions

  • EVAR more costly


EVAR 1 Analysis

  • Loss in the early benefit mainly due to increased late fatal graft ruptures

  • “Early” 2°-3° generation endografts, scarce recognition of intra operative problems leading to late complcations

  • Center experience (> 20 EVAR) issue

  • Too aggressive treatment of complications (type 2 endoleaks)

  • “Old” & costly surveillance program


EVAR 2 Conclusions

  • Lower EVAR AAA-related mortality

  • Equal total mortality

  • EVAR : increased graft related complications & reinterventions

  • EVAR more costly


EVAR 2 Analysis

  • Per-protocol analyses: greater benefit of EVAR in AAA related mortality.

  • A non-significant benefit in total mortality was also shown.

  • High rate of crossover = it is difficult to withhold endovascular repair in the future.


perioperative mortality

0.5% vs 3.0%; P=.004


OVER Conclusions

  • Mean follow up 1.8 years

  • Short term EVAR benefit in mortality,& morbidity

  • Similar quality of life & reintervention rates


OVER Analysis

  • 43 % small AAA

  • very low mortality rates in both groups

  • 20% AneuRx

  • Early Conversion rate <1.5%

  • Mostly, reintervention after EVAR were endovascular,

    • after Open Surgery were Hernia repair


survival free of death or major event

survival free of death or reintervention


ACE Conclusions

  • Median follow up 3 years

  • Operative mortality:

  • open surgery 0.6%, EVAR 1.3 %

  • Reinterventions: 2.7% vs 16%

  • In low risk patients, Open repair is as safe as EVAR


ACE Analysis

  • Small number of enrolled pts., below target

  • Very low Open surgery mortality: patient & Center selection, most recent trial

  • Incisional complications (24%) & hernia repairs not accounted for





April 2004 – February 2011

520 patients with RAAA

116 patients randomized to EVAR or OPEN repair


Primary endpoint rate (death+severe complications) at 30 days:

42% EVAR vs 47% OPEN

(ARR 5.4, 95% CI:-13% +23%)

30 dd Mortality: 21 % EVAR, 25% Open


Conclusioni days:

  • SICVE ha il dovere di produrre LG

  • E’ una opportunità per aggiornare l’esistente

  • Evidenza attuale spesso di grado non elevato = raccomandazioni in classe 2


ad