Influence of psoas muscle area on mortality following elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. BJS 2019; 106: 367-374.
Published: 31st January 2019
Authors: M. A. Waduud, B. Wood, P. Keleabetswe, J. Manning, E. Linton, M. Drozd et al.
The effect of sarcopenia based on the total psoas muscle area (TPMA) on CT is inconclusive in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) intervention. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate morphometric sarcopenia as a method of risk stratification in patients undergoing elective AAA intervention.
TPMA was measured on preintervention CT images of patients undergoing elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) or open aneurysm repair. Mortality was assessed in relation to preintervention TPMA using Cox regression analysis, with calculation of hazard ratios at 30 days, 1 year and 4 years. Postintervention morbidity was evaluated in terms of postintervention care, duration of hospital stay and 30‐day readmission. Changes in TPMA on surveillance EVAR imaging were also evaluated.
In total, 382 patient images acquired between March 2008 and December 2016 were analysed. There were no significant intraobserver and interobserver differences in measurements of TPMA. Preintervention TPMA failed to predict morbidity and mortality at all time points. The mean(s.d.) interval between preintervention and surveillance imaging was 361·3(111·2) days. A significant reduction in TPMA was observed in men on surveillance imaging after EVAR (mean reduction 0·63(1·43) cm2 per m2; P < 0·001). However, this was not associated with mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1·00, 95 per cent c.i. 0·99 to 1·01; P = 0·935).
TPMA is not a suitable risk stratification tool for patients undergoing effective intervention for AAA.Full text
You may also be interested in
Meta‐analysis of the outcomes of treatment of internal carotid artery near occlusion. BJS 2019; 106: 665-671.
Authors: A. J. A. Meershoek, E. E. Vries, D. Veen, H. M. Ruijter, G. J. Borst, A. Garcia‐Pastor et al.
Authors: S. F. Cheng, M. M. Brown, R. J. Simister, T. Richards
Baseline findings of the population‐based, randomized, multifaceted Danish cardiovascular screening trial (DANCAVAS) of men aged 65–74 years.
Authors: J. S. Lindholt, L. M. Rasmussen, R. Søgaard, J. Lambrechtsen, F. H. Steffensen, L. Frost et al.
Randomized clinical trial
Randomized clinical trial of mechanochemical and endovenous thermal ablation of great saphenous varicose veins. BJS 2019; 106: 548-554.
Authors: S. Vähäaho, O. Mahmoud, K. Halmesmäki, A. Albäck, K. Noronen, P. Vikatmaa et al.
Meta‐analysis of long‐term survival after elective endovascular or open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. BJS 2019; 106: 523-533.
Authors: R. M. A. Bulder, E. Bastiaannet, J. F. Hamming, J. H. N. Lindeman
Authors: D. C. Norvell, M. L. Thompson, E. J. Boyko, G. Landry, A. J. Littman, W. G. Henderson et al.
Meta‐analysis of clinical trials examining the benefit of structured home exercise in patients with peripheral artery disease. BJS 2019; 106: 319-331.
Authors: J. Golledge, T. P. Singh, C. Alahakoon, J. Pinchbeck, L. Yip, J. V. Moxon et al.
Cost‐effectiveness analysis of a randomized clinical trial of early versus deferred endovenous ablation of superficial venous reflux in patients with venous ulceration. BJS 2019; 106: 555-562.
Authors: D. M. Epstein, M. S. Gohel, F. Heatley, X. Liu, A. Bradbury, R. Bulbulia et al.
Meta‐analysis of negative pressure wound therapy of closed groin incisions in arterial surgery. BJS 2019; 106: 310-318.
Authors: R. Svensson‐Björk, M. Zarrouk, G. Asciutto, J. Hasselmann, S. Acosta
Cost‐effectiveness of targeted screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in siblings. BJS 2019; 106: 206-216.
Authors: R. Hultgren, A. Linné, S. Svensjö
Notes: Cost effective
Systematic review of endovascular intervention and surgery for common femoral artery atherosclerotic disease. BJS 2019; 106: 13-22.
Authors: X. Jia, Z. D. Sun, J. V. Patel, K. Flood, D. D. Stocken, D. J. A. Scott et al.
Sex differences in national rates of repair of emergency abdominal aortic aneurysm. BJS 2019; 106: 82-89.
Authors: A. Aber, T. S. Tong, J. Chilcott, P. Thokala, R. Maheswaran, S. M. Thomas et al.
Notes: Why worse for women?