Design and created by Guideline Central in participation with the Society for Vascular Surgery.

Society for Vascular Surgery
Publication Date: January 31, 2018
| 1. Is there a cardiac condition? |
|
| Presence cancels or delays aneurysm repair until conditions are treated. Implement medical management and consider coronary angiography. | |
| 2. Does the patient have good functional capacity without symptoms? |
|
| May proceed with aneurysm repair. In patients with known cardiovascular disease or at least one clinical risk factor, beta blockade is appropriate. | |
| 3. Is functional capacity poor or unknown? |
|
| In patients with three or more clinical risk factors, preoperative noninvasive testing is appropriate if it will change management. |
From: Chaikof EL, Brewster DC, Dalman RL, Makaroun MS, Illig KA, Sicard GA, et al. The care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm: the Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines. J Vasc Surg. 2009;50(Suppl):S2-49; originally adapted from Fleisher LA, Beckman JA, Brown KA, Calkins H, Chaikof E, Fleischmann KE, et al. ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and care for noncardiac surgery: executive summary. Circulation 2007;116:1971-96.
| Activity level | Examples of activity level |
|---|---|
| Poor (1–3 METs) | Eating, walking at 2–3 mph, getting dressed, light housework (washing dishes) |
| Moderate (4–7 METs) | Climbing a flight of stairs or walking up a hill, running a short distance, heavy housework (scrubbing floors or moving furniture) Climbing a flight of stairs or walking up a hill, running a short distance, heavy housework (scrubbing floors or moving furniture) |
| Good (7–10 METs) | Doubles tennis, calisthenics without weights, golfing without cart |
| Excellent (>10 METs) | Strenuous sports such as football, basketball, singles tennis, karate, jogging 10-minute mile or more, chopping wood |
From Chaikof EL, Brewster DC, Dalman RL, Makaroun MS, Illig KA, Sicard GA, et al. The care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm: the Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines. J Vasc Surg. 2009;50(Suppl):S2-49; originally adapted from Hlatky MA, Boineau RE, Higginbotham MB, Lee KL, Mark DB, Califf RM, et al. A brief self-administered questionnaire to determine functional capacity (the Duke Activity Status Index). Am J Cardiol. 1989;64:651-4.
| Parameter | Points |
|---|---|
| Treatment | |
| EVAR | 0 |
| Open aneurysm repair (OAR) (infrarenal) | 2 |
| OAR (suprarenal) | 4 |
| Aneurysm size, mm | |
| <65 | 0 |
| ≥65 | 2 |
| Age, years | |
| ≤75 | 0 |
| >75 | 1 |
| Gender | |
| Male | 0 |
| Female | 1 |
| Comorbidities | |
| Myocardial disease | 1 |
| Cerebrovascular disease | 1 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease | 2 |
| Laboratory value | |
| Creatinine, mg/dL | |
| <1.5 | 0 |
| 1.5 to <2 | 2 |
| ≥2 | 2 |
From Eslami MH, Rybin D, Doros G, Kalish JA, Farber A; Vascular Study Group of New England. Comparison of a Vascular Study Group of New England risk prediction model with established risk prediction models of in-hospital mortality after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:1125-33.e2.
| Points | Probability of mortality, % | Proposed risk designation |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.12 | Low-risk group |
| 1 | 0.2 | |
| 2 | 0.34 | |
| 3 | 0.59 | |
| 4 | 1 | |
| 5 | 1.71 | Medium-risk group |
| 6 | 2.91 | |
| 7 | 4.9 | |
| 8 | 8.14 | High-risk group |
| 9 | 13.2 | |
| 10 | 20.75 | |
| 11 | 31.05 | Prohibitive high-risk group |
| 12 | 43.63 | |
| 13 | 57.1 | |
| 14 | 69.59 |
From Eslami MH, Rybin D, Doros G, Kalish JA, Farber A; Vascular Study Group of New England. Comparison of a Vascular Study Group of New England risk prediction model with established risk prediction models of in-hospital mortality after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:1125-33.e2.
| Transperitoneal | Retroperitoneal | |
|---|---|---|
| Advantages |
|
|
| Disadvantages |
|
|
| Complication | Frequency, % |
|---|---|
| All cardiac | 15 |
| Myocardial infarction | 2–8 |
| All pulmonary | 8–12 |
| Pneumonia | 5 |
| Renal insufficiency | 5–12 |
| Dialysis | 1–6 |
| Bleeding | 2–5 |
| Wound infection | <5 |
| Leg ischemia | 1–4 |
| Deep venous thrombosis | 5–8 |
| Colon ischemia | 1–2 |
| Stroke | 1–2 |
| Graft thrombosis | <1 |
| Graft infection | <1 |
| Ureteral injury | <1 |
From Schermerhorn ML, Cronenwett JL. Abdominal aortic and iliac aneurysms. In: Rutherford RB, editor. Vascular surgery. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2005. p. 1431.
| ❏ | Physician-to-physician phone handoff |
| ❏ | Intravenous peripheral access |
| ❏ | Continuous vital sign monitoring |
| ❏ | Permissive hypotension (to maintain a mental status and target systolic pressure of 70–90 mmHg) |
| ❏ | Transfer of obtained images (either by upload or CD/DVD) |
| ❏ | Emergency department attending physician |
| ❏ | Emergency department nursing |
| ❏ | Vascular surgery attending physician and team (including vascular technologist) |
| ❏ | Anesthesiology team |
| ❏ | Operating room charge nurse |
| ❏ | Vascular technologist |
| ❏ | Admitting/bed control |
| ❏ | Chaplaincy |
| Type | Description |
|---|---|
| I | An incomplete seal at the proximal aortic attachment site (type Ia) or at the distal iliac attachment site (Ib) |
| II | Persistent filling of the aneurysm sac from patent lumbar arteries or the IMA |
| III | Incomplete seal between components or component separation and, less frequently, fabric erosion |
| IV | Fabric porosity |
| Strength of Recommendation | Level of Evidence | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 - Strong | Benefit clearly outweighs risk | A | High |
| 2 - Weak | Benefits and risks are more closely matched and are more dependent on specific clinical scenarios | B | Moderate |
| C | Low | ||
| G-U | Good Practice Statement - Ungraded | ||
| CS | Consensus Statement – Ungraded | ||
This resource is for informational purposes only, intended as a quick-reference tool based on the cited source guideline(s), and should not be used as a substitute for the independent professional judgment of healthcare providers. Practice guidelines are unable to account for every individual variation among patients or take the place of clinician judgment, and the ultimate decision concerning the propriety of any course of conduct must be made by healthcare providers after consideration of each individual patient situation. Guideline Central does not endorse any specific guideline(s) or guideline recommendations and has not independently verified the accuracy hereof. Any use of this resource or any other Guideline Central resources is strictly voluntary.
Guideline Central and select third party use “cookies” on this website to enhance the user experience.
This technology helps us gather statistical and analytical information to optimize the relevant content for you.
The user also has the option to opt-out which may have an effect on the browsing experience.