Treatment of Aortocaval Fistula Secondary to Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background: Aortocaval fistula (ACF) secondary to an abdominal aortic aneurysm is a rare complication, inadvertently caused by a rupture into the inferior vena cava. Different treatment modalities have been applied toward the repair of such lesions, including open surgical and endovascular repair. The aim of this study was to report on ACF treatment and to analyze its early and mid-term outcomes.

Methods: A systematic search of the English medical literature published between 2000 and 2022 was undertaken, using PubMed, SCOPUS, and CENTRAL databases as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis 2020 guidelines. A study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022329058). Studies reporting on primary ACF outcomes following open surgical or endovascular repair were included. The ROBINS-I tool was applied for risk of bias assessment. Outcomes included technical success, 30-day and mid-term survival, endoleak following endovascular repair, and reintervention rates.

Results: In total, 110 case studies, incorporating 196 patients (mean age; 66.2 years, males 96%) were included. Open surgical repair was applied in 78% (153/196). From the available data, technical success rate for each modality was 99% (152/153) and 100% (43/43), respectively. Open and endovascular repair demonstrated 87.5% (126/144) and 97.6% (42/43) 30-day survival, respectively, while mid-term survival was 86% (74/86) and 95.2% (20/21), respectively (medial follow-up: 14 months [1-54 months]). Endoleaks were reported in 19 endovascular cases (39.5%). Type II endoleak was the most frequent with a rate at 32.5% (14/43). Reintervention rates were 2.5% (4/151) and 35.7% (15/42) for open and endovascular repair, respectively.

Conclusions: Only few case studies were published on the treatment of this rare condition, while almost all invasive procedures were performed in males. Management of ACF repair with both open and endovascular approach was associated with excellent technical success rate and acceptable early and mid-term survival outcomes. Reintervention remained an issue for patients who were managed endovascularly.