Variation in Surgical Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms With Small Aortic Diameters in the Netherlands

Objective: To evaluate reasons to deviate from aneurysm diameter thresholds, and focus on the difference in how Dutch vascular surgical units (VSUs) perceive their deviation and their actual deviation. Background: Guidelines recommend surgical treatment for asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with a diameter of at least 55 mm for men and 50 mm for women. We evaluate reasons to deviate from these guidelines, and focus on the difference in how Dutch vascular surgical units (VSUs) perceive their deviation and their actual deviation. Methods: All patients undergoing elective AAA repair between 2013 and 2016 registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA) were included. Surgery at diameters of <55 mm for men and <50 mm for women were considered guideline deviations. National deviation and hospital variation in deviation were evaluated over time. Questionnaires were distributed among all Dutch VSUs, inquiring for acceptable reasons for guideline deviation. VSUs were asked to estimate the guideline deviation percentage in their hospital which was then compared with their DSAA percentage. Results: In all, 9039 patients were included. In 15%, we found guideline deviation, varying from 2% to 40% between VSUs. Over time, 21 VSUs were identified with a lower percentage of deviation than the national mean each year and 8 VSUs with a higher percentage. 44/60 VSUs completed the questionnaire. Most commonly reported reasons to deviate were concomitant large iliac diameter (91%) and saccular aneurysm (82%). The majority of the VSUs (77%) estimated their guideline deviation to be <5%. Eleven VSUs (25%) estimated their deviation concordant with their DSAA percentage, but 75% of VSUs underestimated their deviation. Conclusions: Dutch VSUs regularly deviate from the guidelines regarding aneurysm diameter, with variation between VSUs. Consensus exists amongst VSUs on acceptable reasons for guideline deviations; however, the majority underestimates their actual deviation percentage

Type 2 Endoleak With or Without Intervention and Survival After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Objective: The aims of the present study were to examine the impact of type 2 endoleaks (T2EL) on overall survival and to determine the need for secondary intervention after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Methods: A multicentre retrospective cohort study in the Netherlands was conducted among patients with an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) who underwent EVAR between 2007 and 2012. The primary endpoint was overall survival for patients with (T2EL+) or without (T2EL-) a T2EL. Secondary endpoints were sac growth, AAA rupture, and secondary intervention. Kaplan–Meier survival and multivariable Cox regression analysis were used. Results: A total of 2 018 patients were included. The median follow up was 62.1 (range 0.1 – 146.2) months. No difference in overall survival was found between T2EL+ (n = 388) and T2EL- patients (n = 1630) (p =.54). The overall survival estimates at five and 10 years were 73.3%/69.4% and 45.9%/44.1% for T2EL+/T2EL- patients, respectively. Eighty-five of 388 (21.9%) T2EL+ patients underwent a secondary intervention. There was no difference in overall survival between T2EL+ patients who underwent a secondary intervention and those who were treated conservatively (p =.081). Sac growth was observed in 89 T2EL+ patients and 44/89 patients (49.4%) underwent a secondary intervention. In 41/44 cases (93.1%), sac growth was still observed after the intervention, but was left untreated. Aneurysm rupture occurred in 4/388 T2EL patients. In Cox regression analysis, higher age, ASA classification, and maximum iliac diameter were significantly associated with worse overall survival. Conclusion: No difference in overall survival was found between T2EL+ and T2EL- patients. Also, patients who underwent a secondary intervention did not have better survival compared with those who did not undergo a secondary intervention. This study reinforces the need for conservative treatment of an isolated T2EL and the importance of a prospective study to determine possible advantages of the intervention

National Numbers of Secondary Aortic Reinterventions after Primary Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Surgery from the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit

Contains fulltext : 226469.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Long-term secondary aortic reinterventions (SARs) can be a sign of (lack of) effectiveness of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery. This study provides insight into the national number of SARs after primary AAA repair by endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) or by open surgical repair in the Netherlands. METHODS: Observational study included all patients undergoing SAR between 2016 and 2017, registered in the compulsory Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA). The DSAA started in 2013, SARs are registered from 2016. Characteristics of SAR and postoperative outcomes (mortality/complications) were analyzed, stratified by urgency of SAR. Data of SARs were merged with data of their preceded primary AAA repair, registered in the DSAA after January 2013. In these patients undergoing SAR, treatment characteristics of the preceded primary AAA repair were additionally described, with focus on differences between stent grafts. RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2017, 691 patients underwent SAR, this concerned 9.3% of all AAA procedures (infrarenal/juxtarenal/suprarenal) in the Netherlands (77% elective/11% acute symptomatic/12% ruptured). Endoleak (60%) was the most frequent indication for SAR. SARs were performed with EVAR in 66%. Postoperative mortalities after SAR were 3.4%, 11%, and 29% in elective, acute symptomatic, and ruptured patients, respectively. In 26% (n = 181) of the patients undergoing SAR their primary AAA repair was performed after January 2013 and data of primary and SAR procedures could be merged. In 93% (n = 136), primary AAA repair was EVAR. Endografts primarily used were nitinol/polyester (62%), nitinol/polytetrafluoroethylene (8%), endovascular sealing (21%), and others (9%), compared with their national market share of 76% (odds ratio [OR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.71), 15% (OR, 0.50; CI, 0.29-0.89), 4.9% (OR, 5.04; CI, 3.44-7.38), and 4.1% (OR, 2.81; CI, 1.66-4.74), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the Netherlands, about one-tenth of the annual AAA procedures concerns an SAR. A quarter of this cohort had an SAR within 1-5 years after their primary AAA repair. Most SARs followed after primary EVAR procedures, in which an overrepresentation of endovascular sealing grafts was seen. Postoperative mortality after SAR is comparable with primary AAA repair

The Dutch Audit of Carotid Interventions: Transparency in Quality of Carotid Endarterectomy in Symptomatic Patients in the Netherlands

Background The Dutch Audit for Carotid Interventions (DACI) registers all patients undergoing interventions for carotid artery stenosis in the Netherlands. This study describes the design of the DACI and results of patients with a symptomatic stenosis undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). It aimed to evaluate variation between hospitals in process of care and (adjusted) outcomes, as well as predictors of major stroke/death after CEA. Methods All patients with a symptomatic stenosis, who underwent CEA and were registered in the DACI between 2014 and 2016 were included in this cohort. Descriptive analyses of patient characteristics, process of care, and outcomes were performed. Casemix adjusted hospital procedural outcomes as (30 day/in hospital) mortality, stroke/death, and major stroke/death, were compared with the national mean. A multivariable logistic regression model (backward elimination at p > 0.10) was used to identify predictors of major stroke/death. Results A total of 6459 patients, registered by 52 hospitals, were included. The majority (4,832, 75%) were treated <2 weeks after their first hospital consultation, varying from 40% to 93% between hospitals. Mortality, stroke/death, and major stroke/death were, respectively, 1.1%, 3.6%, and 1.8%. Adjusted major stroke/death rates for hospital comparison varied between 0 and 6.5%. Nine hospitals performed significantly better, none performed significantly worse. Predictors of major stroke/death were sex, age, pulmonary disease, presenting neurological symptoms, and peri-operative shunt. Conclusion CEA in The Netherlands is associated with an overall low mortality and (major) stroke/death rate. Whereas the indicator time to intervention varied between hospitals, mortality and (major) stroke/death were not significantly distinctive enough to identify worse practices and therefore were unsuitable for hospital comparison in the Dutch setting. Additionally, predictors of major stroke/death at population level could be identified

Textbook Outcome A Composite Measure for Quality of Elective Aneurysm Surgery

Vascular Surger

The Dutch Audit of Carotid Interventions: Transparency in Quality of Carotid Endarterectomy in Symptomatic Patients in the Netherlands

Vascular Surger

Adjusted Hospital Outcomes of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Surgery Reported in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit

Vascular Surger

Toward Optimizing Risk Adjustment in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit

Vascular Surger