One year health status benefits following treatment for new onset or exacerbation of peripheral arterial disease symptoms:The importance of patients' baseline health status

Objective/BackgroundLimited information is available on expected health status gains following invasive treatment in peripheral arterial disease (PAD). One year health status outcomes following invasive treatment for PAD were compared, and whether pre-procedural health status was indicative of 1 year health status gains was evaluated.MethodsPre-procedural and 1 year health status (Short Form-12, Physical Component Score [PCS]) was prospectively assessed in a cohort of 474 patients, enrolled from 2 Dutch vascular clinics (March 2006–August 2011), with new or exacerbation of PAD symptoms. One year treatment strategy (invasive vs. non-invasive) and clinical information was abstracted. Quartiles of baseline health status scores and mean 1 year health status change scores were compared by invasive treatment for PAD. The numbers needed to treat (NNT) to obtain clinically relevant changes in 1 year health status were calculated. A propensity weight adjusted linear regression analysis was constructed to predict 1 year PCS scores.ResultsInvasive treatment was performed in 39% of patients. Patients with baseline health status scores in the lowest quartile undergoing invasive treatment had the greatest improvement (mean invasive 11.3 ± 10.3 vs. mean non-invasive 5.3 ± 8.5 [p = .001, NNT = 3]), whereas those in the highest quartile improved less (.8 ± 6.3 vs. –3.0 ± 8.2 [p = .025, NNT = 90]). Undergoing invasive treatment (p < .0001) and lower baseline health status scores (p < .0001) were independently associated with greater 1 year health status gains.ConclusionSubstantial improvements were found in patients presenting with lower pre-procedural health status scores, whereas patients with higher starting health status levels had less to gain by an invasive strategy

Saccular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Patient Characteristics, Clinical Presentation, Treatment, and Outcomes in the Netherlands

Objective: The aim of this was to analyze differences between saccularshaped abdominal aortic aneurysms (SaAAAs) and fusiform abdominal aortic aneurysms (FuAAAs) regarding patient characteristics, treatment, and outcome, to advise a threshold for intervention for SaAAAs.Background: Based on the assumption that SaAAAs are more prone to rupture, guidelines suggest early elective treatment. However, little is known about the natural history of SaAAAs and the threshold for intervention is not substantiated.Methods: Observational study including primary repairs of degenerative AAAs in the Netherlands between 2016 and 2018 in which the shape was registered, registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA). Patients were stratified by urgency of surgery; elective versus acute (symptomatic/ruptured). Patient characteristics, treatment, and outcome were compared between SaAAAs and FuAAAs.Results: A total of 7659 primary AAA-patients were included, 6.1% (n = 471) SaAAAs and 93.9% (n = 7188) FuAAAs. There were 5945 elective patients (6.5% SaAAA) and 1714 acute (4.8% SaAAA). Acute SaAAApatients were more often female (28.9% vs 17.2%, P = 0.007) compared with acute FuAAA-patients. SaAAAs had smaller diameters than FuAAAs, in elective (53.0mm vs 61 mm, P = 0.000) and acute (68mm vs 75 mm, P = 0.002) patients, even after adjusting for sex. In addition, 25.2% of acute SaAAA-patients presented with diameters <55mm and 8.4% <45 mm, versus 8.1% and 0.6% of acute FuAAA-patients (P = 0.000). Postoperative outcomes did not significantly differ between shapes in both elective and acute patients.Conclusions: SaAAAs become acute at smaller diameters than FuAAAs in DSAA patients. This study therefore supports the current idea that SaAAAs should be electively treated at smaller diameters than FuAAAs. The exact diameter threshold for elective treatment of SaAAAs is difficult to determine, but a diameter of 45mm seems to be an acceptable threshold.Vascular Surger