Endovascular or open repair strategy for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: 30 day outcomes from IMPROVE randomised trial

Objective To assess whether a strategy of endovascular repair (if aortic morphology is suitable, open repair if not) versus open repair reduces early mortality for patients with suspected ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting 30 vascular centres (29 UK, 1 Canadian), 2009-13. Participants 613 eligible patients (480 men) with a clinical diagnosis of ruptured aneurysm. Interventions 316 patients were randomised to the endovascular strategy (275 confirmed ruptures, 174 anatomically suitable for endovascular repair) and 297 to open repair (261 confirmed ruptures). Main outcome measures 30 day mortality, with 24 hour and in-hospital mortality, costs, and time and place of discharge as secondary outcomes. Results 30 day mortality was 35.4% (112/316) in the endovascular strategy group and 37.4% (111/297) in the open repair group: odds ratio 0.92 (95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.28; P=0.62); odds ratio after adjustment for age, sex, and Hardman index 0.94 (0.67 to 1.33). Women may benefit more than men (interaction test P=0.02) from the endovascular strategy: odds ratio 0.44 (0.22 to 0.91) versus 1.18 (0.80 to 1.75). 30 day mortality for patients with confirmed rupture was 36.4% (100/275) in the endovascular strategy group and 40.6% (106/261) in the open repair group (P=0.31). More patients in the endovascular strategy than in the open repair group were discharged directly to home (189/201 (94%) v 141/183 (77%); P<0.001). Average 30 day costs were similar between the randomised groups, with an incremental cost saving for the endovascular strategy versus open repair of £1186 (€1420; $1939) (95% confidence interval −£625 to £2997). Conclusions A strategy of endovascular repair was not associated with significant reduction in either 30 day mortality or cost. Longer term cost effectiveness evaluations are needed to assess the full effects of the endovascular strategy in both men and women

Observations from the IMPROVE trial concerning the clinical care of patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: Single-centre series of the management of patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are usually too small to identify clinical factors that could improve patient outcomes. METHODS: IMPROVE is a pragmatic, multicentre randomized clinical trial in which eligible patients with a clinical diagnosis of ruptured aneurysm were allocated to a strategy of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) or to open repair. The influences of time and manner of hospital presentation, fluid volume status, type of anaesthesia, type of endovascular repair and time to aneurysm repair on 30-day mortality were investigated according to a prespecified plan, for the subgroup of patients with a proven diagnosis of ruptured or symptomatic AAA. Adjustment was made for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: Some 558 of 613 randomized patients had a symptomatic or ruptured aneurysm: diagnostic accuracy was 91·0 per cent. Patients randomized outside routine working hours had higher operative mortality (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1·47, 95 per cent confidence interval 1·00 to 2·17). Mortality rates after primary and secondary presentation were similar. Lowest systolic blood pressure was strongly and independently associated with 30-day mortality (51 per cent among those with pressure below 70 mmHg). Patients who received EVAR under local anaesthesia alone had greatly reduced 30-day mortality compared with those who had general anaesthesia (adjusted OR 0·27, 0·10 to 0·70). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the outcome of ruptured AAA might be improved by wider use of local anaesthesia for EVAR and that a minimum blood pressure of 70 mmHg is too low a threshold for permissive hypotension

Choice of outcomes and measurement instruments in randomised trials on eLearning in medical education: A systematic mapping review protocol

Background: There will be a lack of 18 million healthcare workers by 2030. Multiplying the number of well-trained healthcare workers through innovative ways such as eLearning is highly recommended in solving this shortage. However, high heterogeneity of learning outcomes in eLearning systematic reviews reveals a lack of consistency and agreement on core learning outcomes in eLearning for medical education. In addition, there seems to be a lack of validity evidence for measurement instruments used in these trials. This undermines the credibility of these outcome measures and affects the ability to draw accurate and meaningful conclusions. The aim of this research is to address this issue by determining the choice of outcomes, measurement instruments and the prevalence of measurement instruments with validity evidence in randomised trials on eLearning for pre-registration medical education. Methods: We will conduct a systematic mapping and review to identify the types of outcomes, the kinds of measurement instruments and the prevalence of validity evidence among measurement instruments in eLearning randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in pre-registration medical education. The search period will be from January 1990 until August 2017. We will consider studies on eLearning for health professionals' education. Two reviewers will extract and manage data independently from the included studies. Data will be analysed and synthesised according to the aim of the review. Discussion: Appropriate choice of outcomes and measurement tools is essential for ensuring high-quality research in the field of eLearning and eHealth. The results of this study could have positive implications for other eHealth interventions, including (1) improving quality and credibility of eLearning research, (2) enhancing the quality of digital medical education and (3) informing researchers, academics and curriculum developers about the types of outcomes and validity evidence for measurement instruments used in eLearning studies. The protocol aspires to assist in the advancement of the eLearning research field as well as in the development of high-quality healthcare professionals' digital education. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD4201706842

Description and evaluation of a bench porcine model for teaching surgical residents vascular anastomosis skills

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Numerous models, of variable quality, exist to impart the complex skills required to perform vascular anastomosis. These models differ with regard to the kinds of materials used, as well as their sizes, the time needed for their preparation, their availability, and the associated costs. The present study describes a bench model that uses formalin-fixed porcine aorta, and its evaluation by young surgical residents during a recent skills course.</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>The aortic segments used were a by-product of slaughtering. They were fixed and stored after harvesting for eventual use. Ten young surgical residents participated, and each performed one end-to-side vascular anastomosis. The evaluation was a questionnaire maintaining anonymity of the participant containing questions addressing particular aspects of the model and the experiences of the trainee, along with their ratings concerning the need for a training course to learn vascular anastomosis techniques. The scoring on the survey was done using a global 6-point rating scale (Likert Scale). In addition, we ranked the present model by reviewing the current literature for models that address vascular anastomosis skills.</p> <p>The trainees who participated were within their first two years of training (1.25 ± 0.46). A strong agreement in terms of the necessity of training for vascular anastomosis techniques was evident among the participating trainees (5.90 ± 0.32), who had only few prior manual experiences (total number 1.50 ± 0.53). The query revealed a strong agreement that porcine aorta is a suitable model that fits the needs for training vascular anastomosis skills (5.70 ± 0.48). Only a few bench models designed to teach surgical residents vascular anastomosis techniques were available in the literature.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The preparatory and financial resources needed to perform anastomosis skills training using porcine aorta are few. The presented bench model appears to be appropriate for learning vascular anastomosis skills, as rated by the surgical trainees themselves.</p

How, in what contexts, and why do quality dashboards lead to improvements in care quality in acute hospitals? Protocol for a realist feasibility evaluation

Introduction: National audits are used to monitor care quality and safety and are anticipated to reduce unexplained variations in quality by stimulating quality improvement (QI). However, variation within and between providers in the extent of engagement with national audits means that the potential for national audit data to inform QI is not being realised. This study will undertake a feasibility evaluation of QualDash, a quality dashboard designed to support clinical teams and managers to explore data from two national audits, the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP) and the Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network (PICANet). Methods and analysis: Realist evaluation, which involves building, testing and refining theories of how an intervention works, provides an overall framework for this feasibility study. Realist hypotheses that describe how, in what contexts, and why QualDash is expected to provide benefit will be tested across five hospitals. A controlled interrupted time series analysis, using key MINAP and PICANet measures, will provide preliminary evidence of the impact of QualDash, while ethnographic observations and interviews over 12 months will provide initial insight into contexts and mechanisms that lead to those impacts. Feasibility outcomes include the extent to which MINAP and PICANet data are used, data completeness in the audits, and the extent to which participants perceive QualDash to be useful and express the intention to continue using it after the study period. Ethics and dissemination: The study has been approved by the University of Leeds School of Healthcare Research Ethics Committee. Study results will provide an initial understanding of how, in what contexts, and why quality dashboards lead to improvements in care quality. These will be disseminated to academic audiences, study participants, hospital IT departments and national audits. If the results show a trial is feasible, we will disseminate the QualDash software through a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial

Elective Open Suprarenal Aneurysm Repair in England from 2000 to 2010 an Observational Study of Hospital Episode Statistics

Background: Open surgery is widely used as a benchmark for the results of fenestrated endovascular repair of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). However, the existing evidence stems from single-centre experiences, and may not be reproducible in wider practice. National outcomes provide valuable information regarding the safety of suprarenal aneurysm repair. Methods: Demographic and clinical data were extracted from English Hospital Episodes Statistics for patients undergoing elective suprarenal aneurysm repair from 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2010. Thirty-day mortality and five-year survival were analysed by logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards modeling. Results: 793 patients underwent surgery with 14% overall 30-day mortality, which did not improve over the study period. Independent predictors of 30-day mortality included age, renal disease and previous myocardial infarction. 5-year survival was independently reduced by age, renal disease, liver disease, chronic pulmonary disease, and known metastatic solid tumour. There was significant regional variation in both 30-day mortality and 5-year survival after risk-adjustment. Regional differences in outcome were eliminated in a sensitivity analysis for perioperative outcome, conducted by restricting analysis to survivors of the first 30 days after surgery. Conclusions: Elective suprarenal aneurysm repair was associated with considerable mortality and significant regional variation across England. These data provide a benchmark to assess the efficacy of complex endovascular repair of supra-renal aneurysms, though cautious interpretation is required due to the lack of information regarding aneurysm morphology. More detailed study is required, ideally through the mandatory submission of data to a national registry of suprarenal aneurysm repair

The pre-vaccination regional epidemiological landscape of measles in Italy: contact patterns, effort needed for eradication, and comparison with other regions of Europe

BACKGROUND: Strong regional heterogeneity and generally sub-optimal rates of measles vaccination in Italy have, to date, hampered attainment of WHO targets for measles elimination, and have generated the need for the new Italian National Measles Elimination Plan. Crucial to success of the plan is the identification of intervention priorities based upon a clear picture of the regional epidemiology of measles derived from the use of data to estimate basic parameters. Previous estimates of measles force of infection for Italy have appeared anomalously low. It has been argued elsewhere that this results from Italian selective under-reporting by age of cases and that the true measles force of infection in Italy is probably similar to that of other European countries. A deeper examination of the evidence for this conjecture is undertaken in the present paper. METHODS: Using monthly regional case notifications data from 1949 to the start of vaccination in 1976 and notifications by age from 1971–76, summary equilibrium parameters (force of infection (FOI), basic reproductive ratio (R(0)) and critical vaccination coverage (p(c))) are calculated for each region and for each of 5 plausible contact patterns. An analysis of the spectra of incidence profiles is also carried out. Finally a transmission dynamics model is employed to explore the correspondence between projections using different estimates of force of infection and data on seroprevalence in Italy. RESULTS: FOI estimates are lower than comparable European FOIs and there is substantial regional heterogeneity in basic reproductive ratios; certain patterns of contact matrices are demonstrated to be unfeasible. Most regions show evidence of 3-year epidemic cycles or longer, and compared with England & Wales there appears to be little synchronisation between regions. Modelling results suggest that the lower FOI estimated from corrected aggregate national data matches serological data more closely than that estimated from typical European data. CONCLUSION: Results suggest forces of infection in Italy, though everywhere remaining below the typical European level, are historically higher in the South where currently vaccination coverage is lowest. There appears to be little evidence to support the suggestion that a higher true force of infection is masked by age bias in reporting

Comparative clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of endovascular strategy vs open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: three year results of the IMPROVE randomised trial

Objective To assess the three year clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of a strategy of endovascular repair (if aortic morphology is suitable, open repair if not) versus open repair for patients with suspected ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Design Randomised controlled trial. Participants 613 eligible patients (480 men) with a clinical diagnosis of ruptured aneurysm, of whom 502 underwent emergency repair for rupture. Interventions 316 patients were randomised to an endovascular strategy (275 with confirmed rupture) and 297 to open repair (261 with confirmed rupture). Main outcome measures Mortality, with reinterventions after aneurysm repair, quality of life, and hospital costs to three years as secondary measures. Results The maximum follow-up for mortality was 7.1 years, with two patients in each group lost to follow-up by three years. After similar mortality by 90 days, in the mid-term (three months to three years) there were fewer deaths in the endovascular than the open repair group (hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.90), but by seven years mortality was about 60% in each group (hazard ratio 0.92, 0.75 to 1.13). Results for the 502 patients with repaired ruptures were more pronounced: three year mortality was lower in the endovascular strategy group (42% v 54%; odds ratio 0.62, 0.43 to 0.88), but after seven years there was no clear difference between the groups (hazard ratio 0.86, 0.68 to 1.08). Reintervention rates up to three years were not significantly different between the randomised groups (hazard ratio 1.02, 0.79 to 1.32); the initial rapid rate of reinterventions was followed by a much slower mid-term reintervention rate in both groups. The early higher average quality of life in the endovascular strategy versus open repair group, coupled with the lower mortality at three years, led to a gain in average quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at three years of 0.17 (95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.33). The endovascular strategy group spent fewer days in hospital and had lower average costs of −£2605 (€2813; $3439) (95% confidence interval −£5966 to £702). The probability that the endovascular strategy is cost effective was >90% at all levels of willingness to pay for a QALY gain. Conclusions At three years, compared with open repair, an endovascular strategy for suspected ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm was associated with a survival advantage, a gain in QALYs, similar levels of reintervention, and reduced costs, and this strategy was cost effective. These findings support the increasing use of an endovascular strategy, with wider availability of emergency endovascular repair. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48334791; ClinicalTrials NCT00746122This project was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (project No 07/37/64). The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HTA programme, NIHR, National Health Service, or the Department of Health. Neither the funder nor the sponsor had any role in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of the findings