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

A Composite Measure for Quality of Care in Patients with Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis Using Textbook Outcome

Contains fulltext : 226467.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)OBJECTIVE: Composite measures may better objectify hospital performance than individual outcome measures (IOM). Textbook outcome (TO) is an outcome measure achieved for an individual patient when all undesirable outcomes are absent. The aim of this study was to assess TO as an additional outcome measure to evaluate quality of care in symptomatic patients treated by carotid endarterectomy (CEA). METHODS: All symptomatic patients treated by CEA in 2018, registered in the Dutch Audit for Carotid Interventions, were included. TO was defined as a composite of the absence of 30 day mortality, neurological events (any stroke or transient ischaemic attack [TIA]), cranial nerve deficit, haemorrhage, 30 day readmission, prolonged length of stay (LOS; > 5 days) and any other surgical complication. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify covariables associated with achieving TO, which were used for casemix adjustment for hospital comparison. For each hospital, an observed vs. expected number of events ratio (O/E ratio) was calculated and plotted in a funnel plot with 95% control limits. RESULTS: In total, 70.7% of patients had a desired outcome within 30 days after CEA and therefore achieved TO. Prolonged LOS was the most common parameter (85%) and mortality the least common (1.1%) for not achieving TO. Covariates associated with achieving TO were younger age, the absence of pulmonary comorbidity, higher haemoglobin levels, and TIA as index event. In the case mix adjusted funnel plot, the O/E ratios between hospitals ranged between 0.63 and 1.27, with two hospitals revealing a statistically significantly lower rate of TO (with O/E ratios of 0.63 and 0.66). CONCLUSION: In the Netherlands, most patients treated by CEA achieve TO. Variation between hospitals in achieving TO might imply differences in performance. TO may be used as an additive to the pre-existing IOM, especially in surgical care with low baseline risk such as CEA

Toward Optimizing Risk Adjustment in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit

Vascular Surger

Editor's Choice – Post-operative Surveillance and Long Term Outcome after Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Patients with an Initial Post-operative Computed Tomography Angiogram Without Abnormalities: the Multicentre Retrospective ODYSSEUS Study

Objective: Lifelong imaging surveillance is recommended following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). This study aimed to examine the association between adherence to post-operative surveillance and survival and secondary interventions in patients with an initial post-operative computed tomography angiogram (CTA) without abnormalities. Methods: All consecutive patients undergoing EVAR for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in 16 hospitals between 2007 and 2012 were identified retrospectively, with follow up until December 2018. Patients were included if the initial post-operative CTA showed no types I – III endoleak, kinking, infection, or limb occlusion. Discontinued follow up was defined as at least one 16 month period in which no imaging surveillance was performed. Primary outcomes were aneurysm related mortality and secondary interventions, and secondary outcome all cause mortality. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to estimate survival, and Cox regression analyses to identify the association between independent variables and outcome. Sensitivity analyses were performed by varying the definition of continued yearly follow up. The study protocol was published (bmjopen-2019-033584). Results: 1 596 patients (552 continued, 1 044 discontinued follow up) were included with a median (interquartile range) follow up of 89.1 months (52.6). Cumulative aneurysm related, overall, and intervention free survival was 99.4/94.8/96.1%, 98.5/72.9/85.9%, and 96.3/45.4/71.1% at 1, 5, and 10 years, respectively. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification (ASA IV hazard ratio [HR] 3.810, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.296 – 11.198), increase in AAA diameter (HR 3.299, 95% CI 1.408 – 7.729), and continued follow up (HR 3.611, 95% CI 1.780 – 7.323) were independently associated with aneurysm related mortality. The same variables and age (HR 1.063 per year, 95% CI 1.052 – 1.074) were significantly associated with all cause mortality. No difference in secondary interventions was observed between patients with continued vs. discontinued follow up (89/552; 16% vs. 136/1044; 13%; p = .091). Sensitivity analyses showed worse aneurysm related and overall survival in patients with continued follow up. Conclusion: Discontinued follow up is not associated with poor outcomes. Future prospective studies are indicated to determine in which patients imaging follow up can be safely reduced

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical care in the Netherlands

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a 13.6 per cent reduction in the number of surgical procedures performed was observed in 2020. Despite great pressure on healthcare, the COVID-19 pandemic did not cause an increase in adverse surgical outcomes, and oncological surgery-related duration of hospital and ICU stay were significantly shorter.Background The COVID-19 pandemic caused disruption of regular healthcare leading to reduced hospital attendances, repurposing of surgical facilities, and cancellation of cancer screening programmes. This study aimed to determine the impact of COVID-19 on surgical care in the Netherlands. Methods A nationwide study was conducted in collaboration with the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing. Eight surgical audits were expanded with items regarding alterations in scheduling and treatment plans. Data on procedures performed in 2020 were compared with those from a historical cohort (2018-2019). Endpoints included total numbers of procedures performed and altered treatment plans. Secondary endpoints included complication, readmission, and mortality rates. Results Some 12 154 procedures were performed in participating hospitals in 2020, representing a decrease of 13.6 per cent compared with 2018-2019. The largest reduction (29.2 per cent) was for non-cancer procedures during the first COVID-19 wave. Surgical treatment was postponed for 9.6 per cent of patients. Alterations in surgical treatment plans were observed in 1.7 per cent. Time from diagnosis to surgery decreased (to 28 days in 2020, from 34 days in 2019 and 36 days in 2018; P < 0.001). For cancer-related procedures, duration of hospital stay decreased (5 versus 6 days; P < 0.001). Audit-specific complications, readmission, and mortality rates were unchanged, but ICU admissions decreased (16.5 versus 16.8 per cent; P < 0.001). Conclusion The reduction in the number of surgical operations was greatest for those without cancer. Where surgery was undertaken, it appeared to be delivered safely, with similar complication and mortality rates, fewer admissions to ICU, and a shorter hospital stay.Lay Summary COVID-19 has had a significant impact on healthcare worldwide. Hospital visits were reduced, operating facilities were used for COVID-19 care, and cancer screening programmes were cancelled. This study describes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Dutch surgical healthcare in 2020. Patterns of care in terms of changed or delayed treatment are described for patients who had surgery in 2020, compared with those who had surgery in 2018-2019. The study found that mainly non-cancer surgical treatments were cancelled during months with high COVID-19 rates. Outcomes for patients undergoing surgery were similar but with fewer ICU admissions and shorter hospital stay. These data provide no insight into the burden endured by patients who had postponed or cancelled operations

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical care in the Netherlands

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a 13.6 per cent reduction in the number of surgical procedures performed was observed in 2020. Despite great pressure on healthcare, the COVID-19 pandemic did not cause an increase in adverse surgical outcomes, and oncological surgery-related duration of hospital and ICU stay were significantly shorter.Background The COVID-19 pandemic caused disruption of regular healthcare leading to reduced hospital attendances, repurposing of surgical facilities, and cancellation of cancer screening programmes. This study aimed to determine the impact of COVID-19 on surgical care in the Netherlands. Methods A nationwide study was conducted in collaboration with the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing. Eight surgical audits were expanded with items regarding alterations in scheduling and treatment plans. Data on procedures performed in 2020 were compared with those from a historical cohort (2018-2019). Endpoints included total numbers of procedures performed and altered treatment plans. Secondary endpoints included complication, readmission, and mortality rates. Results Some 12 154 procedures were performed in participating hospitals in 2020, representing a decrease of 13.6 per cent compared with 2018-2019. The largest reduction (29.2 per cent) was for non-cancer procedures during the first COVID-19 wave. Surgical treatment was postponed for 9.6 per cent of patients. Alterations in surgical treatment plans were observed in 1.7 per cent. Time from diagnosis to surgery decreased (to 28 days in 2020, from 34 days in 2019 and 36 days in 2018; P < 0.001). For cancer-related procedures, duration of hospital stay decreased (5 versus 6 days; P < 0.001). Audit-specific complications, readmission, and mortality rates were unchanged, but ICU admissions decreased (16.5 versus 16.8 per cent; P < 0.001). Conclusion The reduction in the number of surgical operations was greatest for those without cancer. Where surgery was undertaken, it appeared to be delivered safely, with similar complication and mortality rates, fewer admissions to ICU, and a shorter hospital stay.Lay Summary COVID-19 has had a significant impact on healthcare worldwide. Hospital visits were reduced, operating facilities were used for COVID-19 care, and cancer screening programmes were cancelled. This study describes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Dutch surgical healthcare in 2020. Patterns of care in terms of changed or delayed treatment are described for patients who had surgery in 2020, compared with those who had surgery in 2018-2019. The study found that mainly non-cancer surgical treatments were cancelled during months with high COVID-19 rates. Outcomes for patients undergoing surgery were similar but with fewer ICU admissions and shorter hospital stay. These data provide no insight into the burden endured by patients who had postponed or cancelled operations.Analysis and support of clinical decision makin