Value of risk scores in the decision to palliate patients withruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

Background: The aim of this study was to develop a 48‐h mortality risk score, which included morphology data, for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm presenting to an emergency department, and to assess its predictive accuracy and clinical effectiveness in triaging patients to immediate aneurysm repair, transfer or palliative care. Methods: Data from patients in the IMPROVE (Immediate Management of the Patient With Ruptured Aneurysm: Open Versus Endovascular Repair) randomized trial were used to develop the risk score. Variables considered included age, sex, haemodynamic markers and aortic morphology. Backwards selection was used to identify relevant predictors. Predictive performance was assessed using calibration plots and the C‐statistic. Validation of the newly developed and other previously published scores was conducted in four external populations. The net benefit of treating patients based on a risk threshold compared with treating none was quantified. Results: Data from 536 patients in the IMPROVE trial were included. The final variables retained were age, sex, haemoglobin level, serum creatinine level, systolic BP, aortic neck length and angle, and acute myocardial ischaemia. The discrimination of the score for 48‐h mortality in the IMPROVE data was reasonable (C‐statistic 0·710, 95 per cent c.i. 0·659 to 0·760), but varied in external populations (from 0·652 to 0·761). The new score outperformed other published risk scores in some, but not all, populations. An 8 (95 per cent c.i. 5 to 11) per cent improvement in the C‐statistic was estimated compared with using age alone. Conclusion: The assessed risk scores did not have sufficient accuracy to enable potentially life‐saving decisions to be made regarding intervention. Focus should therefore shift to offering repair to more patients and reducing non‐intervention rates, while respecting the wishes of the patient and family

Ruptured aneurysm trials: The importance of longer-term outcomes and meta-analysis for 1-year mortality.

ObjectiveTo assess current knowledge for the management of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), based on the 1-year outcomes of 3 recent randomised trials.MethodsAn individual patient data meta-analysis of three recent randomised trials of endovascular versus open repair, including 817 patients, was conducted according to a pre-specified analysis plan, report all-cause mortality and re-interventions at 1 year after the index event.ResultsMortality across the 3 trials at 1-year was 38.6% for the EVAR or endovascular strategy patient groups and 42.8% for the open repair groups, pooled odds ratio 0.84 (95% CI 0.63–1.11), p = .209. There was no evidence of heterogeneity in the odds ratios between trials. When the patients in the endovascular strategy group of the IMPROVE trial were restricted to those with proven rupture who were anatomically suitable for endovascular repair, the pooled odds ratio reduced slightly to 0.80 (95% CI 0.56–1.16), p = .240.ConclusionsAfter 1 year there is a consistent but non-significant trend for lower mortality for EVAR or an endovascular strategy. Taken together with the recent gains in health economic outcomes demonstrated at 1 year in the IMPROVE trial, the evidence suggests that endovascular repair should be used more widely for ruptured aneurysms

Annual report.

Report year ends Sept. 30.Mode of access: Internet

Individual-patient meta-analysis of three randomized trials comparing endovascular versus open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

BackgroundThe benefits of endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm remain controversial, without any strong evidence about advantages in specific subgroups.MethodsAn individual-patient data meta-analysis of three recent randomized trials of endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm was conducted according to a prespecified analysis plan, reporting on results to 90 days after the index event.ResultsThe trials included a total of 836 patients. The mortality rate across the three trials was 31·3 per cent for patients randomized to endovascular repair/strategy and 34·0 per cent for those randomized to open repair at 30 days (pooled odds ratio 0·88, 95 per cent c.i. 0·66 to 1·18), and 34·3 and 38·0 per cent respectively at 90 days (pooled odds ratio 0·85, 0·64 to 1·13). There was no evidence of significant heterogeneity in the odds ratios between trials. Mean(s.d.) aneurysm diameter was 8·2(1·9) cm and the overall in-hospital mortality rate was 34·8 per cent. There was no significant effect modification with age or Hardman index, but there was indication of an early benefit from an endovascular strategy for women. Discharge from the primary hospital was faster after endovascular repair (hazard ratio 1·24, 95 per cent c.i. 1·04 to 1·47). For open repair, 30-day mortality diminished with increasing aneurysm neck length (adjusted odds ratio 0·69 (95 per cent c.i. 0·53 to 0·89) per 15 mm), but aortic diameter was not associated with mortality for either type of repair.ConclusionSurvival to 90 days following an endovascular or open repair strategy is similar for all patients and for the restricted population anatomically suitable for endovascular repair. Women may benefit more from an endovascular strategy than men and patients are, on average, discharged sooner after endovascular repair

Value of risk scores in the decision to palliate patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to develop a 48-h mortality risk score, which included morphology data, for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm presenting to an emergency department, and to assess its predictive accuracy and clinical effectiveness in triaging patients to immediate aneurysm repair, transfer or palliative care. METHODS: Data from patients in the IMPROVE (Immediate Management of the Patient With Ruptured Aneurysm: Open Versus Endovascular Repair) randomized trial were used to develop the risk score. Variables considered included age, sex, haemodynamic markers and aortic morphology. Backwards selection was used to identify relevant predictors. Predictive performance was assessed using calibration plots and the C-statistic. Validation of the newly developed and other previously published scores was conducted in four external populations. The net benefit of treating patients based on a risk threshold compared with treating none was quantified. RESULTS: Data from 536 patients in the IMPROVE trial were included. The final variables retained were age, sex, haemoglobin level, serum creatinine level, systolic BP, aortic neck length and angle, and acute myocardial ischaemia. The discrimination of the score for 48-h mortality in the IMPROVE data was reasonable (C-statistic 0·710, 95 per cent c.i. 0·659 to 0·760), but varied in external populations (from 0·652 to 0·761). The new score outperformed other published risk scores in some, but not all, populations. An 8 (95 per cent c.i. 5 to 11) per cent improvement in the C-statistic was estimated compared with using age alone. CONCLUSION: The assessed risk scores did not have sufficient accuracy to enable potentially life-saving decisions to be made regarding intervention. Focus should therefore shift to offering repair to more patients and reducing non-intervention rates, while respecting the wishes of the patient and family.This project was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (project number 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