Editor's Choice - Re-interventions After Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Report From the IMPROVE Randomised Trial.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: The aim was to describe the re-interventions after endovascular and open repair of rupture, and investigate whether these were associated with aortic morphology. METHODS: In total, 502 patients from the IMPROVE randomised trial (ISRCTN48334791) with repair of rupture were followed-up for re-interventions for at least 3 years. Pre-operative aortic morphology was assessed in a core laboratory. Re-interventions were described by time (0-90 days, 3 months-3 years) as arterial or laparotomy related, respectively, and ranked for severity by surgeons and patients separately. Rare re-interventions to 1 year, were summarised across three ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm trials (IMPROVE, AJAX, and ECAR) and odds ratios (OR) describing differences were pooled via meta-analysis. RESULTS: Re-interventions were most common in the first 90 days. Overall rates were 186 and 226 per 100 person years for the endovascular strategy and open repair groups, respectively (p = .20) but between 3 months and 3 years (mid-term) the rates had slowed to 9.5 and 6.0 re-interventions per 100 person years, respectively (p = .090) and about one third of these were for a life threatening condition. In this latter, mid-term period, 42 of 313 remaining patients (13%) required at least one re-intervention, most commonly for endoleak or other endograft complication after treatment by endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) (21 of 38 re-interventions), whereas distal aneurysms were the commonest reason (four of 23) for re-interventions after treatment by open repair. Arterial re-interventions within 3 years were associated with increasing common iliac artery diameter (OR 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.93; p = .004). Amputation, rare but ranked as the worst re-intervention by patients, was less common in the first year after treatment with EVAR (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.05-0.88) from meta-analysis of three trials. CONCLUSION: The rate of mid-term re-interventions after rupture is high, more than double that after elective EVAR and open repair, suggesting the need for bespoke surveillance protocols. Amputations are much less common in patients treated by EVAR than in those treated by open repair

Genetic Variation on Chromosome 6 Influences F Cell Levels in Healthy Individuals of African Descent and HbF Levels in Sickle Cell Patients

Fetal haemoglobin (HbF) is a major ameliorating factor in sickle cell disease. We investigated if a quantitative trait locus on chromosome 6q23 was significantly associated with HbF and F cell levels in individuals of African descent. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in a 24-kb intergenic region, 33-kb upstream of the HBS1L gene and 80-kb upstream of the MYB gene, were typed in 177 healthy Afro-Caribbean subjects (AC) of approximately 7% European admixture, 631 healthy Afro-Germans (AG, a group of African and German descendents located in rural Jamaica with about 20% European admixture), 87 West African and Afro-Caribbean individuals with sickle cell anaemia (HbSS), as well as 75 Northern Europeans, which served as a contrasting population. Association with a tag SNP for the locus was detected in all four groups (AC, P = 0.005, AG, P = 0.002, HbSS patients, P = 0.019, Europeans, P = 1.5×10−7). The association signal varied across the interval in the African-descended groups, while it is more uniform in Europeans. The 6q QTL for HbF traits is present in populations of African origin and is also acting in sickle cell anaemia patients. We have started to distinguish effects originating from European and African ancestral populations in our admixed study populations

Analysis of clinical benefit, harms, and cost-effectiveness of screening women for abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: A third of deaths in the UK from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are in women. In men, national screening programmes reduce deaths from AAA and are cost-effective. The benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness in offering a similar programme to women have not been formally assessed, and this was the aim of this study. METHODS: We developed a decision model to assess predefined outcomes of death caused by AAA, life years, quality-adjusted life years, costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a population of women invited to AAA screening versus a population who were not invited to screening. A discrete event simulation model was set up for AAA screening, surveillance, and intervention. Relevant women-specific parameters were obtained from sources including systematic literature reviews, national registry or administrative databases, major AAA surgery trials, and UK National Health Service reference costs. FINDINGS: AAA screening for women, as currently offered to UK men (at age 65 years, with an AAA diagnosis at an aortic diameter of ≥3·0 cm, and elective repair considered at ≥5·5cm) gave, over 30 years, an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £30 000 (95% CI 12 000-87 000) per quality-adjusted life year gained, with 3900 invitations to screening required to prevent one AAA-related death and an overdiagnosis rate of 33%. A modified option for women (screening at age 70 years, diagnosis at 2·5 cm and repair at 5·0 cm) was estimated to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £23 000 (9500-71 000) per quality-adjusted life year and 1800 invitations to screening required to prevent one AAA-death, but an overdiagnosis rate of 55%. There was considerable uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness ratio, largely driven by uncertainty about AAA prevalence, the distribution of aortic sizes for women at different ages, and the effect of screening on quality of life. INTERPRETATION: By UK standards, an AAA screening programme for women, designed to be similar to that used to screen men, is unlikely to be cost-effective. Further research on the aortic diameter distribution in women and potential quality of life decrements associated with screening are needed to assess the full benefits and harms of modified options. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Current prevalence of screen-detected abdominal aortic aneurysm in women: a systematic review with meta-analysis

This is the author accepted manuscript. It is currently under an indefinite embargo pending publication by Wiley.Background: Although women represent an increasing proportion of those now presenting with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture, the current prevalence of AAA in women is unknown. The contemporary population prevalence of screen-detected AAA in women by both age and smoking status was investigated. Methods: Systematic review of studies screening for AAA, including >1000 women, aged ≥60 years, undertaken since the year 2000, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases until 13th January 2016. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scoring system. Results: Eight studies were identified, including only 3 based on population registers. The largest studies were based on self-purchase of screening. Altogether 1,537,633 women were screened. Overall AAA prevalence rates were very heterogeneous, ranging from 0.37 to 1.53%: pooled prevalence 0.74% [95%CI 0.53, 1.03]. The pooled prevalence increased with both age (>1% for women >70 years) and smoking (>1% for ever smokers and >2% in current smokers). Conclusions: The current population prevalence of screen-detected AAA in older women is subject to wide demographic variation. However, in ever smokers and those over 70 years, the prevalence is >1%. Registration: PROSPERO database of systematic reviews CRD42015020444This project was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Appraisal (HTA) programme (project number 14/179/01)

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. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48334791

Predicting risk of rupture and rupture-preventing re-interventions utilising repeated measures on aneurysm sac diameter following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Clinical and imaging surveillance practices following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) vary considerably and compliance with recommended lifelong surveillance is poor. This study developed a dynamic prognostic model to enable stratification of patients at risk of future secondary rupture or rupture preventing re-intervention (RPR) to enable the development of personalised surveillance intervals. Baseline data and repeat measurements of post-operative aneurysm sac diameter from the EVAR-1 and EVAR-2 trials were used to develop the model with external validation in a cohort from Helsinki. Longitudinal mixed-effects models were fitted to trajectories of sac diameter and model-predicted sac diameter and rate of growth were used in prognostic Cox proportional hazards models. 785 patients from the EVAR trials were included of which 155 (20%) suffered at least one rupture or RPR during follow-up. An increased risk was associated with pre-operative AAA size, rate of sac growth, and the number of previously detected complications. A prognostic model using only predicted sac growth had good discrimination at 2-years (C-index = 0.68), 3-years (C-index= 0.72) and 5-years (C-index= 0.75) post-operation and had excellent external validation (C-indices 0.76 to 0.79). After 5-years post-operation, growth rates above 1mm/year had a sensitivity of over 80% and specificity over 50% in identifying events occurring within 2 years. Secondary sac growth is an important predictor of rupture or RPR. A dynamic prognostic model has the potential to tailor surveillance by identifying a large proportion of patients who may require less intensive follow-up

Screening women aged 65 years or over for abdominal aortic aneurysm: a modelling study and health economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening programmes have been established for men in the UK to reduce deaths from AAA rupture. Whether or not screening should be extended to women is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of population screening for AAAs in women and compare a range of screening options. DESIGN: A discrete event simulation (DES) model was developed to provide a clinically realistic model of screening, surveillance, and elective and emergency AAA repair operations. Input parameters specifically for women were employed. The model was run for 10 million women, with parameter uncertainty addressed by probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. SETTING: Population screening in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged ≥ 65 years, followed up to the age of 95 years. INTERVENTIONS: Invitation to ultrasound screening, followed by surveillance for small AAAs and elective surgical repair for large AAAs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of operations undertaken, AAA-related mortality, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), NHS costs and cost-effectiveness with annual discounting. DATA SOURCES: AAA surveillance data, National Vascular Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics, trials of elective and emergency AAA surgery, and the NHS Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programme (NAAASP). REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews of AAA prevalence and, for elective operations, suitability for endovascular aneurysm repair, non-intervention rates, operative mortality and literature reviews for other parameters. RESULTS: The prevalence of AAAs (aortic diameter of ≥ 3.0 cm) was estimated as 0.43% in women aged 65 years and 1.15% at age 75 years. The corresponding attendance rates following invitation to screening were estimated as 73% and 62%, respectively. The base-case model adopted the same age at screening (65 years), definition of an AAA (diameter of ≥ 3.0 cm), surveillance intervals (1 year for AAAs with diameter of 3.0-4.4 cm, 3 months for AAAs with diameter of 4.5-5.4 cm) and AAA diameter for consideration of surgery (5.5 cm) as in NAAASP for men. Per woman invited to screening, the estimated gain in QALYs was 0.00110, and the incremental cost was £33.99. This gave an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £31,000 per QALY gained. The corresponding incremental net monetary benefit at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained was -£12.03 (95% uncertainty interval -£27.88 to £22.12). Almost no sensitivity analyses brought the ICER below £20,000 per QALY gained; an exception was doubling the AAA prevalence to 0.86%, which resulted in an ICER of £13,000. Alternative screening options (increasing the screening age to 70 years, lowering the threshold for considering surgery to diameters of 5.0 cm or 4.5 cm, lowering the diameter defining an AAA in women to 2.5 cm and lengthening the surveillance intervals for the smallest AAAs) did not bring the ICER below £20,000 per QALY gained when considered either singly or in combination. LIMITATIONS: The model for women was not directly validated against empirical data. Some parameters were poorly estimated, potentially lacking relevance or unavailable for women. CONCLUSION: The accepted criteria for a population-based AAA screening programme in women are not currently met. FUTURE WORK: A large-scale study is needed of the exact aortic size distribution for women screened at relevant ages. The DES model can be adapted to evaluate screening options in men. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015020444 and CRD42016043227. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Endovascular strategy or open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: one-year outcomes from the IMPROVE randomized trial.

AIMS: To report the longer term outcomes following either a strategy of endovascular repair first or open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, which are necessary for both patient and clinical decision-making. METHODS AND RESULTS: This pragmatic multicentre (29 UK and 1 Canada) trial randomized 613 patients with a clinical diagnosis of ruptured aneurysm; 316 to an endovascular first strategy (if aortic morphology is suitable, open repair if not) and 297 to open repair. The principal 1-year outcome was mortality; secondary outcomes were re-interventions, hospital discharge, health-related quality-of-life (QoL) (EQ-5D), costs, Quality-Adjusted-Life-Years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness [incremental net benefit (INB)]. At 1 year, all-cause mortality was 41.1% for the endovascular strategy group and 45.1% for the open repair group, odds ratio 0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62, 1.17], P = 0.325, with similar re-intervention rates in each group. The endovascular strategy group and open repair groups had average total hospital stays of 17 and 26 days, respectively, P < 0.001. Patients surviving rupture had higher average EQ-5D utility scores in the endovascular strategy vs. open repair groups, mean differences 0.087 (95% CI 0.017, 0.158), 0.068 (95% CI -0.004, 0.140) at 3 and 12 months, respectively. There were indications that QALYs were higher and costs lower for the endovascular first strategy, combining to give an INB of £3877 (95% CI £253, £7408) or €4356 (95% CI €284, €8323). CONCLUSION: An endovascular first strategy for management of ruptured aneurysms does not offer a survival benefit over 1 year but offers patients faster discharge with better QoL and is cost-effective. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 48334791