Toward Optimizing Risk Adjustment in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit

Background: To compare hospital outcomes of aortic aneurysm surgery, casemix correction for preoperative variables is essential. Most of these variables can be deduced from mortality risk prediction models. Our aim was to identify the optimal set of preoperative variables associated with mortality to establish a relevant and efficient casemix model.Methods: All patients prospectively registered between 2013 and 2016 in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA) were included for the analysis. After multiple imputation for missing variables, predictors for mortality following univariable logistic regression were analyzed in a manual backward multivariable logistic regression model and compared with three standard mortality risk prediction models: Glasgow Aneurysm Score (GAS, mainly clinical parameters), Vascular Biochemical and Haematological Outcome Model (VBHOM, mainly laboratory parameters), and Dutch Aneurysm Score (DAS, both clinical and laboratory parameters). Discrimination and calibration were tested and considered good with a C-statistic &gt; 0.8 and Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) P &gt; 0.05. Results: There were 12,401 patients: 9,537 (76.9%) elective patients (EAAA), 913 (7.4%) acute symptomatic patients (SAAA), and 1,951 (15.7%) patients with acute rupture (RAAA). Overall postoperative mortality was 6.5%; 1.8% after EAAA surgery, 6.6% after SAAA, and 29.6% after RAAA surgery. The optimal set of independent variables associated with mortality was a mix of clinical and laboratory parameters: gender, age, pulmonary comorbidity, operative setting, creatinine, aneurysm size, hemoglobin, Glasgow coma scale, electrocardiography, and systolic blood pressure (C-statistic 0.871). External validation overall of VBHOM, DAS, and GAS revealed C-statistics of 0.836, 0.782, and 0.761, with an H-L of 0.028, 0.00, and 0.128, respectively.Conclusions: The optimal set of variables for casemix correction in the DSAA comprises both clinical and laboratory parameters, which can be collected easily from electronic patient files and will lead to an efficient casemix model.</p

Results from a nationwide prospective registry on open surgical or endovascular repair of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms

Background: Juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (JRAAAs) can be treated either with open surgical repair (OSR) including suprarenal clamping or by complex endovascular aneurysm repair (cEVAR). In this study, we present the comparison between the short-term mortality and complications of the elective JRAAA treatment modalities from a national database reflecting daily practice in the Netherlands. Methods: All patients undergoing elective JRAAA open repair or cEVAR (fenestrated EVAR or chimney EVAR) between January 2016 and December 2018 registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA) were eligible for inclusion. Descriptive perioperative variables and outcomes were compared between patients treated with open surgery or endovascularly. Adjusted odds ratios for short-term outcomes were calculated by logistic regression analysis. Results: In all, 455 primary treated patients with JRAAAs could be included (258 OSR, 197 cEVAR). Younger patients and female patients were treated more often with OSR vs cEVAR (72 ± 6.1 vs 76 ± 6.0; P < .001 and 22% vs 15%; P = .047, respectively). Patients treated with OSR had significantly more major and minor complications as well as a higher chance of early mortality (OSR vs cEVAR, 45% vs 21%; P < .001; 34% vs 23%; P = .011; and 6.6% vs 2.5%; P = .046, respectively). After logistic regression with adjustment for confounders, patients who were treated with OSR showed an odds ratio of 3.64 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.25-5.89; P < .001) for major complications compared with patients treated with cEVAR, and for minor complications, the odds ratios were 2.17 (95% CI, 1.34-3.53; P = .002) higher. For early mortality, the odds ratios were 3.79 (95% CI, 1.26-11.34; P = .017) higher after OSR compared with cEVAR. Conclusions: In this study, after primary elective OSR for JRAAA, the odds for major complications, minor complications, and short-term mortality were significantly higher compared with cEVAR

Mechanochemical endovenous Ablation versus RADiOfrequeNcy Ablation in the treatment of primary great saphenous vein incompetence (MARADONA):Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is associated with an excellent outcome in the treatment of great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence. The use of thermal energy as a treatment source requires the instillation of tumescence anesthesia. Mechanochemical endovenous ablation (MOCA) combines mechanical endothelial damage, using a rotating wire, with the infusion of a liquid sclerosant. Tumescence anesthesia is not required. Preliminary experiences with MOCA showed good results and low post-procedural pain. METHODS/DESIGN: The MARADONA (Mechanochemical endovenous Ablation versus RADiOfrequeNcy Ablation) trial is a multicenter randomized controlled trial in which 460 patients will be randomly allocated to MOCA or RFA. All patients with primary GSV incompetence who meet the eligibility criteria will be invited to participate in this trial. The primary endpoints are anatomic and clinical success at a one-year follow-up, and post-procedural pain. The secondary endpoints are technical success, complications, operation time, procedural pain, disease-specific quality of life, time taken to return to daily activities and/or work, and cost-efficiency analyses after RFA or MOCA. Both groups will be evaluated on an intention to treat base. DISCUSSION: The MARADONA trial is designed to show equal results in anatomic and clinical success after one year, comparing MOCA with RFA. In our hypothesis MOCA has an equal anatomic and clinical success compared with RFA, with less post-procedural pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials NCT0193616

Outcomes of open repair of postdissection abdominal aortic aneurysms

Background: Evidence to guide management of postdissection abdominal aortic aneurysms (PDAAA) is lacking. This study describes the outcomes of open repair of PDAAA. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of all consecutive patients treated with open repair for PDAAA after a Stanford type A or type B thoracic aortic dissection between January 2006 and December 2017 in two vascular referral centers. Preceding type B dissection treatment could include conservative or surgical management. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, complication rates, survival, and reintervention-free survival. Survival and reintervention-free survival were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Reintervention was defined as any endovascular or surgical intervention after the index procedure. Results: Included were 36 patients (27 men [75%]) with a median age of 64 years (range, 35-81 years). The 30-day mortality was 2.7%. The median follow-up was 16 months (range, 0-88 months). The postoperative course was uneventful in 21 patients (58%). The most frequent complications were postoperative bleeding requiring repeat laparotomy (n = 4), pneumonia (n = 3), congestive heart failure (n = 2), new-onset atrial fibrillation (n = 2), mesenteric ischemia requiring left hemicolectomy (n=1), and ischemic cerebrovascular accident (n = 1). Renal failure requiring hemodialysis developed in one patient. The overall survival at 1 year was 88.8%. Reintervention-free survival was 95.5% after 1 year and 88.6% after 2 years. Conclusions: Open repair of PDAAA can be performed with a low mortality rate and an acceptable complication rate, comparable with elective open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms without dissection

Introducing the Concept of the Minimally Important Difference to Determine a Clinically Relevant Change on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Patients with Intermittent Claudication

Purpose: The minimally important difference (MID) represents the smallest change in score on patient-reported outcome measures that is relevant to patients. The aim of this study was to introduce the MID for the Vascular Quality of Life Questionnaire (VascuQol) and the walking impairment questionnaire (WIQ) for patients with intermittent claudication (IC). Methods: In this multicenter study, we recruited 294 patients with IC between July and October 2012. Patients completed the VascuQol, with scores ranging from 1 to 7 (worst to best), and the WIQ, with scores ranging from 0 to 1 (worst to best) at first visit and after 4 months follow-up. In addition, patients answered an anchor-question rating their health status compared to baseline, as being improved, unchanged, or deteriorated. The MID for improvement and deterioration was calculated by an anchor-based approach, and determined with the upper and lower limits of the 95 % confidence interval of the mean change of the group who had not changed according to the anchor-question. Results: For the MID analyses of the VascuQol and WIQ, 163 and 134 patients were included, respectively. The MID values for the VascuQol (mean baseline score 4.25) were 0.87 for improvement and 0.23 for deterioration. For the WIQ (mean baseline score 0.39), we found MID values of 0.11 and −0.03 for improvement and deterioration, respectively. Conclusion: In this study, we calculated the MID for the VascuQol and the WIQ. Applying these MID facilitates better interpretation of treatment outcomes and can help to set treatment goals for individual care

Cost-Effectiveness of Two Decision Strategies for Shunt Use During Carotid Endarterectomy

Background: Arterial shunting during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is essential in some patients because of insufficient cerebral perfusion during cross-clamping. However, the optimal diagnostic modality identifying these patients is still debated. None of the currently used modalities has been proved superior to another. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of two modalities, stump pressure measurement (SPM) versus electroencephalography (EEG) combined with transcranial Doppler (TCD) during CEA. Methods: Two retrospective cohorts of consecutive patients undergoing CEA with different intraoperative neuromonitoring strategies (SPM vs. EEG/TCD) were analyzed. Clinical data were collected from patient hospital records. Primary clinical outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. Total admission costs were calculated based on volumes of healthcare resources. Analyses of effects and costs were adjusted for clinical differences between patients by means of a propensity score, and cost-effectiveness was estimated. Results: A total of 503 (239 SPM; 264 EEG/TCD) patients were included, of whom 19 sustained a stroke or died during admission (3.3 vs. 4.2%, respectively, adjusted risk difference 1.3% (95% CI −2.3–4.8%)). Median total costs were €4946 (IQR 4424–6173) in the SPM group versus €7447 (IQR 6890–8675) in the EEG/TCD group. Costs for neurophysiologic assessments were the main determinant for the difference. Conclusions: Given the evidence provided by this small retrospective study, SPM would be the favored strategy for intraoperative neuromonitoring if cost-effectiveness was taken into account when deciding which strategy to adopt

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

Elective surgery of abdominal aortic aneurysms in octogenarians: a systematic review

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an age-related disease. In an aging population, the prevalence of AAA is likely to increase. Open AAA repair in patients aged >80 years is often not considered because of their advanced age as such or because of comorbidities. In addition, little is known about the natural history in such patients or survival after successful repair. We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine peri-operative and late survival after AAA repair in octogenarians The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify all studies reporting on octogenarians undergoing AAA repair published between January 1966 and June 2006. Two independent observers assessed the methodologic quality of the included studies and the data extraction. Outcomes were rates of perioperative mortality, complications, and long-term survival after open or endovascular repair (EVAR). Summary estimates with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. Thirty-nine articles were included. The median aneurysm size was 6.7 cm in the conventional AAA repair group of 1534 patients. The perioperative mortality was 0% to 33%, with a pooled mortality of 7.5% (95% CI, 6.2% to 9.0%). The median 5-year survival rate for this group was 60% (range, 14% to 86%). In the 1045 patients treated with EVAR, the median aneurysm size was 5.9 cm. Their pooled perioperative mortality varied from 0% to 6%, with a pooled mortality of 4.6% (95% CI, 3.4 to 6.0%). We could not derive 5-year survival rates from articles describing endovascular repair of AAA. The mortality rate after open or endovascular AAA repair in carefully selected octogenarians seems acceptable but is higher than the mortality rate in younger patients. Long-term survival rates were acceptable, but small sample size, selection, and publication bias must be taken into account. Finally, selection criteria for successful surgery with low mortality and morbidity rates cannot be derived from the literatur

Evaluation of risk prediction models, V-POSSUM and GAS, in patients with acute abdominal aortic rupture treated with EVAR or an open procedure

BACKGROUND: In this time of outcome measurements predictive models are needed for correction of comorbidity, in order to perform audits on the outcome of patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of risk-predicting scoring methods in the treatment of RAAA with emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) and open repair in order to analyze outcomes. METHODS: Two hundred and six consecutive patients underwent open repair or eEVAR for RAAA. Patients data were compared with preoperative risk assessments according to the V-POSSUM and the Glasgow Aneurysm Score (GAS). RESULTS: The 30-day mortality rate was 45/206 (22%) in the whole cohort, 41/179 (23%) (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 17-30) after open repair and 4/27 (15%, 95% CI 6-32) after eEVAR. The patient population did not significantly change over time, according to age, gender, VPOSSUM and GAS, neither did the 30-day mortality. The GAS appeared to be a reasonable predictor of postoperative outcome for both open and endovascular RAAA repair, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.73 (SD 0.04; 95% CI 0.65-0.80; P CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative risk assessment with either V-POSSUM or GAS does not identify patients with fatal outcome at the individual level. However, these risk models may be useful as a relative estimate, in surgical audit or for inter-and intra-hospital comparisons