National Numbers of Secondary Aortic Reinterventions after Primary Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Surgery from the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit

Background: Long-term secondary aortic reinterventions (SARs) can be a sign of (lack of) effectiveness of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery. This study provides insight into the national number of SARs after primary AAA repair by endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) or by open surgical repair in the Netherlands. Methods: Observational study included all patients undergoing SAR between 2016 and 2017, registered in the compulsory Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA). The DSAA started in 2013, SARs are registered from 2016. Characteristics of SAR and postoperative outcomes (mortality/complications) were analyzed, stratified by urgency of SAR. Data of SARs were merged with data of their preceded primary AAA repair, registered in the DSAA after January 2013. In these patients undergoing SAR, treatment characteristics of the preceded primary AAA repair were additionally described, with focus on differences between stent grafts. Results: Between 2016 and 2017, 691 patients underwent SAR, this concerned 9.3% of all AAA procedures (infrarenal/juxtarenal/suprarenal) in the Netherlands (77% elective/11% acute symptomatic/12% ruptured). Endoleak (60%) was the most frequent indication for SAR. SARs were performed with EVAR in 66%. Postoperative mortalities after SAR were 3.4%, 11%, and 29% in elective, acute symptomatic, and ruptured patients, respectively. In 26% (n = 181) of the patients undergoing SAR their primary AAA repair was performed after January 2013 and data of primary and SAR procedures could be merged. In 93% (n = 136), primary AAA repair was EVAR. Endografts primarily used were nitinol/polyester (62%), nitinol/polytetrafluoroethylene (8%), endovascular sealing (21%), and others (9%), compared with their national market share of 76% (odds ratio [OR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38–0.71), 15% (OR, 0.50; CI, 0.29–0.89), 4.9% (OR, 5.04; CI, 3.44–7.38), and 4.1% (OR, 2.81; CI, 1.66–4.74), respectively. Conclusions: In the Netherlands, about one-tenth of the annual AAA procedures concerns an SAR. A quarter of this cohort had an SAR within 1–5 years after their primary AAA repair. Most SARs followed after primary EVAR procedures, in which an overrepresentation of endovascular sealing grafts was seen. Postoperative mortality after SAR is comparable with primary AAA repair

Nationwide study of the treatment of mycotic abdominal aortic aneurysms comparing open and endovascular repair in The Netherlands

Objective: Mycotic aneurysms of the abdominal aorta (MAAA) can be treated by open repair (OR) or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). This nationwide study provides an overview of the situation of MAAA treatment in The Netherlands in 2016. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted with all centers that registered aortic abdominal aneurysms in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit in 2016. Questionnaires on 1-year outcomes were sent to all centers that treated patients with MAAA. The primary aim was to determine 30-day and 1-year mortality and morbidity of OR- and EVAR-treated patients. Morbidity was determined by the need for reoperations and the number of readmissions to the hospital. Results: Twenty-six MAAA were detected in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit database of 2016, resulting in an incidence of 0.7% of all registered abdominal aortic aneurysms. The 30-day mortality for OR and EVAR treated patients was 1 in 13 and 0 in 13, respectively. Major and minor reinterventions within 30 days were needed for two (one OR and one EVAR) and two (one OR and one EVAR) patients, respectively. Two patients (15.4%) in the OR group and one patient (7.7%) in the EVAR group were readmitted to hospital within 30 days. In total, 1-year outcomes of 23 patients were available. In the OR group, one patient (9.1%) died in the first postoperative year. There was one major reintervention (removal of endoprosthesis and spiralvein reconstruction) in the EVAR group. Two patients (18.2%) treated with OR and two (16.7%) treated with EVAR required a minor reintervention. In both groups, four patients (OR, 36.4%; EVAR, 33.3%) were readmitted to hospital within 1 year postoperatively. Conclusions: Both OR- and EVAR-treated patients show acceptable clinical outcomes after 30 days and at the 1-year follow-up. Depending on the clinical course of the patient, EVAR may be considered in the management of this disease

Editor's Choice – Nationwide Analysis of Patients Undergoing Iliac Artery Aneurysm Repair in the Netherlands

Objective: The new 2019 guideline of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) recommends consideration for elective iliac artery aneurysm (eIAA) repair when the iliac diameter exceeds 3.5 cm, as opposed to 3.0 cm previously. The current study assessed diameters at time of eIAA repair and ruptured IAA (rIAA) repair and compared clinical outcomes after open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Methods: This retrospective observational study used the nationwide Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA) registry that includes all patients who undergo aorto-iliac aneurysm repair in the Netherlands. All patients who underwent primary IAA repair between 1 January 2014 and 1 January 2018 were included. Diameters at time of eIAA and rIAA repair were compared in a descriptive fashion. The anatomical location of the IAA was not registered in the registry. Patient characteristics and outcomes of OSR and EVAR were compared with appropriate statistical tests. Results: The DSAA registry comprised 974 patients who underwent IAA repair. A total of 851 patients were included after exclusion of patients undergoing revision surgery and patients with missing essential variables. eIAA repair was carried out in 713 patients, rIAA repair in 102, and symptomatic IAA repair in 36. OSR was performed in 205, EVAR in 618, and hybrid repairs and conversions in 28. The median maximum IAA diameter at the time of eIAA and rIAA repair was 43 (IQR 38–50) mm and 68 (IQR 58–85) mm, respectively. Mortality was 1.3% (95% CI 0.7–2.4) after eIAA repair and 25.5% (95% CI 18.0–34.7) after rIAA repair. Mortality was not significantly different between the OSR and EVAR subgroups. Elective OSR was associated with significantly more complications than EVAR (intra-operative: 9.8% vs. 3.6%, post-operative: 34.0% vs. 13.8%, respectively). Conclusion: In the Netherlands, most eIAA repairs are performed at diameters larger than recommended by the ESVS guideline. These findings appear to support the recent increase in the threshold diameter for eIAA repair

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 > 0.8 and Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) P > 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

Association of Hospital Volume with Perioperative Mortality of Endovascular Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Objective: We evaluate nationwide perioperative outcomes of complex EVAR and assess the volume-outcome association of complex EVAR. Summary of Background Data: Endovascular treatment with fenestrated (FEVAR) or branched (BEVAR) endografts is progressively used for excluding complex aortic aneurysms (complex AAs). It is unclear if a volumeoutcome association exists in endovascular treatment of complex AAs (complex EVAR). Methods: All patients prospectively registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit who underwent complex EVAR (FEVAR or BEVAR) between January 2016 and January 2020 were included. The effect of annual hospital volume on perioperative mortality was examined using multivariable logistic regression analyses. Patients were stratified into quartiles based on annual hospital volume to determine hospital volume categories. Results: We included 694 patients (539 FEVAR patients, 155 BEVAR patients). Perioperative mortality following FEVAR was 4.5% and 5.2% following BEVAR. Postoperative complication rates were 30.1% and 48.7%, respectively. The first quartile hospitals performed <9 procedures/ yr; second, third, and fourth quartile hospitals performed 9-12, 13-22, and 23 procedures/yr. The highest volume hospitals treated significantly more complex patients. Perioperative mortality of complex EVAR was 9.1% in hospitals with a volume of <9, and 2.5% in hospitals with a volume of 13 (P = 0.008). After adjustment for confounders, an annual volume of 13 was associated with less perioperative mortality compared to hospitals with a volume of <9. Conclusions: Data from this nationwide mandatory quality registry shows a significant effect of hospital volume on perioperative mortality following complex EVAR, with high volume complex EVAR centers demonstrating lower mortality rates