Using multiple classifiers for predicting the risk of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair re-intervention through hybrid feature selection.

Feature selection is essential in medical area; however, its process becomes complicated with the presence of censoring which is the unique character of survival analysis. Most survival feature selection methods are based on Cox's proportional hazard model, though machine learning classifiers are preferred. They are less employed in survival analysis due to censoring which prevents them from directly being used to survival data. Among the few work that employed machine learning classifiers, partial logistic artificial neural network with auto-relevance determination is a well-known method that deals with censoring and perform feature selection for survival data. However, it depends on data replication to handle censoring which leads to unbalanced and biased prediction results especially in highly censored data. Other methods cannot deal with high censoring. Therefore, in this article, a new hybrid feature selection method is proposed which presents a solution to high level censoring. It combines support vector machine, neural network, and K-nearest neighbor classifiers using simple majority voting and a new weighted majority voting method based on survival metric to construct a multiple classifier system. The new hybrid feature selection process uses multiple classifier system as a wrapper method and merges it with iterated feature ranking filter method to further reduce features. Two endovascular aortic repair datasets containing 91% censored patients collected from two centers were used to construct a multicenter study to evaluate the performance of the proposed approach. The results showed the proposed technique outperformed individual classifiers and variable selection methods based on Cox's model such as Akaike and Bayesian information criterions and least absolute shrinkage and selector operator in p values of the log-rank test, sensitivity, and concordance index. This indicates that the proposed classifier is more powerful in correctly predicting the risk of re-intervention enabling doctor in selecting patients' future follow-up plan

Elective Open Suprarenal Aneurysm Repair in England from 2000 to 2010 an Observational Study of Hospital Episode Statistics

Background: Open surgery is widely used as a benchmark for the results of fenestrated endovascular repair of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). However, the existing evidence stems from single-centre experiences, and may not be reproducible in wider practice. National outcomes provide valuable information regarding the safety of suprarenal aneurysm repair. Methods: Demographic and clinical data were extracted from English Hospital Episodes Statistics for patients undergoing elective suprarenal aneurysm repair from 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2010. Thirty-day mortality and five-year survival were analysed by logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards modeling. Results: 793 patients underwent surgery with 14% overall 30-day mortality, which did not improve over the study period. Independent predictors of 30-day mortality included age, renal disease and previous myocardial infarction. 5-year survival was independently reduced by age, renal disease, liver disease, chronic pulmonary disease, and known metastatic solid tumour. There was significant regional variation in both 30-day mortality and 5-year survival after risk-adjustment. Regional differences in outcome were eliminated in a sensitivity analysis for perioperative outcome, conducted by restricting analysis to survivors of the first 30 days after surgery. Conclusions: Elective suprarenal aneurysm repair was associated with considerable mortality and significant regional variation across England. These data provide a benchmark to assess the efficacy of complex endovascular repair of supra-renal aneurysms, though cautious interpretation is required due to the lack of information regarding aneurysm morphology. More detailed study is required, ideally through the mandatory submission of data to a national registry of suprarenal aneurysm repair

Indications for Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis in the Management of Acute Proximal Deep Venous Thrombosis

Deep vein thromboses (DVTs) cause significant morbidity and mortality in the general population. Oral anticoagulation therapy may reduce thrombus propagation but does not cause clot lysis and therefore does not prevent postthrombotic syndrome (PTS). Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) can be used to treat DVTs as an adjunct to medical therapy, but there is no consensus defining exact indications. Current evidence suggests that CDT can reduce clot burden and DVT recurrence and consequently prevents the formation of PTS compared with systemic anticoagulation. Appropriate indications include younger individuals with acute proximal thromboses, a long life expectancy, and relatively few comorbidities. Limb-threatening thromboses may also be treated with CDT, although the subsequent mortality remains high. A number of randomized controlled trials are currently under way comparing the longer-term outcomes of CDT compared with anticoagulation alone. Initial reports suggest that venous patency and valvular function are better maintained after CDT. The effectiveness of combined pharmacomechanical thrombectomy and the role of vena cava filters need to be investigated further before strong recommendations can be made. The reported short-term outcomes following catheter-based intervention for DVT are encouraging in selected patients. Further evidence is required to establish long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness

Effect of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair on the Volume-Outcome Relationship in Aneurysm Repair

Background— We aim to quantify the relationship between the annual caseload (volume) and outcome from elective endovascular (EVR) or open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in England between 2005 and 2007. Methods and Results— Individual patient data were obtained from the Hospital Episode Statistics. Statistical methods included multiple logistic regression models, mortality control charts, and safety plots to determine the nature of any relationship between volume and outcome. The case-mix between hospitals of different sizes was examined using observed and expected values for in-hospital mortality. Outcome measures included in-hospital mortality and hospital length of stay. Between 2005 and 2007, a total of 57 587 patients were admitted to hospitals in England with a diagnosis of AAA, and 11 574 underwent AAA repair. There were 7313 elective AAA repairs, of which 5668 (78%) were open and 1645 (22%) were EVR. In-hospital mortality rates were 5.63% for all elective AAA repairs with rates of 6.18% for open repair and 3.77% for EVR (odds ratio, 0.676; 95% CI, 0.501 to 0.913; P=0.011). High-volume aneurysm services were associated with significantly lower mortality rates overall (0.991; 0.988 to 0.994; P<0.0001), for open repairs (0.994; 0.991 to 0.998; P=0.0008), and EVR (0.989; 0.982 to 0.995; P=0.0007). Large endovascular units had low mortality rates for open repairs. Conclusion— A strong relationship existed between the volume of surgery performed and outcome from both open and endovascular aneurysm repairs. These data support the concept that abdominal aortic surgery should be performed in specialized units that meet a minimum volume threshold

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Long-term survival After Elective Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair 1969-2011: 5 Year Survival Remains Poor Despite Advances in Medical Care and Treatment Strategies.

BACKGROUND: Improved critical care, pre-operative optimization, and the advent of endovascular surgery (EVAR) have improved 30 day mortality for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. It remains unknown whether this has translated into improvements in long-term survival, particularly because these factors have also encouraged the treatment of older patients with greater comorbidity. The aim of this study was to quantify how 5 year survival after elective AAA repair has changed over time. METHODS: A systematic review was performed identifying studies reporting 5 year survival after elective infrarenal AAA repair. An electronic search of the Embase and Medline databases was conducted to January 2014. Thirty-six studies, 60 study arms, and 107,814 patients were identified. Meta-analyses were conducted to determine 5 year survival and to report whether 5 year survival changed over time. RESULTS: Five-year survival was 69% (95% CI 67 to 71%, I(2) = 87%). Meta-regression on study midpoint showed no improvement in 5 year survival over the period 1969-2011 (log OR -0.001, 95% CI -0.014-0.012). Larger average aneurysm diameter was associated with poorer 5 year survival (adjusted log OR -0.058, 95% CI -0.095 to -0.021, I(2) = 85%). Older average patient age at surgery was associated with poorer 5 year survival (adjusted log OR -0.118, 95% CI -0.142 to -0.094, I(2) = 70%). After adjusting for average patient age, an improvement in 5 year survival over the period that these data spanned was obtained (adjusted log OR 0.027, 95% CI 0.012 to 0.042). CONCLUSION: Five-year survival remains poor after elective AAA repair despite advances in short-term outcomes and is associated with AAA diameter and patient age at the time of surgery. Age-adjusted survival appears to have improved; however, this cohort as a whole continues to have poor long-term survival. Research in this field should attempt to improve the life expectancy of patients with repaired AAA and to optimise patient selection

Endovascular Versus Open Repair For Chronic Type B Dissection Treatment: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The respective place of endovascular versus open surgery in thoracic dissecting aneurysm treatment remains debatable. This comprehensive review seeks to analyse the outcomes of endovascular repair (ER) compared to open surgery (OS) in chronic type B aortic dissection treatment. METHODS: Embase and Medline searches (2000 - 2017)were performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Outcomes data extracted comprised firstly early mortality and major complications: stroke, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), dialysis, respiratory complications; secondly, late survival and reinterventions. Reintervention causes were divided into proximal, adjacent, distal. Comparative studies provided comparative meta-analyses. Non-comparative studies were analysed in pooled proportion meta-analyses for each group. RESULTS: 39 studies were identified: 10 OS, 25 ER, 4 comparative. Comparative studies meta-analyses revealed lower early mortality for ER (OR: 4.13, 95% CI: 1.10 - 15.4), stroke (OR: 4.33, 95% CI: 1.02-18.35), SCI (OR: 3.3, 95% CI: 0.97 - 11.25) and respiratory complications (OR: 6.88, 95% CI:1.52- 31.02), but higher reintervention rate (OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.16 - 0.69). Mid-term survival was similar (OR: 1.19, 95% CI:0.42 - 3.32). Non-comparative studies analyses showed distal causes as the principal reintervention indication in both groups: OS 73%; ER 59%. Reintervention procedures were mainly surgical for OS (85%), mainly endovascular for ER (75%). Rupture rates were: OS 1.2% , ER 3%. CONCLUSIONS: This recent non -randomised data shows early ER benefit, unsustained at mid-term. Reintervention is higher after ER, necessitating improved technique. However, OS is exempt neither from reintervention nor rupture. Both techniques have their place, but patient selection is key

Outcomes of aortic aneurysm surgery in England : a nationwide cohort study using hospital admissions data from 2002 to 2015

Background The United Kingdom aortic aneurysms (AA) services have undergone reconfiguration to improve outcomes. The National Health Service collects data on all hospital admissions in England. The complex administrative datasets generated have the potential to be used to monitor activity and outcomes, however, there are challenges in using these data as they are primarily collected for administrative purposes. The aim of this study was to develop standardised algorithms with the support of a clinical consensus group to identify all AA activity, classify the AA management into clinically meaningful case mix groups and define outcome measures that could be used to compare outcomes among AA service providers. \ud Methods In-patient data about aortic aneurysm (AA) admissions from the 2002/03 to 2014/15 were acquired. A stepwise approach, with input from a clinical consensus group, was used to identify relevant cases. The data is primarily coded into episodes, these were amalgamated to identify admissions; admissions were linked to understand patient pathways and index admissions. Cases were then divided into case-mix groups based upon examination of individually sampled and aggregate data. Consistent measures of outcome were developed, including length of stay, complications within the index admission, post-operative mortality and re-admission. Results Several issues were identified in the dataset including potential conflict in identifying emergency and elective cases and potential confusion if an inappropriate admission definition is used. Ninety six thousand seven hundred thirty-five patients were identified using the algorithms developed in this study to extract AA cases from Hospital episode statistics. From 2002 to 2015, 83,968 patients (87% of all cases identified) underwent repair for AA and 12,767 patients (13% of all cases identified) died in hospital without any AA repair. Six thousand three hundred twenty-nine patients (7.5%) had repair for complex AA and 77,639 (92.5%) had repair for infra-renal AA. Conclusion The proposed methods define homogeneous clinical groups and outcomes by combining administrative codes in the data. These methodologically robust methods can help examine outcomes associated with previous and current service provisions and aid future reconfiguration of aortic aneurysm surgery services

Thresholds for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in England and the United States.

Background Thresholds for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms vary considerably among countries. Methods We examined differences between England and the United States in the frequency of aneurysm repair, the mean aneurysm diameter at the time of the procedure, and rates of aneurysm rupture and aneurysm-related death. Data on the frequency of repair of intact (nonruptured) abdominal aortic aneurysms, in-hospital mortality among patients who had undergone aneurysm repair, and rates of aneurysm rupture during the period from 2005 through 2012 were extracted from the Hospital Episode Statistics database in England and the U.S. Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Data on the aneurysm diameter at the time of repair were extracted from the U.K. National Vascular Registry (2014 data) and from the U.S. National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2013 data). Aneurysm-related mortality during the period from 2005 through 2012 was determined from data obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.K. Office of National Statistics. Data were adjusted with the use of direct standardization or conditional logistic regression for differences between England and the United States with respect to population age and sex. Results During the period from 2005 through 2012, a total of 29,300 patients in England and 278,921 patients in the United States underwent repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysms. Aneurysm repair was less common in England than in the United States (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48 to 0.49; P<0.001), and aneurysm-related death was more common in England than in the United States (odds ratio, 3.60; 95% CI, 3.55 to 3.64; P<0.001). Hospitalization due to an aneurysm rupture occurred more frequently in England than in the United States (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% CI, 2.19 to 2.27; P<0.001), and the mean aneurysm diameter at the time of repair was larger in England (63.7 mm vs. 58.3 mm, P<0.001). Conclusions We found a lower rate of repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms and a larger mean aneurysm diameter at the time of repair in England than in the United States and lower rates of aneurysm rupture and aneurysm-related death in the United States than in England. (Funded by the Circulation Foundation and others.)

Cardiac rehabilitation versus standard care after aortic aneurysm repair (Aneurysm CaRe): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal and thoracic aortic aneurysms (A/TAA) are an important cause of mortality amongst the older population. Although A/TAA repair can be performed with low peri-operative risk, overall life expectancy remains poor in the years that follow surgery. The majority of deaths are caused by heart attack or stroke, which can both be prevented by cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in patients with clinically-manifest coronary artery disease. A Cochrane review has urged researchers to widen the use of CR to other populations with severe cardiovascular risk, and patients surviving A/TAA repair appear ideal candidates. However, it is unknown whether CR is feasible or acceptable to A/TAA patients, who are a decade older than those currently enrolling in CR. Aneurysm-CaRe is a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) that will address these issues. METHODS AND DESIGN: Aneurysm-CaRe is a pilot RCT of CR versus standard care after A/TAA repair, with the primary objectives of estimating enrolment to a trial of CR after A/TAA repair and estimating compliance with CR amongst patients with A/TAA. Aneurysm-CaRe will randomise 84 patients at two sites. Patients discharged from hospital after elective A/TAA repair will be randomised to standard care or enrolment in their local CR programme with a protocolised approach to medical cardiovascular risk reduction. The primary outcome measures are enrolment in the RCT and compliance with CR. Secondary outcomes will include phenotypic markers of cardiovascular risk and smoking cessation, alongside disease-specific and generic quality-of-life measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 65746249 5 June 2014