Is there a relationship between surgical case volume and mortality in congenital heart disease services? A rapid evidence review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and synthesise the evidence on the relationship between surgical volume and patient outcomes for adults and children with congenital heart disease. DESIGN: Evidence synthesis of interventional and observational studies. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Web of Science (2009-2014) and citation searching, reference lists and recommendations from stakeholders (2003-2014) were used to identify evidence. STUDY SELECTION: Quantitative observational and interventional studies with information on volume of surgical procedures and patient outcomes were included. RESULTS: 31 of the 34 papers identified (91.2%) included only paediatric patients. 25 (73.5%) investigated the relationship between volume and mortality, 7 (20.6%) mortality and other outcomes and 2 (5.9%) non-mortality outcomes only. 88.2% were from the US, 97% were multicentre studies and all were retrospective observational studies. 20 studies (58.8%) included all congenital heart disease conditions and 14 (41.2%) single conditions or procedures. No UK studies were identified. Most studies showed a relationship between volume and outcome but this relationship was not consistent. The relationship was stronger for single complex conditions or procedures. We found limited evidence about the impact of volume on non-mortality outcomes. A mixed picture emerged revealing a range of factors, in addition to volume, that influence outcome including condition severity, individual centre and surgeon effects and clinical advances over time. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity of findings from observational studies suggests that, while a relationship between volume and outcome exists, this is unlikely to be a simple, independent and directly causal relationship. The effect of volume on outcome relative to the effect of other, as yet undetermined, health system factors remains a complex and unresolved research question

The sac evolution imaging follow-up after endovascular aortic repair:An international expert opinion-based Delphi consensus study

Objective: Management of follow-up protocols after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) varies significantly between centers and is not standardized according to sac regression. By designing an international expert-based Delphi consensus, the study aimed to create recommendations on follow-up after EVAR according to sac evolution. Methods: Eight facilitators created appropriate statements regarding the study topic that were voted, using a 4-point Likert scale, by a selected panel of international experts using a three-round modified Delphi consensus process. Based on the experts' responses, only those statements reaching a grade A (full agreement ≥75%) or B (overall agreement ≥80% and full disagreement &lt;5%) were included in the final document. Results: One-hundred and seventy-four participants were included in the final analysis, and each voted the initial 29 statements related to the definition of sac regression (Q1-Q9), EVAR follow-up (Q10-Q14), and the assessment and role of sac regression during follow-up (Q15-Q29). At the end of the process, 2 statements (6.9%) were rejected, 9 statements (31%) received a grade B consensus strength, and 18 (62.1%) reached a grade A consensus strength. Of 27 final statements, 15 (55.6%) were classified as grade I, whereas 12 (44.4%) were classified as grade II. Experts agreed that sac regression should be considered an important indicator of EVAR success and always be assessed during follow-up after EVAR. Conclusions: Based on the elevated strength and high consistency of this international expert-based Delphi consensus, most of the statements might guide the current clinical management of follow-up after EVAR according to the sac regression. Future studies are needed to clarify debated issues.</p

Comparative outcomes of physician-modified fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in the setting of prior failed endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysms involving renal-mesenteric arteries, especially in the setting of prior failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) typically requires fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) with a custom-made device (CMD). CMDs are limited to select centers, and physician-modified endografts are an alternative treatment platform. Currently, there is no data on the outcomes of physician-modified F/BEVAR (PM-F/BEVAR) in the setting of failed prior EVAR. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of PM-F/BEVAR in patients with prior failed EVAR. METHODS: A prospective database of consecutive patients treated at a single center with PM-F/BEVAR between March 2021 and November 2022 was retrospectively reviewed. The cohort was stratified by presence of a failed EVAR (type Ia endoleak or aneurysm development proximal to a prior EVAR) prior to PM-F/BEVAR. Demographics, operative details, and postoperative complications were compared between the groups using univariate analysis. One-year survival and freedom from reintervention were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients underwent PM-F/BEVAR during the study period; 27 (26%) were in the setting of prior EVAR. Patients with prior failed EVAR had similar age (75.2 ± 7.7 vs 71.5 ± 8.8 years; P = .058), male gender (n = 24 ; 89% vs n = 57 ; 75%; P = .130), and comorbid conditions except higher incidence of moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 7 ; 26% vs n = 7 ; 9%; P = .047). Overall, aneurysm diameter was 65.5 ± 13.9 mm with aneurysms categorized as juxta-/pararenal in 43% and thoracoabdominal in 57%, with no differences between the groups. Twelve patients (14%) presented with symptomatic/ruptured aneurysms. The average number of target arteries incorporated per patient was 3.8. Four different aortic devices were modified with a greater proportion of Terumo TREO devices used in the failed EVAR group (P = .03). There was no difference in procedure time, radiation dose, or iodinated contrast use between groups. Overall technical success was 99%. Rates of 30-day mortality (n = 0 ; 0% vs n = 3 ; 4%; P = .565) and major adverse events (n = 6 ; 22% vs n = 16 ; 21%; P = 1.0) were similar between groups. For the overall cohort, rates of type 1 or 3 endoleak, branch vessel stenosis/occlusion, and reintervention were 2%, 1%, and 8%, respectively, with no difference between groups. One-year survival (failed EVAR 94% vs no EVAR 82%; P = .756) was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: PM-F/BEVAR is a safe and effective treatment for patients with aneurysms involving the renal-mesenteric arteries in the setting of prior failed EVAR where additional technical challenges may be present. Additional follow-up is warranted to demonstrate long-term efficacy, but early results are encouraging and similar to those using CMDs

Implications of secondary aortic intervention after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute and chronic type B dissection

Background: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become a mainstay of therapy for acute and chronic type B aortic dissection (TBAD). Dynamic aortic morphologic changes, untreated dissected aorta, and persistent false lumen perfusion have significant consequences for reintervention after TEVAR for TBAD. However, few reports contrast differences in secondary aortic intervention (SAI) after TEVAR for TBAD or describe their influence on mortality. This analysis examined incidence, timing, and types of SAI after TEVAR for acute and chronic TBAD and determined their impact on survival. Methods: All TEVAR procedures for acute and chronic TBAD (2005-2016) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with staged (\u3c30 days) or concomitant ascending aortic arch repair or replacement were excluded. Acuity was defined by symptom onset (0-30 days, acute; \u3e30 days, chronic). SAI procedures were grouped into open (intended treatment zone or remote aortic site), major endovascular (TEVAR extension or endograft implanted at noncontiguous site), and minor endovascular (side branch or false lumen embolization) categories. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate freedom from SAI and survival. Cox proportional hazards were used to identify SAI predictors. Results: TEVAR for TBAD was performed in 258 patients (acute, 49% [n = 128]; chronic, 51% [n = 130]). Mean follow-up was 17 ± 22 months with an overall SAI rate of 27% (n = 70; acute, 22% [28]; chronic, 32% [42]; odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-2.9; P =.07]. Median time to SAI was significantly less after acute than after chronic dissection (0.7 [0-12] vs 7 [0-91] months; P \u3c.001); however, freedom from SAI was not different (1-year: acute, 67% ± 4%, vs chronic, 68% ± 5%; 3-year: acute, 65% ± 7%, vs chronic, 52% ± 8%; P =.7). Types of SAI were similar (acute vs chronic: open, 61% vs 55% [P =.6]; major endovascular, 36% vs 38% [P =.8]; minor endovascular, 21% vs 21% [P = 1]). The open conversion rate (either partial or total endograft explantation: acute, 10% [13/128]; chronic, 15% [20/130]; P =.2) and incidence of retrograde dissection (acute, 6% [7/128]; chronic, 4% [5/130]; P =.5) were similar. There was no difference in survival for SAI patients (5-year: acute + SAI, 55% ± 9%, vs acute without SAI, 67% ± 8% [P =.3]; 5-year: chronic + SAI, 72% ± 6%, vs chronic without SAI, 72% ± 7% [P =.7]). Factors associated with SAI included younger age, acute dissection with larger maximal aortic diameter at presentation, Marfan syndrome, and use of arch vessel adjunctive procedures with the index TEVAR. Indication for the index TEVAR (aneurysm, malperfusion, rupture, and pain or hypertension) or remote preoperative history of proximal arch procedure was not predictive of SAI. Conclusions: SAI after TEVAR for TBAD is common. Acute TBAD has a higher proportion of early SAI; however, chronic TBAD appears to have ongoing risk of remediation after the first postoperative year. SAI types are similar between groups, and the occurrence of aorta-related reintervention does not affect survival. Patients\u27 features and anatomy predict need for SAI. These data should be taken into consideration for selection of patients, device design, and surveillance strategies after TEVAR for TBAD