Dataset Information

Defining high-risk patients for endovascular aneurysm repair.

ABSTRACT: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is commonly used as a minimally invasive technique for repairing infrarenal aortic aneurysms. There have been recent concerns that a subset of high-risk patients experience unfavorable outcomes with this intervention. To determine whether such a high-risk cohort exists and to identify the characteristics of these patients, we analyzed the outcomes of Medicare patients treated with EVAR from 2000-2006.We identified 66,943 patients who underwent EVAR from Inpatient Medicare database. The overall 30-day mortality was 1.6%. A risk model for perioperative mortality was developed by randomly selecting 44,630 patients; the other one third of the dataset was used to validate the model. The model was deemed reliable (Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics were P = .25 for the development, P = .24 for the validation model) and accurate (c = 0.735 and c = 0.731 for the development and the validation model, respectively).In our scoring system, where scores ranged between 1 and 7, the following were identified as significant baseline factors that predict mortality: renal failure with dialysis (score = 7); renal failure without dialysis (score = 3); clinically significant lower extremity ischemia (score = 5); patient age >or=85 years (score = 3), 75-84 years (score = 2), 70-74 years (score = 1); heart failure (score = 3); chronic liver disease (score = 3); female gender (score = 2); neurological disorders (score = 2); chronic pulmonary disease (score = 2); surgeon experience in EVAR <3 procedures (score = 1); and hospital annual volume in EVAR <7 procedures (score = 1). The majority of Medicare patients who were treated (96.6%, n = 64,651) had a score of 9 or less, which correlated with a mortality <5%. Only 3.4% of patients had a mortality >or=5% and 0.8% of patients (n = 509) had a score of 13 or higher, which correlated with a mortality >10%.We conclude that there is a high-risk cohort of patients that should not be treated with EVAR because of prohibitively high mortality; however, this cohort is small. Our scoring system, which is based on patient and institutional factors, provides criteria that can be easily used by clinicians to quantify perioperative risk for EVAR candidates.

SUBMITTER: Egorova N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3081634 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Defining high-risk patients for endovascular aneurysm repair.

Egorova Natalia N Giacovelli Jeannine K JK Gelijns Annetine A Greco Giampaolo G Moskowitz Alan A McKinsey James J Kent K Craig KC

Journal of vascular surgery 20090926 6

<h4>Background</h4>Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is commonly used as a minimally invasive technique for repairing infrarenal aortic aneurysms. There have been recent concerns that a subset of high-risk patients experience unfavorable outcomes with this intervention. To determine whether such a high-risk cohort exists and to identify the characteristics of these patients, we analyzed the outcomes of Medicare patients treated with EVAR from 2000-2006.<h4>Methods</h4>We identified 66,943 pati ...[more]

PMID: 19782526

Similar Datasets

Project description:Risk of open conversion after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR-c) is poorly defined. The purpose of this analysis was to determine outcomes of elective EVAR-c compared with elective primary open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (PAR) in the Vascular Quality Initiative.Vascular Quality Initiative patients who underwent elective EVAR-c and PAR (2002-2014) were reviewed. Candidate predictors of major adverse cardiac event (MACE) and/or 30-day mortality were entered into a multivariable model, and stepwise elimination was used to reduce the number of covariates to a best subset of predictors. To estimate the additive risk of EVAR-c for MACE or 30-day mortality over PAR, this variable was added along with the best subset of predictors into generalized estimating equations logistic regression models.We identified 159 EVAR-c and 3741 PAR patients. EVAR-c patients were older (73.5 ± 8.1 vs 69.5 ± 8.4 years; P < .0001), more likely to have diabetes (21% vs 15%; P = .03), and history of lower extremity bypass (9% vs 4%; P = .0006). EVAR-c was associated with a higher incidence of retroperitoneal aortic exposure (41%; n = 64 vs PAR, 26%, n = 976; P < .0001), use of a bifurcated graft (65%; n = 101 vs PAR, 52%; n = 1923; P = .001), greater blood loss (median [interquartile range], 2000 mL [1010-3500] vs PAR, 1200 mL [750-2000]; P < .0001) and longer procedure times (EVAR-c, 275 ± 122 minutes vs PAR, 232 ± 9 minutes; P < .0001). However, PAR more frequently was completed with a suprarenal and/or mesenteric cross-clamp (74%, n = 2749 vs EVAR-c, 53%, n = 83; P < .0001) and had a higher incidence of concomitant procedures (26%; n = 972 vs EVAR-c, 18%; n = 28; P = .03). Nonadjusted 30-day mortality was greater after EVAR-c: EVAR-c, 8% (n = 10) vs PAR, 3% (n = 105); P = .009. There was no difference in complication rates: EVAR-c, 33% (n = 52) vs PAR, 28% (n = 1056); P =.3. Preoperative 30-day mortality predictors included age (odds ratio [OR], 1.06/y, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.1; P < .0001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.6-3.5; P < .0001), history of leg bypass (OR, 2.3, 1.2-4.4;P =.01), suprarenal cross-clamp (OR 2.2, 1.2-4.1;P =.01), prior carotid revascularization (OR 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.8; P = .0004), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.9-3.5; P = .08), and female sex (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.3; P = .02; area under the curve, 0.75). When controlling for covariates, EVAR-c was not significantly associated with MACE (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.7-2.0; P = .4) or 30-day mortality (OR, 2.0; 0.9-4.2; P = .08).EVAR-c patients are typically older, have more comorbidities, and experience greater blood loss and longer procedure times compared with PAR patients. However, postoperative morbidity and mortality are primarily driven by patient covariates and intraoperative factors, rather than the need for endograft explantation. Several preoperative variables were identified as predictors of 30-day mortality after elective EVAR-c and should be considered during the decision-making process for remedial treatment of failed endovascular PAR.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Effective strategies to reduce costs associated with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remain elusive for many medical centers. In this study, targeted interventions to reduce inpatient EVAR costs were identified and implemented. METHODS:From June 2015 to February 2016, we analyzed the EVAR practice at a high-volume academic medical center to identify, to rank, and ultimately to reduce procedure-related costs. In this analysis, per-patient direct costs to the hospital were compared before (September 2013-May 2015) and after (March 2016-January 2017) interventions were implemented. Improvement efforts concentrated on three categories that accounted for a majority of costs: implants, rooming costs, and computed tomography scans performed during the index hospitalization. RESULTS:Costs were compared between 141 EVAR procedures before implementation (PRE period) and 47 EVAR procedures after implementation (POST period). Based on data obtained through the Society for Vascular Surgery EVAR Cost Demonstration Project, it was determined that implantable device costs were higher than those at peer institutions. New purchasing strategies were implemented, resulting in a 30.8% decrease in per-case device costs between the PRE and POST periods. Care pathways were modified to reduce use of and costs for computed tomography scans obtained during the index hospitalization. Compared with baseline, per-case imaging costs decreased by 92.9% (P < .001), including a 99.0% (P = .001) reduction in postprocessing costs. Care pathways were also implemented to reduce preprocedural rooming for patients traveling long distances the day before surgery, resulting in a 50% decrease in utilization rate (35.4% PRE to 17.0% POST; P = .021), without having a significant impact on median postprocedural length of stay (PRE, 2 days [interquartile range, 1-11 days]; POST, 2 days [1-7 days]; P = .185). Medication costs also decreased by 38.2% (P < .001) as a hospital-wide effort. CONCLUSIONS:Excessive costs associated with EVAR threaten the sustainability of these procedures in health care organizations. Targeted cost reduction efforts can effectively reduce expenses without compromising quality or limiting patients' access.

Project description:BACKGROUND: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. The aim of this study was to develop a dynamic prognostic model to enable stratification of patients at risk of future secondary aortic rupture or the need for intervention to prevent rupture (rupture-preventing reintervention) to enable the development of personalized surveillance intervals. METHODS:Baseline data and repeat measurements of postoperative aneurysm sac diameter from the EVAR-1 and EVAR-2 trials were used to develop the model, with external validation in a cohort from a single-centre vascular database. 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. RESULTS:Some 785 patients from the EVAR trials were included, of whom 155 (19·7 per cent) experienced at least one rupture or required a rupture-preventing reintervention during follow-up. An increased risk was associated with preoperative AAA size, rate of sac growth and the number of previously detected complications. A prognostic model using predicted sac growth alone had good discrimination at 2?years (C-index 0·68), 3?years (C-index 0·72) and 5?years (C-index 0·75) after operation and had excellent external validation (C-index 0·76-0·79). More than 5?years after operation, growth rates above 1?mm/year had a sensitivity of over 80 per cent and specificity over 50 per cent in identifying events occurring within 2?years. CONCLUSION:Secondary sac growth is an important predictor of rupture or rupture-preventing reintervention to enable the development of personalized surveillance intervals. A dynamic prognostic model has the potential to tailor surveillance by identifying a large proportion of patients who may require less intensive follow-up.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The 2010 endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) trial 2 (EVAR 2) reported that patients with comorbidity profiles rendering them unfit for open aneurysm repair who underwent EVAR did not experience a survival advantage compared with those who did not undergo intervention. These patients experienced a 30-day mortality of 7.3%, whereas reports from similar cohorts reported far lower mortality rates. The primary objective of our study was to compare the incidence of 30-day mortality in low- and high-risk patients undergoing EVAR in a contemporary data set, using patient risk stratification criteria from EVAR 2. Secondarily, we sought to identify risk factors associated with a disproportionate contribution to 30-day mortality risk. METHODS:Data were obtained from the 2005 to 2013 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) Participant Use Data Files (N = 24,813). Patients were included in the high-risk cohort with the presence of renal, respiratory, or cardiac preoperative criteria alone or in combination. Renal impairment criteria were defined as dialysis and creatinine concentration >2.26 mg/dL. Respiratory impairment criteria included history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and preoperative ventilator support. Cardiac impairment criteria included history of myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, angina, and prior coronary intervention. Patient and procedural characteristics and 30-day postoperative outcomes were compared using Pearson ?2 tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum tests for continuous variables. RESULTS:Among 24,813 patients undergoing EVAR, 12,043 (48%) patients were characterized as high risk (at least one impairment criterion); 12,770 (52%) patients were stratified as low risk. The 30-day mortality rate was 1.9% in the high-risk cohort compared with the 7.3% reported by EVAR 2, and it was higher in the high-risk cohort compared with the low-risk cohort (1.9% vs 0.9%; P < .001). Whereas the presence of each comorbidity increased the odds of 30-day mortality (respiratory odds ratio [OR], 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-2.26; P = .005; cardiac OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.14-2.10; P = .005), the presence of renal criteria disproportionately increased the odds of mortality threefold (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 2.31-5.09; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:Contemporary 30-day mortality after EVAR in high-risk patients is substantially lower than that reported in the EVAR 2 trial. Whereas low- and high-risk stratification by current comorbidity criteria is appropriate, attention needs to be paid to disproportionate risk contribution from renal disease to mortality compared with cardiac and pulmonary comorbidities. Given the lower mortality risk than previously described, patients stratified as high risk should be thoughtfully considered for definitive EVAR.

Project description:BackgroundAbdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair has been performed by various surgical specialties for many years. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) may be a disruptive technology, having an impact on which specialties care for patients with AAA. Therefore, we examined the proportion of AAA repairs performed by various specialties over time in the United States and evaluated the impact of the introduction of EVAR.MethodsThe Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2001-2009) was queried for intact and ruptured AAA and for open repair and EVAR. Specific procedures were used to identify vascular surgeons (VSs), cardiac surgeons (CSs), and general surgeons (GSs) as well as interventional cardiologists and interventional radiologists for states that reported unique treating physician identifiers. Annual procedure volumes were subsequently calculated for each specialty.ResultsWe identified 108,587 EVARs and 85,080 open AAA repairs (3011 EVARs and 12,811 open repairs for ruptured AAA). VSs performed an increasing proportion of AAA repairs during the study period (52% in 2001 to 66% in 2009; P < .001). GSs and CSs performed fewer repairs during the same period (25% to 17% [P < .001] and 19% to 13% [P < .001], respectively). EVAR was increasingly used for intact (33% to 78% of annual cases; P < .001) as well as ruptured AAA repair (5% to 28%; P < .001). The proportion of intact open repairs performed by VSs increased from 52% to 65% (P < .001), whereas for EVAR, the proportion went from 60% to 67% (P < .001). The proportion performed by VSs increased for ruptured open repairs from 37% to 53% (P < .001) and for ruptured EVARs from 28% to 73% (P < .001). Compared with treatment by VSs, treatment by a CS (0.55 [0.53-0.56]) and GS (0.66 [0.64-0.68]) was associated with a decreased likelihood of undergoing endovascular rather than open AAA repair.ConclusionsVSs are performing an increasing majority of AAA repairs, in large part driven by the increased utilization of EVAR for both intact and ruptured AAA repair. However, GSs and CSs still perform AAA repair. Further studies should examine the implications of these national trends on the outcome of AAA repair.

Dataset Information

Defining high-risk patients for endovascular aneurysm repair.

Publications

Defining high-risk patients for endovascular aneurysm repair.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets