Dataset Information

Sex differences in mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the UK.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The UK abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening programmes currently invite only men for screening because the benefit in women is uncertain. Perioperative risk is critical in determining the effectiveness of screening, and contemporary estimates of these risks in women are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare mortality following AAA repair between women and men in the UK.

Methods

Anonymized data from the UK National Vascular Registry (NVR) for patients undergoing AAA repair (January 2010 to December 2014) were analysed. Co-variables were extracted for analysis by sex. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcome measures included mortality by 5-year age groups and duration of hospital stay. Logistic regression was performed to adjust for age, calendar time, AAA diameter and smoking status. NVR-based outcomes were checked against Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data.

Results

A total of 23 245 patients were included (13·0 per cent women). Proportionally, more women than men underwent open repair. For elective open AAA repair, the in-hospital mortality rate was 6·9 per cent in women and 4·0 per cent in men (odds ratio (OR) 1·48, 95 per cent c.i. 1·08 to 2·02; P = 0·014), whereas for elective endovascular AAA repair it was 1·8 per cent in women and 0·7 per cent in men (OR 2·86, 1·72 to 4·74; P < 0·001); the results in HES were similar. For ruptured AAA, there was no sex difference in mortality within the NVR; however, in HES, for ruptured open AAA repair, the in-hospital mortality rate was higher in women (33·6 versus 27·1 per cent; OR 1·36, 1·16 to 1·59; P < 0·001).

Conclusion

Women have a higher in-hospital mortality rate than men after elective AAA repair even after adjustment. This higher mortality may have an impact on the benefit offered by any screening programme offered to women.

SUBMITTER: Sidloff DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5655705 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sex differences in mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the UK.

Sidloff D A DA Saratzis A A Sweeting M J MJ Michaels J J Powell J T JT Thompson S G SG Bown M J MJ

The British journal of surgery 20170726 12

<h4>Background</h4>The UK abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening programmes currently invite only men for screening because the benefit in women is uncertain. Perioperative risk is critical in determining the effectiveness of screening, and contemporary estimates of these risks in women are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare mortality following AAA repair between women and men in the UK.<h4>Methods</h4>Anonymized data from the UK National Vascular Registry (NVR) for patients underg ...[more]

PMID: 28745403

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundThis study investigated whether sex-specific differences in preoperative/perioperative standard of care (SOC) account for disparity in outcomes after elective infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of elective infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs (2013-2020) using depersonalized patient-level National Vascular Registry data. SOC was defined for waiting times, preoperative assessment (multidisciplinary/anaesthetic review), cardiovascular risk prevention, and perioperative medication. The primary outcome was major cardiovascular event and/or death (MACED).ResultsSome 21 810 patients with an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm were included, 2380 women and 19 430 men. Women less often underwent aneurysm repair within SOC waiting times (51.5 versus 59.3 per cent; P < 0.001), but were equally likely to receive preoperative assessment (72.1 versus 72.5 per cent; P = 0.742). Women were less likely to receive secondary prevention for known cardiac disease (34.9 versus 39.6 per cent; P = 0.015), but more often met overall cardiovascular risk prevention standards (52.1 versus 47.3 per cent; P < 0.001). Women were at greater risk of MACED (open: 12.0 versus 8.9 per cent, P < 0.001; endovascular: 4.9 versus 2.9 per cent, P < 0.001; risk-adjusted OR 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. 1.12 to 1.59). A significant reduction in the odds of MACED was associated with preoperative assessment (OR 0.86, 0.75 to 0.98) and SOC waiting times (OR 0.78, 0.69 to 0.87). There was insufficient evidence to confirm a significant sex-specific difference in the effect of SOC preoperative assessment (women: OR 0.69, 0.50 to 0.97; men: OR 0.89, 0.77 to 1.03; interaction P = 0.170) or SOC waiting times (women: OR 0.84, 0.62 to 1.16; men: OR 0.76, 0.67 to 0.87; interaction P = 0.570) on the risk of MACED.ConclusionSOC waiting times and preoperative assessment were not met for both sexes, which was associated with an increased risk of MACED. Sex-specific differences in SOC attenuated but did not fully account for the increased risk of MACED in women.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence for benefit of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) over open surgical repair for de novo infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in younger patients remains conflicting because of heterogeneous study populations and small sample sizes. The objective of this study was to compare perioperative and short-term outcomes for EVAR and open surgery in younger patients using a large national disease and procedure-specific data set.MethodsWe identified patients 65 years of age or younger undergoing first-time elective EVAR or open AAA repair from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2003-2014). We excluded patients with pararenal or thoracoabdominal aneurysms, those medically unfit for open repair, and those undergoing EVAR for isolated iliac aneurysms. Clinical and procedural characteristics were balanced using inverse propensity of treatment weighting. A supplemental analysis extended the study to those younger than 70 years.ResultsWe identified 2641 patients, 73% (n = 1928) EVAR and 27% (n = 713) open repair. The median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 59-64 years), and 13% were female. The median follow-up time was 401 days (interquartile range, 357-459 days). Unadjusted perioperative survival was 99.6% overall (open repair, 99.1%; EVAR, 99.8%; P < .001), with 97.4% 1-year survival overall (open repair, 97.3%; EVAR, 97.4%; P = .9). Unadjusted reintervention rates were five (open repair) and seven (EVAR) reinterventions per 100 person-years (P = .8). After propensity weighting, the absolute incidence of perioperative mortality was <1% in both groups (open repair, 0.9%, EVAR, 0.2%; P < .001), and complication rates were low. Propensity-weighted survival (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.38; P = .6) and reintervention rates (open repair, 6; EVAR, 8; reinterventions per 100 person-years; P = .8) did not differ between the two interventions. The analysis of those younger than 70 years showed similar results.ConclusionsIn this study of younger patients undergoing repair of infrarenal AAA, 30-day morbidity and mortality for both open surgery and EVAR are low, and the absolute mortality difference is small. The prior published perioperative mortality and 1-year survival benefit of EVAR over open AAA repair is not observed in younger patients. Further studies of long-term durability are needed to guide decision-making for open repair vs EVAR in this population.

Dataset Information

Sex differences in mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the UK.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Sex differences in mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the UK.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets