Comparative analysis of the outcomes of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in England and Sweden.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Karthikesalingam A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5900926 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe 'weekend effect' describes the phenomenon where patient outcomes appear worse for those admitted at the weekend. It has been used recently to justify significant changes in UK health policy. Recent evidence has suggested that the effect may be due to a combination of inadequate correction for confounding factors and inaccurate coding. The effects of these factors were investigated in patients with acute abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).MethodsPatients undergoing non-elective AAA repair entered into the UK National Vascular Registry from January 2013 until December 2015 were included in a case-control study. The patients were divided according to whether they were treated during the week (Monday 08.00 hours to Friday 17.00 hours) or at the weekend. Data extracted included demographics, co-morbidities, preoperative medications and baseline blood test results, as well as outcomes. Coding issues were investigated by looking at patients treated for ruptured, symptomatic or asymptomatic AAA within the non-elective cohort. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included length of inpatient stay, and cardiac, respiratory and renal complications.ResultsThe mortality rate appeared to be higher at the weekend (odds ratio (OR) 1·69, 95 per cent c.i. 1·47 to 1·94; P < 0·001), but this effect disappeared when confounding factors and coding issues were corrected for (corrected OR for ruptured AAA 1·09, 0·92 to 1·29; P = 0·330). Differences in outcomes were similar for prolonged length of hospital stay (uncorrected OR 1·21, 95 per cent c.i. 1·06 to 1·37, P = 0·005; corrected OR for ruptured AAA 1·06, 0·91 to 1·10, P = 0·478), and morbidity outcomes.ConclusionAfter appropriate correction for confounding factors and coding effects, there was no evidence of a significant weekend effect in the treatment of non-elective AAA in the UK.
| S-EPMC5989979 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has dramatically changed the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) as the number of open aneurysm repairs have declined over time. This report compares AAA-related demographics, operative data, complications, and mortality after treatment by open aneurysm repair or EVAR.We retrospectively reviewed 136 patients with AAAs who were treated over an 8-year time period with open aneurysm repair or EVAR.The mean age of the EVAR group was higher than that of the open repair group (p=0.001), and hospital mortality did not differ significantly between groups (p=0.360). However, overall survival was significantly lower in the EVAR group (p=0.033).Although EVAR is the primary treatment modality for elderly patients, it would be ideal to set slightly more stringent criteria within the anatomical guidelines contained in the instructions for use of the EVAR device when treating younger patients.
| S-EPMC5548202 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence 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. METHODS:We 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. RESULTS:We 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. CONCLUSIONS:In 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.
| S-EPMC5916017 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with abdominal aortic aneurysms are at high risk of cardiovascular events. Although statin therapy is indicated for most of these patients, no specific recommendation regarding the intensity of therapy exists. The aim of this study was to assess the possible effect of statin therapy on survival of patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and to investigate if high-intensity statin therapy was superior to low-moderate-intensity therapy.MethodsData from nationwide Swedish registers on hospital admissions, operations, and medications for patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from 2006 to 2018 were collected. The effect of statin use was evaluated in three separate propensity score matched cohorts: perioperative mortality was analysed according to whether patients were on statins before abdominal aortic aneurysm repair or not; long-term survival was assessed according to whether patients were on statins during follow-up or not; and, for those on statins after surgery, long-term survival was analysed according to whether patients were on high-intensity or low-moderate-intensity statin therapy.ResultsPreoperative statin use did not reduce 90-day perioperative mortality (OR 0.99, 95% c.i. 0.77 to 1.28), whilst there was a marked benefit regarding long-term survival for postoperative statin users (HR 1.43, 95% c.i. 1.34 to 1.54). High-intensity statin therapy had no advantage over low-medium-intensity statin therapy with regards to long-term survival (HR 1.00, 95% c.i. 0.80 to 1.25).ConclusionIn this nationwide propensity score matched cohort study, preoperative statin treatment had no benefit regarding 90-day perioperative survival, but postoperative statin treatment markedly improved long-term survival. No additional benefit regarding high-dose statin treatment could be confirmed in this analysis.
| S-EPMC10782213 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.).
| S-EPMC5177793 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurcumin, a popular herbal supplement from the plant turmeric, has prevented ischemic reperfusion and toxin-induced injury in many animal studies and a single-centre randomized human trial. We sought to test whether perioperative oral curcumin (compared with placebo) affects the inflammatory response and risk of postrepair complications after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in humans.MethodsWe conducted a parallel-group, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of patients from 10 hospitals in Canada who were scheduled to undergo elective repair of an unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (November 2011 to November 2014). Patients in the treatment group received perioperative oral curcumin (2000-mg doses 8 times over 4 d). Patients, health care providers and local research staff were unaware of the treatment assignment. The primary outcomes were median concentrations of 4 bio markers indicating injury and inflammation (postoperative urine interleukin-18 and perioperative rise in serum creatinine, plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and plasma high-sensitivity C-reactive protein).ResultsBaseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups (606 patients overall; median age 76 yr). More than 85% of patients in each group took more than 80% of their scheduled capsules. Neither curcumin nor placebo significantly affected any of the 4 biomarkers (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). Regarding the secondary outcomes, there was a higher risk of acute kidney injury with curcumin than with placebo (17% v. 10%, p = 0.01), but no between-group difference in the median length of hospital stay (5 v. 5 days, p > 0.9) or the risk of clinical events (9% v. 9%, p = 0.9).InterpretationCurcumin had no beneficial effects when used in elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. These findings emphasize the importance of testing turmeric and curcumin before espousing their health benefits, as is currently done in the popular media.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01225094.
| S-EPMC6205831 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:Knowledge regarding the long-term outcomes of elective treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is increasing. However, data with greater than 10 years' follow-up remain sparse and are lacking from population-based studies. Objective:To determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR compared with open surgical repair (OSR) for elective treatment of AAA. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective, population-based cohort study used linked administrative health data from Ontario, Canada, to identify all patients 40 years and older who underwent elective EVAR or OSR for AAA repair from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2016, with follow-up terminating on March 31, 2017. A total of 17 683 patients were identified using validated procedure and billing codes and were propensity score matched. Analysis was conducted from June 26, 2018, to January 16, 2019. Exposures:Elective EVAR or OSR for AAA. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival, defined as being free of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; reintervention; and secondary rupture. Results:Among 17 683 patients who received elective AAA repairs (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [7.8] years; 14 286 [80.8%] men), 6100 (34.5%) underwent EVAR and 11 583 (65.5%) underwent OSR. From these patients, 4010 well-balanced propensity score-matched pairs of patients were defined, with a mean (SD) age of 73.0 (7.6) years and 6583 (82.1%) men. In the matched cohort, the mean (SD) follow-up was 4.4 (2.7) years, and maximum follow-up was 13.8 years. The overall median survival was 8.9 years. Compared with OSR, EVAR was associated with a higher survival rate up to 1 year after repair (91.0% [95% CI, 90.1%-91.9%] vs 94.0% [95% CI, 93.3%-94.7%]) and a higher major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival rate up to 4 years after repair (69.9% [95% CI, 68.3%-71.3%] vs 72.9% [95% CI, 71.4%-74.4%]). Cumulative incidence of reintervention was higher among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR at the 7-year follow-up (45.9% [95% CI, 44.1%-47.8%] vs 42.2% [95% CI, 40.4%-44.0%]). Survival analyses demonstrated no statistically significant differences in long-term survival, reintervention, and secondary rupture for patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR. Kaplan-Meier analysis suggested superior long-term major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR (32.6% [95% CI, 26.9%-38.4%] vs 14.1% [95% CI, 4.0%-30.4%]; stratified log-rank P < .001) during a maximum follow-up of 13.8 years. Conclusions and Relevance:Endovascular aortic repair was not associated with a difference in long-term survival during more than 13 years' maximum follow-up. The reasons for these findings will require studies to consider specific graft makes and models, adherence to instructions for use, and types and reasons for reintervention.
| S-EPMC6624804 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10749584 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The benefit of prophylactic repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is based on the risk of rupture exceeding the risk of death from other comorbidities. The purpose of this study was to validate a 5-year survival prediction model for patients undergoing elective repair of asymptomatic AAA <6.5 cm to assist in optimal selection of patients.All patients undergoing elective repair for asymptomatic AAA <6.5 cm (open or endovascular) from 2002 to 2011 were identified from a single institutional database (validation group). We assessed the ability of a prior published Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) model (derivation group) to predict survival in our cohort. The model was assessed for discrimination (concordance index), calibration (calibration slope and calibration in the large), and goodness of fit (score test).The VSGNE derivation group consisted of 2367 patients (70% endovascular). Major factors associated with survival in the derivation group were age, coronary disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal function, and antiplatelet and statin medication use. Our validation group consisted of 1038 patients (59% endovascular). The validation group was slightly older (74 vs 72 years; P < .01) and had a higher proportion of men (76% vs 68%; P < .01). In addition, the derivation group had higher rates of advanced cardiac disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and baseline creatinine concentration (1.2 vs 1.1 mg/dL; P < .01). Despite slight differences in preoperative patient factors, 5-year survival was similar between validation and derivation groups (75% vs 77%; P = .33). The concordance index of the validation group was identical between derivation and validation groups at 0.659 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.69). Our validation calibration in the large value was 1.02 (P = .62, closer to 1 indicating better calibration), calibration slope of 0.84 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.97), and score test of P = .57 (>.05 indicating goodness of fit).Across different populations of patients, assessment of age and level of cardiac, pulmonary, and renal disease can accurately predict 5-year survival in patients with AAA <6.5 cm undergoing repair. This risk prediction model is a valid method to assess mortality risk in determining potential overall survival benefit from elective AAA repair.
| S-EPMC6114131 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe sharp decrease in open surgical repair (OSR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has raised concerns about contemporary postoperative outcomes. The study was designed to analyse the impact of complications on clinical outcomes within 30 days following OSR.MethodsPatients who underwent OSR for intact AAA registered prospectively between 2016 and 2019 in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit were included. Complications and outcomes (death, secondary interventions, prolonged hospitalization) were evaluated. The adjusted relative risk (aRr) and 95 per cent confidence intervals were computed using Poisson regression. Subsequently, the population-attributable fraction (PAF) was calculated. The PAF reflects the expected percentage reduction of an outcome if a complication were to be completely prevented.ResultsA total of 1657 patients were analysed. Bowel ischaemia and renal complications had the largest impact on death (aRr 12·44 (95 per cent c.i. 7·95 to 19·84) at PAF 20 (95 per cent c.i. 8·4 to 31·5) per cent and aRr 5·07 (95 per cent c.i. 3·18 to 8.07) at PAF 14 (95 per cent c.i. 0·7 to 27·0) per cent, respectively). Arterial occlusion had the greatest impact on secondary interventions (aRr 11·28 (95 per cent c.i. 8·90 to 14·30) at PAF 21 (95 per cent c.i. 14·7 to 28·1) per cent), and pneumonia (aRr 2·52 (95 per cent c.i. 2·04 to 3·10) at PAF 13 (95 per cent c.i. 8·3 to 17·8) per cent) on prolonged hospitalization. Small effects were observed on outcomes for other complications.ConclusionThe greatest clinical impact following OSR can be made by focusing on measures to reduce the occurrence of bowel ischaemia, arterial occlusion and pneumonia.
| S-EPMC8438252 | biostudies-literature