Dataset Information

Weekend effect in non-elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The '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).

Methods

Patients 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.

Results

The 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.

Conclusion

After 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.

SUBMITTER: Ambler GK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5989979 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

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.

Project description:Open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is occasionally performed in conjunction with additional procedures; however, how these concomitant procedures affect outcome is unclear. This study determined the frequency of additional procedures during elective open AAA repair and the effect on perioperative outcomes.All elective infrarenal open AAA repairs between January 2003 and November 2014 in the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) were identified. Patients were grouped by concomitant procedures, which included no concomitant procedure, renal artery bypass, lower extremity bypass, other abdominal procedure, or thromboembolectomy. Analyses were performed using multivariable logistic regression.Of 1314 patients who underwent elective AAA repair, 153 (11.6%) had a concomitant procedure, including renal bypass in 27 (2.1%), lower extremity bypass in 28 (2.1%), other abdominal procedures in 64 (4.9%), and thromboembolectomy in 48 (3.7%). Independent risk factors for 30-day mortality were renal bypass (odds ratio [OR], 7.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-27.7), other abdominal procedures (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.6-14.1), and thromboembolectomy (OR, 8.8; 95% CI, 3.1-24.9). Deterioration of renal function was predicted by renal bypass (OR, 5.1; 95% CI, 2.1-12.4) and thromboembolectomy (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.8-7.6). Lower extremity bypass and thromboembolectomy were predictive of postoperative leg ischemia (OR, 8.9; 95% CI, 2.7-29.0; OR, 11.2; 95% CI, 4.4-28.8, respectively), and thromboembolectomy was also predictive of postoperative bowel ischemia (OR, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.6-12.0).Performing additional procedures during infrarenal open AAA repair is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in the postoperative period. Careful deliberation of the operative risks and the necessity of the additional interventions are therefore advised during operative planning. This study also highlights the importance of avoiding perioperative thromboembolic events.