Dataset Information

Optimising intervals for abdominal aortic aneurysm surveillance: A pilot study analysing patient opinion.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Optimising abdominal aortic aneurysm surveillance intervals will improve current surveillance programmes. To the author's knowledge, no known study has exclusively asked patient opinion with regards to their surveillance interval. The aim of this study was to therefore determine a patient's perspective of their optimal intervals, encouraging shared decision-making and creating a patient-focused service.

Methods

Fifty patients, currently under abdominal aortic aneurysm surveillance, were interviewed. Patients were asked their opinions before and after seeing a patient decision aid. A patient decision aid presents information of risk in an easy-to-understand format. This specific patient decision aid, designed and created for this study, informed patients of the 'risk of exceeding the 5.5 cm surgical threshold' with regards to various surveillance intervals. The chosen optimal surveillance interval was recorded for each patient, and a median interval was calculated for each abdominal aortic aneurysm group. Groups were categorised based upon maximum aortic diameter (3.0-3.4 cm, 3.5-3.9 cm, 4.0-4.4 cm and 4.5-4.9 cm).

Results

After assessing the patient decision aid, the median surveillance interval calculated for each abdominal aortic aneurysm group was 24 months (3.0-3.4 cm), 12 months (3.5-3.9 cm), 12 months (4.0-4.4 cm) and 6 months (4.5-4.9 cm), respectively. The majority of patients (78%, n = 39) agreed that the patient decision aid was a useful tool to help make an informed choice.

Conclusion

Overall, patients in abdominal aortic aneurysm groups 3.0-3.4 cm and 4.5-4.9 cm would choose to lengthen abdominal aortic aneurysm surveillance intervals. Lengthening the current surveillance intervals to 24 months (currently 12 months) for abdominal aortic aneurysm group 3.0-3.4 cm and to 6 months (currently 3 months) for abdominal aortic aneurysm group 4.5-4.9 cm would not only increase capacity but also reflect the needs and wishes of those using the National Health Service. The use of a patient decision aid is an effective way of communicating, to the patient, the risk of the proposed changes and thus alleviating potential anxiety.

SUBMITTER: Robertson L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7844473 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Informed consent discussions for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair should reflect appropriate risks of the open or endovascular repair (EVAR), but few guidelines exist describing what surgeons should discuss. This study examines expert opinion regarding what constitutes informed consent.Design. We conducted an anonymous, web-based, national survey of vascular surgeons. Associations between surgeon characteristics and opinions regarding informed consent were measured using bivariate statistics; multivariable logistic regression was performed to estimate effects adjusted for covariates. Setting. Academic and private practice surgeons were surveyed. Subjects. United States members of the International Society for Vascular Surgery membership. Main Outcome Measure. Surgeons' self-reported opinions regarding the content of informed consent for AAA repair.A total of 199 surgeons completed the survey (response rate 51%). More than 90% of respondents reported that it was essential to discuss mortality risk for both procedures. However, only 60% and 30% of respondents reported that it was essential to discuss the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke, respectively. Opinions varied by procedure regarding the risks of impotence (32% vs 62%; EVAR vs open repair), reintervention (78% vs 17%), and rupture during long-term follow-up (57% vs 17%). Younger and private practice surgeons were more likely to discuss complications compared with older surgeons and those in academic practice. Surgeons who perform predominantly EVAR were more likely to quote higher mortality rates for open repair (odds ration [OR] = 3.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4-6.4) and lower reintervention rates for EVAR (OR = 0.3, 95% CI = 0.1-0.7) compared with other surgeons.This is the first study of the practice of informed consent for AAA repair. The only risk that the vast majority of surgeons agreed should be included in informed consent for AAA repair was mortality. Significant variation exists regarding whether other complications should be discussed and what complication rates should be quoted. Surgeon characteristics may influence how risks are presented to patients. Further efforts are needed to develop guidelines to ensure consistent communication of appropriate risk during informed consent for AAA repair.