Design of new patient-reported outcome measures to assess quality of life, symptoms and treatment satisfaction in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm

Editor's Choice -- European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2024 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-Iliac Artery Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries in succession to the 2011 and 2019 versions, with the aim of assisting physicians and patients in selecting the best management strategy.

METHODS

The guideline is based on scientific evidence completed with expert opinion on the matter. By summarising and evaluating the best available evidence, recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients have been formulated. The recommendations are graded according to a modified European Society of Cardiology grading system, where the strength (class) of each recommendation is graded from I to III and the letters A to C mark the level of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 160 recommendations have been issued on the following topics: Service standards, including surgical volume and training; Epidemiology, diagnosis, and screening; Management of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), including surveillance, cardiovascular risk reduction, and indication for repair; Elective AAA repair, including operative risk assessment, open and endovascular repair, and early complications; Ruptured and symptomatic AAA, including peri-operative management, such as permissive hypotension and use of aortic occlusion balloon, open and endovascular repair, and early complications, such as abdominal compartment syndrome and colonic ischaemia; Long term outcome and follow up after AAA repair, including graft infection, endoleaks and follow up routines; Management of complex AAA, including open and endovascular repair; Management of iliac artery aneurysm, including indication for repair and open and endovascular repair; and Miscellaneous aortic problems, including mycotic, inflammatory, and saccular aortic aneurysm. In addition, Shared decision making is being addressed, with supporting information for patients, and Unresolved issues are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines provide the most comprehensive, up to date, and unbiased advice to clinicians and patients on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms.

2022 ACC/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease: A report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. Structure: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Current status of patient-reported outcome measures in vascular surgery

A previously published review focused on generic and disease-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) relevant to vascular surgery but limited to arterial conditions. The objective of this project was to identify all available PROMs relevant to diseases treated by vascular surgeons and to evaluate vascular surgeon perceptions, barriers to widespread implementation, and concerns regarding PROMs. We provide an overview of what a PROM is and how they are developed, and summarize currently available PROMs specific to vascular surgeons. We also report results from a survey of 78 Society for Vascular Surgery members serving on committees within the Policy and Advocacy Council addressing the barriers and facilitators to using PROMs in clinical practice. Finally, we report the qualitative results of two focus groups conducted to assess granular perceptions of PROMS and preparedness of vascular surgeons for widespread implementation of PROMs. These focus groups identified a lack of awareness of existing PROMs, knowledge of how PROMs are developed and validated, and clarity around how PROMs should be used by the clinician as main subthemes for barriers to PROM implementation in clinical practice.

Towards Patient Centred Outcomes for Elective Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Scoping Review of Quality of Life Scales

OBJECTIVE

In order to better incorporate the patient's perspective in medical decision making, core outcome sets (COS) are being defined. In the field of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), efforts to capture the patient's perspective focus on generic quantitative quality of life (QoL) scales. The question arises whether these quantitative scales adequately reflect the patient's perspective on QoL, and whether they can be included in the QoL aspect of COS. A scoping review of QoL assessment in the context of elective AAA repair was undertaken.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library.

REVIEW METHODS

A scoping review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Articles reporting QoL assessment in the context of elective AAA repair were identified. Quantitative studies (i.e., traditional QoL scales) were aligned (triangulation approach) with qualitative studies (i.e., patient perspective) to identify parallels and discrepancies. Mean Short Form 36 item survey (SF-36) scores were pooled using a random effects model to evaluate sensitivity to change.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies were identified, of which 29 (88%) were quantitative and four (12%) qualitative. The 33 studies reported a total of 54 quantitative QoL scales; the most frequently used were the generic SF-36 (16 studies) and five dimension EuroQol (EQ-5D; eight studies). Aneurysm specific scales were reported by one study. The generic quantitative scales showed poor alignment with the patient's perspective. The aneurysm specific scales better aligned but missed "concerns regarding symptoms" and "the impact of possible outcomes/complications". "Self control and decision making", which was brought forward by patients in qualitative studies, was not captured in any of the current scales.

CONCLUSION

There is no established tool that fully captures all aspects of the patient's perspective appropriate for a COS for elective AAA repair. In order to fulfil the need for a COS for the management of^, AAA disease, a more comprehensive overview of the patient's perspective is required.

A randomized clinical trial of an eHealth intervention on anxiety in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery

BACKGROUND

The potential benefit of eHealth interventions in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is uncertain. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effect of an eHealth intervention on anxiety in patients with AAA undergoing surgery.

METHODS

A single-centre randomized clinical trial of patients with AAA scheduled for surgical repair was undertaken. The intervention group received an eHealth tool and psychosocial support besides standard care. The control group received standard care. The analysis of treatment effects was performed as intention-to-treat and per protocol analysis. The primary outcome measure was anxiety mean score (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Anxiety (HADS)-A). Secondary outcomes measures were HADS Depression and short-form 12-item health survey mean scores.

RESULTS

Some 120 participants were randomized. No effect on anxiety mean scores was found in the intention-to-treat analysis (-1.21 versus -0.54, P = 0.330). Among those randomized to the intervention, only 30 of 60 participants used the eHealth tool (application (app) users). The app users were younger and had a higher educational level. A decrease in anxiety mean scores was noted in those who used the app in the per protocol analysis (-2.00 versus -0.54, P = 0.028). The intervention group stated a lower physical-component health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (-4.32 versus -1.16, P = 0.042) but mental-component HRQoL and depressive symptoms were unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

Delivery of an eHealth intervention in this RCT did not result in an improvement in anxiety scores in patients awaiting AAA surgery. Uptake of the eHealth tool was low, although it resulted in lower anxiety scores in those participants who actually used it.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03157973 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Configuration of vascular services: a multiple methods research programme

Background

Vascular services is changing rapidly, having emerged as a new specialty with its own training and specialised techniques. This has resulted in the need for reconfiguration of services to provide adequate specialist provision and accessible and equitable services.

Objectives

To identify the effects of service configuration on practice, resource use and outcomes. To model potential changes in configuration. To identify and/or develop electronic data collection tools for collecting patient-reported outcome measures and other clinical information. To evaluate patient preferences for aspects of services other than health-related quality of life.

Design

This was a multiple methods study comprising multiple systematic literature reviews; the development of a new outcome measure for users of vascular services (the electronic Personal Assessment Questionnaire – Vascular) based on the reviews, qualitative studies and psychometric evaluation; a trade-off exercise to measure process utilities; Hospital Episode Statistics analysis; and the development of individual disease models and a metamodel of service configuration.

Setting

Specialist vascular inpatient services in England.

Data sources

Modelling and Hospital Episode Statistics analysis for all vascular inpatients in England from 2006 to 2018. Qualitative studies and electronic Personal Assessment Questionnaire – Vascular evaluation with vascular patients from the Sheffield area. The trade-off studies were based on a societal sample from across England.

Interventions

The data analysis, preference studies and modelling explored the effect of different potential arrangements for service provision on the resource use, workload and outcomes for all interventions in the three main areas of inpatient vascular treatment: peripheral arterial disease, abdominal aortic aneurysm and carotid artery disease. The electronic Personal Assessment Questionnaire – Vascular was evaluated as a potential tool for clinical data collection and outcome monitoring.

Main outcome measures

Systematic reviews assessed quality and psychometric properties of published outcome measures for vascular disease and the relationship between volume and outcome in vascular services. The electronic Personal Assessment Questionnaire – Vascular development considered face and construct validity, test–retest reliability and responsiveness. Models were validated using case studies from previous reconfigurations and comparisons with Hospital Episode Statistics data. Preference studies resulted in estimates of process utilities for aneurysm treatment and for travelling distances to access services.

Results

Systematic reviews provided evidence of an association between increasing volume of activity and improved outcomes for peripheral arterial disease, abdominal aortic aneurysm and carotid artery disease. Reviews of existing patient-reported outcome measures did not identify suitable condition-specific tools for incorporation in the electronic Personal Assessment Questionnaire – Vascular. Reviews of qualitative evidence, primary qualitative studies and a Delphi exercise identified the issues to be incorporated into the electronic Personal Assessment Questionnaire – Vascular, resulting in a questionnaire with one generic and three disease-specific domains. After initial item reduction, the final version has 55 items in eight scales and has acceptable psychometric properties. The preference studies showed strong preference for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment (willingness to trade up to 0.135 quality-adjusted life-years) and for local services (up to 0.631 quality-adjusted life-years). A simulation model with a web-based interface was developed, incorporating disease-specific models for abdominal aortic aneurysm, peripheral arterial disease and carotid artery disease. This predicts the effects of specified reconfigurations on workload, resource use, outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Initial exploration suggested that further reconfiguration of services in England to accomplish high-volume centres would result in improved outcomes, within the bounds of cost-effectiveness usually considered acceptable in the NHS.

Limitations

The major source of evidence to populate the models was Hospital Episode Statistics data, which have limitations owing to the complexity of the data, deficiencies in the coding systems and variations in coding practice. The studies were not able to address all of the potential barriers to change where vascular services are not compliant with current NHS recommendations.

Conclusions

There is evidence of potential for improvement in the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vascular services through further centralisation of sites where major vascular procedures are undertaken. Preferences for local services are strong, and this may be addressed through more integrated services, with a range of services being provided more locally. The use of a web-based tool for the collection of clinical data and patient-reported outcome measures is feasible and can provide outcome data for clinical use and service evaluation.

Future work

Further evaluation of the economic models in real-world situations where local vascular service reconfiguration is under consideration and of the barriers to change where vascular services do not meet NHS recommendations for service configuration is needed. Further work on the electronic Personal Assessment Questionnaire – Vascular is required to assess its acceptability and usefulness in clinical practice and to develop appropriate report formats for clinical use and service evaluation. Further studies to assess the implications of including non-health-related preferences for care processes, and location of services, in calculations of cost-effectiveness are required.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016042570, CRD42016042573, CRD42016042574, CRD42016042576, CRD42016042575, CRD42014014850, CRD42015023877 and CRD42015024820.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Psychometric validation of three new condition-specific questionnaires to assess quality of life, symptoms and treatment satisfaction of patients with aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the psychometric properties of three new condition-specific questionnaires designed to assess outcomes amongst patients under pre-operative surveillance for a small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) or who have undergone aneurysm repair. These tools are the Aneurysm-Dependent Quality of Life measure (AneurysmDQoL), the Aneurysm Symptom Rating Questionnaire (AneurysmSRQ) and the Aneurysm Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (AneurysmTSQ).

RESULTS

The questionnaires were sent to 297 patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) or who had undergone AAA repair (using open or endovascular technique) sampled from five UK NHS Trusts. Exploratory Factor Analysis was used to examine factor structure together with reliability analysis. A subset of 65 patients completed the questionnaires a second time four months later. One hundred and ninety-seven patients (178 men; 18 women) provided data for analysis (69% response rate): mean age was 75 years (range 60-95). Nineteen were under pre-operative surveillance for AAA and 178 had undergone AAA repair (70 open repair; 104 endovascular repair; 4 uncertain). Exploratory Factor Analysis of the AneurysmDQoL and the AneurysmTSQ each demonstrated a one-factor structure. The AneurysmSRQ demonstrated a six-factor structure (emotional, weight loss, lower limb, cognitive, general malaise and gastrointestinal symptoms) and a one-factor composite symptom scale. All scales have clean factor structures: item loadings above 0.40, no cross-loadings, and no factors with fewer than three items. Internal consistency reliability was excellent (α = 0.869-0.959) and test-retest reliability good (Intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.70-0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

The three new questionnaires have a clear structure and strong reliability and are now ready for use in clinical trials and routine practice, which will allow evaluation of responsiveness to change.

A survey of the impact of owning a service dog on quality of life for individuals with physical and hearing disability: a pilot study

Background

Quality of life refers to a person’s experienced standard of health, comfort and happiness and is typically measured using subjective self-report scales. Despite increasing scientific interest in the value of dogs to human health and the growing demand for trained service dogs, to date no research has reported how service dogs may affect client perceptions of quality of life.

Method

We compared quality of life scores on the 16 item Flanagan quality of life scale from individuals who owned a trained service dog with those who were eligible to receive a dog, but did not yet have one (waiting list control). Data were analysed separately from two groups; those with a service dog trained for individuals with physical disabilities (with physical service dog: n = 72; waiting for a service dog: n = 24; recruited from Dogs for Good database) and those with a hearing service dog (with hearing service dog = 111; waiting for a service dog = 30; recruited from Hearing Dogs for Deaf People database).

Results

When controlling for age and gender individuals scored higher on total quality of life scores if they owned a service dog or a hearing service dog, but this was only statistically significant for those with a service dog. Both groups (physical service dog and hearing service dog) scored significantly higher on items relating to health, working, learning and independence if they owned a service dog, in comparison to those on the waiting list. Those with a physical service dog also scored significantly higher on items relating to recreational activities (including items relating to reading/listening to music, socialising, creative expression), and those involving social interactions (including items relating to participating in organisations, socialising, relationship with relatives). Additionally, those with a physical service dog scored higher on understanding yourself and material comforts than those on the waiting list control. In contrast, those with a hearing service dog appeared to receive fewer benefits on items relating to social activities.

Conclusions

Owning a service dog can bring significant specific and potentially general benefits to the quality of life of individuals with physical disabilities and hearing impairments. These benefits may have considerable implications for individuals with disabilities, society and the economy by promoting independence, learning and working abilities.

Systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis of patient-reported outcome measures for abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

The aim was to identify and evaluate existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for use in patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) to inform the selection for use in surgical practice.

METHODS

Two reviews were conducted: a systematic review to identify valid, reliable and acceptable PROMs for patients with an AAA, and a qualitative evidence synthesis to assess the relevance to patients of the identified PROM items. PROM studies were evaluated for their psychometric properties using established assessment criteria, and for their methodological quality using the COSMIN checklist. Qualitative studies were synthesized using framework analysis, and concepts identified were then triangulated using a protocol with the item concepts of the identified PROMs.

RESULTS

Four PROMs from three studies were identified in the first review: Short Form 36, Australian Vascular Quality of Life Index, Aneurysm Dependent Quality of Life (AneurysmDQoL) and Aneurysm Symptoms Rating Questionnaire (AneurysmSRQ). None of the identified PROMs had undergone a rigorous psychometric evaluation within the AAA population. Four studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, from which 28 concepts important to patients with an AAA were identified. The AneurysmDQoL and AneurysmSRQ together provided the most comprehensive assessment of these concepts. Fear of rupture, control, ability to forget about the condition and size of aneurysm were all concepts identified in the qualitative studies but not covered by items in the identified PROMs.

CONCLUSION

Further research is needed to develop PROMs for AAA that are reliable, valid and acceptable to patients.

Quality of life, symptoms and treatment satisfaction in patients with aortic aneurysm using new abdominal aortic aneurysm-specific patient-reported outcome measures

Background

The aim of this study was to present preliminary data on quality of life (QoL), symptoms and treatment satisfaction gathered using three new abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA)-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Methods

Patients with AAA were recruited from five National Health Service Trusts to complete the three new PROMs: the AneurysmDQoL, AneurysmSRQ and AneurysmTSQ. Patients were either under surveillance or had undergone AAA repair (open or endovascular) during the preceding 24 months. Data were initially collected as part of a study assessing the psychometric properties of the new measures, before being used in the observational analysis of outcomes presented here.

Results

Results, although largely non-significant, showed interesting trends. The impact of AAA repair on QoL appeared to worsen progressively after open repair (OR) and improve progressively after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Conversely, symptoms seemed to become progressively worse after EVAR and progressively better after OR. Information and understanding were key sources of dissatisfaction before the intervention, whereas postoperative dissatisfaction was related to bother from symptoms, follow-up and feedback about scan results.

Conclusion

Although a larger, prospective data set is necessary to explore outcomes more fully with the new AAA-specific PROMs, the observational data presented here suggest there may be clinically important differences in the symptoms, impact on QoL and treatment satisfaction associated with OR and EVAR.