Towards a Core Outcome Set for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Systematic Review of Outcomes Reported Following Intact and Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Editor's Choice - A Core Outcome Set for Intact Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

Technology and advances in clinical care have changed the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) but the clinical effectiveness of continuing advances needs to be assessed. To facilitate rapid synthesis of new evidence and improve stakeholder representation, including patients, the concept of core outcome sets (COS) has been developed. COS, reflecting the needs of all stakeholders, have been established across several surgical specialties. This study aimed to develop an international core outcome set for intact AAA repair.

METHODS

Following COMET methodology, potential outcomes were identified from a systematic review of published outcomes and focus groups involving patients, carers, and nurses. A 38 question Delphi consensus survey in lay language was developed (with translation to local languages); this included 35 themes identified from the findings of the systematic review and three themes from the focus groups. All three of the themes identified by the focus groups (cognitive, physical, and social functioning) can be evaluated from quality of life instruments, with overall quality of life being identified from the systematic review. The survey was completed by patients, carers or family members, vascular nurses, vascular surgeons, trainees, interventional radiologists, anaesthetists, and industry partners from six European countries. After two rounds of the survey, the top outcomes were discussed at a face to face multistakeholder consensus meeting.

RESULTS

The 38 item questionnaire was amended after piloting among all stakeholder groups. After the first round of the Delphi survey (98 respondents) 15 questions were eliminated, and 11 further questions were eliminated after round 2 (90 respondents). This left two outcome questions for discussion at the consensus meeting, where the top six outcomes were unanimously endorsed: death at 30 days (or in hospital if longer), secondary AAA rupture, overall quality of life and retention of cognitive functioning after recovery, five year survival, and continued sac growth.

CONCLUSION

Six core outcomes are recommended for use as a minimum framework in all future studies and registries of intact open and endovascular AAA repair. Further work to select instruments for quality of life and to define instruments for cognitive functioning is needed.

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.

Worldwide research on abdominal compartment syndrome: bibliometric analysis of scientific literature (1993-2022)

Continuing studies related to Abdominal Compartment Syndrome (ACS) is imperative in terms of its significant effect on morbidity and mortality rates. To establish bibliometric analysis as a comprehensive review of ACS literature. The process encompasses many phases, such as delineating search terms, beginning and refining search results, creating preliminary statistics from the data, and performing data evaluation. Scopus database was selected as the primary source, and VOSviewer software was used to visualize author networks, country affiliations, journal affiliations, and keyword associations. The analysis was conducted on January 16th, 2023, and yielded a total of 855 documents spanning the period from 1993 to 2022. Studies on ACS showed an annual increase, but it has not yet reached a mature stage. United States leads the world in terms of the highest number of publications, h-index, citations, and the involvement of renowned authors and organizations. Through an analysis of less frequently used keywords, this study identified potential themes for future investigation, including histopathology, biological markers, interleukin 6, alanine aminotransferase, early diagnosis, scoring systems, the severity of illness indices, clinical practices, patient monitoring, preoperative evaluations, minimally invasive surgery, inter-method comparisons, multicenter studies, follow-up investigations, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. While publications in ACS journals are crucial, they alone are not exhaustive, necessitating further research.

Towards a core outcome set for cranioplasty following traumatic brain injury and stroke 'A systematic review of reported outcomes'

Background

There is wide-ranging published literature around cranioplasty following traumatic brain injury (TBI) and stroke, but the heterogeneity of outcomes limits the ability for meta-analysis. Consensus on appropriate outcome measures has not been reached, and given the clinical and research interest, a core outcome set (COS) would be beneficial.

Objectives

To collate outcomes currently reported across the cranioplasty literature which will subsequently be used in developing a cranioplasty COS.

Methods

This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. All full-text English studies with more than ten patients (prospective) or more than 20 patients (retrospective) published after 1990 examining outcomes in CP were eligible for inclusion.

Results

The review included 205 studies from which 202 verbatim outcomes were extracted, grouped into 52 domains, and categorised into one or more of the OMERACT 2.0 framework core area(s). The total numbers of studies that reported outcomes in the core areas are 192 (94%) pathophysiological manifestations/ 114 (56%) resource use/economic impact/ 94 (46%) life impact/mortality 20 (10%). In addition, there are 61 outcome measures used in the 205 studies across all domains.

Conclusion

This study shows considerable heterogeneity in the types of outcomes used across the cranioplasty literature, demonstrating the importance and necessity of developing a COS to help standardise reporting across the literature.

Developing Core Outcome Sets for Vascular Conditions Across Europe, Not as Easy as It Sounds

Introduction

Most of the outcomes reported in the literature have been chosen by doctors, constituting "traditional" outcome measures such as mortality and re-intervention. Some of the key outcome measures important to patients, families, health providers and other stakeholders may have been overlooked. Core outcome sets, consisting of 6-15 outcomes, can improve representation of all key stakeholders, standardise outcome reporting, and improve future ability to pool results. The aim of this study was to outline the methods and challenges of conducting European core outcome sets.

Report

As an overview, development of core outcome sets follows a multistep iterative process: (1) Systematic review of the literature summarising existing outcome measures, (2) Focus Group meeting with patients and other stakeholders to establish missing outcome measures, (3) Development and piloting of Delphi survey, (4) Delphi consensus study for prioritisation of outcomes and establishing consensus, and (5) European consensus meeting to produce a core outcome set. The challenges include the varying ethical requirements for survey work across Europe and translation for surveys and consensus meetings.

Discussion

There is an increasing need for core outcome sets to complement clinical practice guidelines. As a European vascular community we need to produce these through collaborative efforts. Unfortunately, there are considerable barriers to doing so - the time and energy required to set up a core outcome study is not dissimilar to that of a multicentre randomised trial. Currently only one core outcome set exists for vascular surgery, for critical limb ischaemia, but this was developed in a single country.

Treatment of a Delayed Type IIIb Endoleak 20 Years Post EVAR With Inverted Contralateral Limb Custom-Made Device: A Case Report

PURPOSE

Type III endoleak can be difficult to distinguish from Type I endoleak. Depending on the stent graft anatomy, the use of standard bifurcated endografts may not be technically feasible, and patients may have to be subject to an aorto-uni-iliac repair with femoral-femoral bypass or open surgery.

CASE REPORT

We report a case of an 86-year-old male who had a Type IIIb endoleak 20 years post EVAR which was characterized on angiography to be from a hole close to the bifurcation limb origin. The initial Talent (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) device had a 50 mm main body common trunk, which was not amenable to treatment with standard devices. He was successfully treated with a custom-made device with an inverted contralateral limb.

CONCLUSIONS

Our case highlights the need for lifelong surveillance post EVAR as endoleak may present decades post initial EVAR. It also demonstrates that many Type III endoleak which were otherwise deemed unsuitable for treatment with standard devices may potentially be treatable with custom-made device (CMD). This solution preserves a percutaneous option in a now older person which avoids surgical bypass. Further studies are required to establish the durability of this treatment and survey for recurrence.

Midterm outcomes of 455 patients receiving the AFX2 endovascular graft for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm: A retrospective multi-center analysis

Since being introduced into clinical practice the AFX family of endografts has undergone labelling updates, design and manufacturing changes to address a Type III failure mode. The published literature on the performance of the current endograft-AFX2 -is limited to small series with limited follow up. The present study reports the largest series of patients implanted with AFX2 for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. The study was a retrospective, 5 center study of patients receiving an AFX2 endograft from January 2016 until Dec 2020. Electronic case report forms were provided to four of the centers, with one additional site providing relevant outcomes in an independent dataset. Relevant outcomes were reported via Kaplan-Meier analysis and included all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, post EVAR aortic rupture, open conversion, device related reinterventions and endoleaks. Among a cohort of 460 patients, 405 underwent elective repair of an AAA, 50 were treated for a ruptured AAA, and 5 were aorto-iliac occlusive disease cases. For the elective cohort (mean age 73.7y, 77% male, mean AAA diameter 5.4cm), the peri-operative mortality was 1.7%. Freedom from aneurysm-related mortality was 98.2% at 1,2,3 and 4 years post-operatively, there were no post-operative aortic ruptures, and 2 patients required open conversion. Freedom from Type Ia endoleaks was 99.4% at 1, 2, 3 and 4 years. Freedom from Type IIIa and Type IIIb endoleaks were 100% and 100% (year 1), 100% and 99.6% (year 2), 99.4% and 99.6% (year 3), 99.4% and 99.6% (year 4) respectively. Freedom from all device-related reintervention (including Type II endoleaks) at 4 y was 86.8%. The AFX2 endograft appears to perform to a satisfactory standard in terms of patient centric outcomes in mid-term follow up. The Type Ia and Type III endoleaks rates at 4y appear to be within acceptable limits. Further follow up studies are warranted.

Systematic Reviews of the Literature Are Not Always Either Useful Or the Best Way To Add To Science

Systematic reviews are becoming more popular as a way of doing research; however, not all systematic reviews are clinically useful and sometimes another type of review (scoping, topical, or critical) would be of greater value to the clinical and scientific community. The different types of review and their use are described, illustrated by examples relevant to vascular surgery.

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.