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

The essential difference in measuring health status and quality of life in patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

Quality of life (QoL) and health status (HS) are important patient reported outcomes following abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. In current literature, HS questionnaire outcomes are often reported as health-related QoL, although they primarily measure functional outcomes. The literature on actual QoL in AAA patients is limited. This study evaluated QoL and HS in AAA patients after aneurysm repair, including both open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

This prospective observational cohort study included AAA patients from a prehabilitation program between 2018 and 2022. QoL was assessed using the WHOQOL-BREF and HS using the SF-12 questionnaire, at baseline (before surgery), six months, and 12 months postoperatively. Changes in QoL and HS over time were evaluated using linear mixed models that adjusted for sex and type of surgery.

RESULTS

Of the 91 included patients, 38 underwent OSR and 53 EVAR, with a mean age of 76.7 years. Compared to baseline, overall QoL was significantly lower at 12 months follow-up (mean difference -0.24, p=0.023). Group-analysis revealed a significant decline in overall QoL in EVAR patients only. No significant change in QoL following OSR was observed. No significant change in HS was observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire is more appropriate for evaluating QoL in AAA patients. Overall QoL, rather than HS, significantly declined between baseline and postoperative follow-up in older prehabilitated AAA patients, especially after EVAR. Understanding the impact of surgical interventions beyond traditional health status measures is crucial for shared decision-making and value-based healthcare.

One-year results of an eHealth intervention on anxiety in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery: randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The longitudinal effects of educational interventions in people with abdominal aortic aneurysm are largely unexplored. This prospective study investigated whether the anxiety-lowering effect of an eHealth intervention observed at the 1-month follow-up is maintained 1 year after abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery.

METHODS

Those scheduled for surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm were recruited in a single-centre randomized clinical trial. The control group received care and follow-up per the institution's standard. The intervention group received an eHealth tool along with psychosocial support. The 1-month results have been reported. The primary outcome measure was the anxiety mean score (HADS-A).

RESULTS

Of 120 included participants, 96 completed the 1-year follow-up (48 in each treatment group). The mean age was 73 years, a majority (86%) were male and 73% were current or previous smokers. Anxiety symptoms measured with the HADS-A decreased over time in both the intervention group (-0.33) and the control group (-0.35, P = 0.868). The improvements in anxiety symptoms seen in the short-term follow-up were not sustained at the 1-year follow-up. No significant mean score differences were found in the intention-to-treat or per-protocol analyses.

CONCLUSION

In this randomized clinical trial, an eHealth intervention did not result in a sustained reduction in anxiety symptoms compared with standard care in the same cohort. The study provides an insight into the limited acceptability of an eHealth tool in people with abdominal aortic aneurysm and valuable data on the recovery trajectory following open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. Further research is warranted to evaluate the relevance and long-term effectiveness of eHealth interventions in abdominal aortic aneurysm care.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

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

Insight from an Italian Delphi Consensus on EVAR feasibility outside the instruction for use: the SAFE EVAR Study

BACKGROUND

The SAfety and FEasibility of standard EVAR outside the instruction for use (SAFE-EVAR) Study was designed to define the attitude of Italian vascular surgeons towards the use of standard endovascular repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) outside the instruction for use (IFU) through a Delphi consensus endorsed by the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Vascolare ed Endovascolare - SICVE).

METHODS

A questionnaire consisting of 26 statements was developed, validated by an 18-member Advisory Board, and then sent to 600 Italian vascular surgeons. The Delphi process was structured in three subsequent rounds which took place between April and June 2023. In the first two rounds, respondents could indicate one of the following five degrees of agreement: 1) strongly agree; 2) partially agree; 3) neither agree nor disagree; 4) partially disagree; 5) strongly disagree; while in the third round only three different choices were proposed: 1) agree; 2) neither agree nor disagree; 3) disagree. We considered the consensus reached when ≥70% of respondents agreed on one of the options. After the conclusion of each round, a report describing the percentage distribution of the answers was sent to all the participants.

RESULTS

Two-hundred-forty-four (40.6%) Italian Vascular Surgeons agreed to participate the first round of the Delphi Consensus; the second and the third rounds of the Delphi collected 230 responders (94.3% of the first-round responders). Four statements (15.4%) reached a consensus in the first rounds. Among the 22 remaining statements, one more consensus (3.8%) was achieved in the second round. Finally, seven more statements (26.9%) reached a consensus in the simplified last round. Globally, a consensus was reached for almost half of the proposed statements (46.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The relatively low consensus rate obtained in this Delphi seems to confirm the discrepancy between Guideline recommendations and daily clinical practice. The data collected could represent the source for a possible guidelines' revision and the proposal of specific Good Practice Points in all those aspects with only little evidence available.

Health Related Quality of Life Following Intervention for Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis

BACKGROUND

Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) pose significant risks of morbidity and mortality. Considering the evolving techniques for TAAA intervention and the growing interest in quality of life (QoL) outcomes for decision-making, we aimed to evaluate the impact of patient and perioperative characteristics on short-term, medium-term, and long-term postoperative QoL in TAAA repair patients.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane to identify primary research studies evaluating QoL post TAAA surgery, published in English or Swedish between January 01, 2012 and September 26, 2022. A narrative synthesis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program and Joanna Briggs Institute checklists.

RESULTS

Eight studies of low or moderate quality with 455 patients were included. Preoperative QoL in TAAA patients was lower compared to the general population. While there is an initial short-term improvement in postoperative QoL, patients fail to reach baseline levels even after 7 years, with physical activity and functioning domains being particularly affected. Experiencing postoperative complications, including paraplegia and cardiovascular events, negatively impacts postoperative QoL. Patients with uncomplicated postoperative status had improved QoL. Prolonged hospital stay negatively affects physical functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with TAAA are likely to have lower baseline QoL compared to the general population. Following TAAA repair, postoperative QoL may remain lower than baseline levels, persisting over the long-term. Comorbidities, postoperative complications, and hospitalization duration appear to exert adverse effects on postoperative QoL.

Systematic and scoping reviews: A comparison and overview

In this article, we compare and contrast methods of reviewing, summarizing, and synthesizing the literature, including systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and narrative reviews. Review articles are essential to help investigators wade through the plethora of exponentially growing medical literature. In the era of evidence-based medicine, a systematic approach is required. A systematic review is a formalized method to address a specific clinical question by analyzing the breadth of published literature while minimizing bias. Systematic reviews are designed to answer narrow clinical questions in the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome) format. Alternatively, scoping reviews use a similar systematic approach to a literature search in order to determine the breadth and depth of knowledge on a topic; to clarify definitions, concepts, and themes; or sometimes as a precursor to a systematic review or hypothesis generator to guide future research. However, scoping reviews are less constrained by a priori decisions about which interventions, controls, and outcomes may be of interest. Traditional narrative reviews still have a role in informing practice and guiding research, particularly when there is a paucity of high-quality evidence on a topic.

Is Evar Feasible in Challenging Aortic Neck Anatomies? A Technical Review and Ethical Discussion

Background: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become an accepted alternative to open repair (OR) for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) despite “hostile” anatomies that may reduce its effectiveness. Guidelines suggest refraining from EVAR in such circumstances, but in clinical practice, up to 44% of EVAR procedures are performed using stent grafts outside their instruction for use (IFU), with acceptable outcomes. Starting from this “inconsistency” between clinical practice and guidelines, the aim of this contribution is to report the technical results of the use of EVAR in challenging anatomies as well as the ethical aspects to identify the criteria by which the “best interest” of the patient can be set. Materials and Methods: A literature review on currently available evidence on standard EVAR using commercially available endografts in patients with hostile aortic neck anatomies was conducted. Medline using the PubMed interface and The Cochrane Library databases were searched from 1 January 2000 to 6 May 2021, considering the following outcomes: technical success; need for additional procedures; conversion to OR; reintervention; migration; the presence of type I endoleaks; AAA-related mortality rate. Results: A total of 52 publications were selected by the investigators for a detailed review. All studies were either prospective or retrospective observational studies reporting the immediate, 30-day, and/or follow-up outcomes of standard EVAR procedures in patients with challenging neck anatomies. No randomized trials were identified. Fourteen different endo-grafts systems were used in the selected studies. A total of 45 studies reported a technical success rate ranging from 93 to 100%, and 42 the need for additional procedures (mean value of 9.04%). Results at 30 days: the incidence rate of type Ia endoleak was reported by 37 studies with a mean value of 2.65%; 31 studies reported a null migration rate and 32 a null conversion rate to OR; in 31 of the 35 studies that reported AAA-related mortality, the incidence was null. Mid-term follow-up: the incidence rate of type Ia endoleak was reported by 48 studies with a mean value of 6.65%; 30 studies reported a null migration rate, 33 a null conversion rate to OR, and 28 of the 45 studies reported that the AAA-related mortality incidence was null. Conclusions: Based on the present analysis, EVAR appears to be a safe and effective procedure—and therefore recommendable—even in the presence of hostile anatomies, in patients deemed unfit for OR. However, in order to identify and pursue the patient’s best interest, particular attention must be paid to the management of the patient’s informed consent process, which—in addition to being an essential ethical-legal requirement to legitimize the medical act—ensures that clinical data can be integrated with the patient’s personal preferences and background, beyond the therapeutic potential of the proposed procedures and what is generically stated in the guidelines.

Association of Age and Surgical Technique with the Quality of Life of Male Patients Treated for Abdominal Aorta Aneurysms: A Cross-Sectional Study

OBJECTIVES

The achievement of a good health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has become one of the primary objectives of medical-surgical interventions. The objective of this study is to determine the HRQoL of patients who underwent abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery and to analyse the influence of age on HRQoL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is an observational cross-sectional study with 151 male patients who underwent an operation for AAAs between January 2013 and December 2020 in two hospital centres. HRQoL was assessed with the Spanish version of the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), starting in the month following the surgical intervention. Statistical analyses were performed using hypothesis tests and multivariate linear regression.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 73 years (SD: 7), and the mean interval between surgery and the interview was 37 months (SD: 27). The scores of the Physical Function (p = 0.001), Vitality (p = 0.016), Social Function (p = 0.014), and Mental Health (p = 0.007) dimensions of the SF-36 were significantly lower in the older age groups. In addition, the scores on the Physical Summary Component (p = 0.003) and the Mental Summary Component (p = 0.026) were significantly lower among individuals older than 70 years of age. The HRQoL in patients who underwent operations for AAAs was similar to that reported in the general population of Spain. Patients with an aorto-aortic shunt had better scores on the Physical Function (Beta: 10; p = 0.014) and Mental Health (Beta: 8.12; p = 0.040) dimensions than those who had an aorto-bi-iliac or bifemoral shunt, regardless of the age of the patients at operation.

CONCLUSION

Among patients who underwent an operation for an AAA, there was a negative association between the age at operation and scores on the Physical Function, Vitality, Social Function, and Mental Health dimensions of the SF-36. The type of surgical technique influences the evolution of Physical Function and Mental Health scores, regardless of age.

Quality of Life of Patients Treated for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Open Surgery and Endoprosthesis

OBJECTIVES

To determine the degree of long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients undergoing surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and to analyze the results according to the type of treatment, namely, open abdominal repair (OAR) or endoprosthesis (EVAR).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective cross-sectional observational study. Patients receiving intervention for AAA between January 2013 and December 2020 were included. The Spanish version of the SF-36 questionnaire was used. A single survey was performed on all patients, and the time elapsed since the intervention was recorded.

RESULTS

On all health scales and in the two groups of patients, the highest scores were recorded at six months postoperatively. At that time, the EVAR and OAR groups had similar values. Between 13 and 16 months postoperatively, EVAR patients presented a transient but significant decrease in their scores for physical function (p = 0.016), vitality (p = 0.035) and social function (p = 0.041). From that moment, there were progressive decreases in the scores of the two groups of patients on all the scales of the SF-36 questionnaire, although this trend was less pronounced in the OAR group. At 60 months after the intervention, the latter group showed significantly higher values than EVAR for physical function (p = 0.01), vitality (p = 0.032) and mental health (p = 0.029). Additionally, at 60 months after the intervention, the Sum of the psychological component (MCS) and Sum of the physical component (PCS) scores were significantly higher in the OAR group (p = 0.040 and p = 0.039, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In the short term, patients treated for AAA by EVAR or OAR showed similar results on the SF-36 questionnaire. In the long term, patients treated by EVAR had lower scores on the physical function, vitality and mental health scales.