Patient information sources when facing repair of 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.

Experiences of participating in an eHealth intervention for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm: A qualitative study

AIMS

To explore patients' experiences of an eHealth tool and tailored psychosocial support throughout the care trajectory of AAA repair.

DESIGN

A qualitative interview study.

METHODS

Individual in-depth interviews were performed with twelve patients participating in an intervention study in conjunction with AAA surgery. Data were collected from March to December 2019. The interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis with an inductive approach.

RESULTS

The patients' familiarity with and attitude to eHealth influenced their use of the eHealth tool. The interpersonal relationship with health care staff affected patients' ability to submit themselves. The preoperative information, including the eHealth tool, may result in an overwhelming amount of information, causing anxiety and leading patients to refrain from information, partly due to the timing of the information. Psychosocial support offered continuity and reassurance, and enabled the patients to elaborate on existential matters.

CONCLUSION

The design of eHealth services in AAA care would benefit from a consideration of patients' attitude to eHealth and familiarity with modern technology. To increase patients' accessibility to health care services, their preference for technology use and type of contact should be verified and respected. Psychosocial support should be offered with continuity to alleviate patients' emotional burden. Adjustment to patients' mental state and learning needs may forestall anxiety.

IMPACT

This study highlights factors that affect the acceptability of eHealth services in AAA patients. These findings can guide future design and implementation of mobile health interventions in surgical care.

Shared Decision Making and the Management of Intact Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Scoping Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to summarise the current knowledge of shared decision making (SDM) in patients facing a treatment decision about an intact abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), and to identify where further evidence is needed.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched on 18 July 2021. An updated search was run on 31 May 2022 for relevant studies published from 1 January 2000 to 31 May 2022.

REVIEW METHODS

This scoping review was undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines following a pre-defined protocol, retrieving studies reporting on aspects of SDM in those with intact AAAs. Qualitative synthesis of the articles was performed, and the results grouped according to theme.

RESULTS

Fifteen articles reporting on a total of 1 344 participants (age range 62-74 years) from hospital vascular surgery clinics with intact AAAs were included. Studies were observational (n = 9), non-randomised studies of an intervention (n = 3), and randomised clinical trials (n = 3). The first theme was the preferences and practice of SDM. The proportion of patients preferring SDM ranged from 58% to 95% (three studies), although objective rating of SDM practice was consistently < 50% (three studies). Clinician training improved SDM practice. The second theme was poor provision of information. Fewer than half of patients (0 - 46%) surveyed were informed about all available treatment options (three studies). Publicly available information sources were rated as poor. The third theme concerned the utility of decision making support tools (DSTs). Two randomised trials demonstrated that the provision of DSTs improves patient knowledge and agreement between patient preference and repair type received but not objective measures of SDM for patients with AAAs.

CONCLUSION

SDM for patients with an intact AAA appears to be in its infancy. Most patients with an AAA want SDM, but this is not commonly applied. Most patients with an AAA do not receive adequate information for SDM, although the use of bespoke DSTs leaves patients better informed to facilitate SDM.

Effect of a Decision Aid on Agreement Between Patient Preferences and Repair Type for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) can choose open repair or endovascular repair (EVAR). While EVAR is less invasive, it requires lifelong surveillance and more frequent aneurysm-related reinterventions than open repair. A decision aid may help patients receive their preferred type of AAA repair.

Objective

To determine the effect of a decision aid on agreement between patient preference for AAA repair type and the repair type they receive.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cluster randomized trial, 235 patients were randomized at 22 VA vascular surgery clinics. All patients had AAAs greater than 5.0 cm in diameter and were candidates for both open repair and EVAR. Data were collected from August 2017 to December 2020, and data were analyzed from December 2020 to June 2021.

Interventions

Presurgical consultation using a decision aid vs usual care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who had agreement between their preference and their repair type, measured using χ2 analyses, κ statistics, and adjusted odds ratios.

Results

Of 235 included patients, 234 (99.6%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 73 (5.9) years. A total of 126 patients were enrolled in the decision aid group, and 109 were enrolled in the control group. Within 2 years after enrollment, 192 (81.7%) underwent repair. Patients were similar between the decision aid and control groups by age, sex, aneurysm size, iliac artery involvement, and Charlson Comorbidity Index score. Patients preferred EVAR over open repair in both groups (96 of 122 [79%] in the decision aid group; 81 of 106 [76%] in the control group; P = .60). Patients in the decision aid group were more likely to receive their preferred repair type than patients in the control group (95% agreement [93 of 98] vs 86% agreement [81 of 94]; P = .03), and κ statistics were higher in the decision aid group (κ = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95) compared with the control group (κ = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.32-0.74). Adjusted models confirmed this association (odds ratio of agreement in the decision aid group relative to control group, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.10-7.70).

Conclusions and Relevance

Patients exposed to a decision aid were more likely to receive their preferred AAA repair type, suggesting that decision aids can help better align patient preferences and treatments in major cardiovascular procedures.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03115346.

Online Ratings for Vascular Interventional Proceduralists Vary by Physician Specialty

BACKGROUND

Multiple specialties offer vascular interventional care, creating potential competition for referrals and procedures. At the same time, patient/consumer ratings have become more impactful for physicians who perform vascular procedures. We hypothesized that there are differences in online ratings based on specialty.

METHODS

We used official program lists from the Association for Graduate Medical Education to identify institutions with training programs in integrated vascular surgery (VS), integrated interventional radiology (IR), and interventional cardiology (IC). Faculty providers were identified in each specialty at these institutions. A standardized search was performed to collect online ratings from Vitals.com, Healthgrades.com, and Google.com as well as from online demographics. Between specialty differences were analyzed using chi-squared and analysis of variance tests as appropriate. Multivariable linear regression was used to identify factors associated with review volume and star rating.

RESULTS

A total of 1,330 providers (n = 454 VS, n = 451 IR, n = 425 IC) were identified across 47 institutions in 27 states. VS (55.5%-69.4%) and IC (63.8%-71.1%) providers were significantly more likely to have reviews than IR (28.6%-48.8%) providers across all online platforms (P < 0.001 for all websites). Across all platforms, IC providers were rated significantly higher than VS and IR providers. Multivariable regression showed that provider specialty and additional time in practice were associated with higher review volume. In addition to specialty, review volume was associated with star rating as those physicians with more reviews tended to have a higher rating.

CONCLUSIONS

On average, vascular surgeons have more reviews and are more highly rated than interventional radiologists but tend to have fewer reviews and lower ratings than interventional cardiologists. VS providers may benefit from encouraging patients to file online reviews, especially in competitive markets.