Outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair among patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

In the present study, we compared the outcomes of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in patients with and without rheumatoid arthritis (RA) stratified by the type of surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted from 2003 to 2016. Linked administrative health data from Ontario, Canada were used to identify all patients aged ≥65 years who had undergone elective open or endovascular AAA repair during the study period. Patients were identified using validated procedure and billing codes and matching using propensity scores. The primary outcome was survival. The secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)-free survival (defined as freedom from death, myocardial infarction, and stroke), reintervention, and secondary rupture.

RESULTS

Of 14,816 patients undergoing elective AAA repair, a diagnosis of RA was present for 309 (2.0%). The propensity-matched cohort included 234 pairs of RA and control patients. The matched cohort was followed up for a mean ± standard deviation of 4.93 ± 3.35 years, and the median survival was 6.76 and 7.31 years for the RA and control groups, respectively. Cox regression analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences in the hazards for death, MACE, reintervention, or secondary rupture. Analysis of the differences in outcomes stratified by repair approach also showed no statistically significant differences in the hazards for death, MACE, reintervention, or secondary rupture.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no statistically significant differences in survival, MACE, reintervention, or secondary rupture among patients with RA undergoing elective AAA repair compared with controls. Further studies are required to evaluate the impact of comorbidities and antirheumatic medications on the outcomes of elective AAA repair.

Impact of surgical intervention trials on healthcare: A systematic review of assessment methods, healthcare outcomes, and determinants

BACKGROUND

Frameworks used in research impact evaluation studies vary widely and it remains unclear which methods are most appropriate for evaluating research impact in the field of surgical research. Therefore, we aimed to identify and review the methods used to assess the impact of surgical intervention trials on healthcare and to identify determinants for surgical impact.

METHODS

We searched journal databases up to March 10, 2020 for papers assessing the impact of surgical effectiveness trials on healthcare. Two researchers independently screened the papers for eligibility and performed a Risk of Bias assessment. Characteristics of both impact papers and trial papers were summarized. Univariate analyses were performed to identify determinants for finding research impact, which was defined as a change in healthcare practice.

RESULTS

Sixty-one impact assessments were performed in 37 included impact papers. Some surgical trial papers were evaluated in more than one impact paper, which provides a total of 38 evaluated trial papers. Most impact papers were published after 2010 (n = 29). Medical records (n = 10), administrative databases (n = 22), and physician's opinion through surveys (n = 5) were used for data collection. Those data were analyzed purely descriptively (n = 3), comparing data before and after publication (n = 29), or through time series analyses (n = 5). Significant healthcare impact was observed 49 times and more often in more recent publications. Having impact was positively associated with using medical records or administrative databases (ref.: surveys), a longer timeframe for impact evaluation and more months between the publication of the trial paper and the impact paper, data collection in North America (ref.: Europe), no economic evaluation of the intervention, finding no significant difference in surgical outcomes, and suggesting de-implementation in the original trial paper.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Research impact evaluation receives growing interest, but still a small number of impact papers per year was identified. The analysis showed that characteristics of both surgical trial papers and impact papers were associated with finding research impact. We advise to collect data from either medical records or administrative databases, with an evaluation time frame of at least 4 years since trial publication.