Variation in the choice of elective surgical procedure for abdominal aortic aneurysm in Spain

Safety of the endovascular aneurysm repair procedure: real-world evidence using interrupted-time series analysis

OBJECTIVES

In Taiwan, endovascular aneurysm repair for treating abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) was introduced in 2004 and became reimbursable in February 2010. We evaluated the real-world practice and safety of endovascular aneurysm repair in Taiwan.

METHODS

Patients who underwent repair operations for AAA (open or endovascular) from 2000 to 2016 were enrolled (n = 11485). Outcome statistics (during the index hospitalization: length of stay, rate of ischaemic bowel disease and 30-day mortality; after discharge: 30-day readmission rate, 2-year mortality, 2-year reintervention rate and 2-year paraplegia rate) were calculated for each half-year cohort. Propensity score-based stabilized weights were used to balance covariates among each half-year cohort. Interrupted time-series analysis was then performed.

RESULTS

The elective and emergency ratio of AAA repair was 50:50 from 2000 to 2004 and became 60:40 from 2010 to 2016. The half-year rate of endovascular aneurysm repair was 0% in 2000 to 2004/06, 83.16% in 2010 and 98.1% in 2016. Interrupted time series analysis revealed that after endovascular aneurysm repair became reimbursable, both elective and emergency groups had a reduction in length of stay (-4.2 days, P < 0.0001; -1.5 days, P = 0.0928) and 30-day mortality (-5.22%, P = 0.0702; -7.76%, P = 0.0086) but a significant increase in the reintervention rate (5.05%, P = 0.0031; 4.36%, P = 0.0097).

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular aneurysm repair was predominantly used in treating AAAs after it was reimbursed in Taiwan. Endovascular aneurysm repair is efficacious regarding short-term outcomes but increased the 2-year reintervention rate in both groups.

Appropriateness of surgery performed for abdominal aortic aneurysm at tertiary hospitals in Spain

BACKGROUND

To analyze the appropriateness of the type of repair (open or endovascular) performed for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in five university hospitals in Spain, according to evidence-based recommendations.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective cross-sectional study of patients with AAA who underwent elective open surgical repair (OSR) or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Data were collected on demographic and clinical variables and type of surgical repair. A pair of vascular surgeons from each participating hospital performed a blinded assessment based on GRADE recommendations. The concordance between the two evaluators and the agreement between their evidence-based recommendation and the procedure actually performed were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 186 patients were selected; 179 were included. Mean age was 72.5 years (standard deviation [SD], 8.4), mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was 2.04 (SD, 1.9). OSR was performed in 53.2% (n=99) and EVAR in 46.8% (n=87) of cases. Overall, 65.9% (118/179) of interventions performed were considered appropriate: 50% (47/94) of OSRs and 83.5% (71/85) of EVARs. The patient characteristics were similar for all the hospitals, but the chosen surgical technique did show significant differences among these centers. There were no significant differences among the hospitals in the proportion of cases judged as appropriate, either overall (p=0.346) or for each type of procedure (p=0.531 and p=0.538 for OSR and EVAR, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the majority of the AAA repairs performed were appropriate according to GRADE recommendations. A higher proportion of EVARs were considered appropriate than OSRs. Choice of AAA repair should be standardized through the use of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, while incorporating patient preferences, to reduce the existing variability and ensure appropriate selection of AAA repair technique.

Regional variation in endovascular treatment rate and in-hospital mortality of abdominal aortic aneurysms in Germany

Summary: Background: Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) can be treated by either open surgery (OAR) or endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). The aim of this study was to analyze regional variations in application of (EVAR) and in-hospital mortality after intact AAA (iAAA) repair. Methods: Using data provided by the German Federal Statistical Office, a nationwide analysis for 2012 to 2014 was conducted. Patients with a diagnosis of iAAA (I71.4) and corresponding procedure codes for OAR (5-384.5/7) or EVAR (5-38a.1) were included. Odds ratios (ORs) for use of EVAR (proportion of EVAR among total EVAR + OAR cases) and mortality were calculated for all regions in Germany. ORs for EVAR use were adjusted for age, sex, and risk (Elixhauser score). ORs for mortality were additionally adjusted for type of procedure (OAR/EVAR). Results: Finally, 31,757 procedures for iAAA were included. Median age of all patients was 73 years (interquartile range 67–78 years) and 87.1 % were male. The mean proportion of EVAR procedures was 72.6 %; however, the application of EVAR for repair of iAAA varied widely depending on region. The lowest unadjusted regional rate of EVAR use was 48.8 %, while the highest was 92.5 %. After adjustment, the lowest regional OR for EVAR use (compared to the nationwide mean) was 0.23 (95 % confidence interval [0.15–0.36]), the highest 5.93 [1.79–19.65]. Overall in-hospital mortality was 2.9 % (OAR 6.2 %; EVAR 1.7 %). The adjusted regional OR for mortality ranged from 0.31 [0.07–1.42] to 4.98 [2.08–11.93]. Conclusions: This study reveals variations in use of EVAR and in-hospital mortality for iAAA treatment in Germany. This may imply that selection of treatment might not only be influenced by patient characteristics, but also by regional location. These results need to be taken into account when discussing centralization of AAA treatment in Germany.