Variation in Surgical Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms With Small Aortic Diameters in the Netherlands.
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2020
04 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
15
9
2018
medline:
5
6
2020
entrez:
15
9
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate reasons to deviate from aneurysm diameter thresholds, and focus on the difference in how Dutch vascular surgical units (VSUs) perceive their deviation and their actual deviation. Guidelines recommend surgical treatment for asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with a diameter of at least 55 mm for men and 50 mm for women. We evaluate reasons to deviate from these guidelines, and focus on the difference in how Dutch vascular surgical units (VSUs) perceive their deviation and their actual deviation. All patients undergoing elective AAA repair between 2013 and 2016 registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA) were included. Surgery at diameters of <55 mm for men and <50 mm for women were considered guideline deviations. National deviation and hospital variation in deviation were evaluated over time. Questionnaires were distributed among all Dutch VSUs, inquiring for acceptable reasons for guideline deviation. VSUs were asked to estimate the guideline deviation percentage in their hospital which was then compared with their DSAA percentage. In all, 9039 patients were included. In 15%, we found guideline deviation, varying from 2% to 40% between VSUs. Over time, 21 VSUs were identified with a lower percentage of deviation than the national mean each year and 8 VSUs with a higher percentage. 44/60 VSUs completed the questionnaire. Most commonly reported reasons to deviate were concomitant large iliac diameter (91%) and saccular aneurysm (82%). The majority of the VSUs (77%) estimated their guideline deviation to be <5%. Eleven VSUs (25%) estimated their deviation concordant with their DSAA percentage, but 75% of VSUs underestimated their deviation. Dutch VSUs regularly deviate from the guidelines regarding aneurysm diameter, with variation between VSUs. Consensus exists amongst VSUs on acceptable reasons for guideline deviations; however, the majority underestimates their actual deviation percentage.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate reasons to deviate from aneurysm diameter thresholds, and focus on the difference in how Dutch vascular surgical units (VSUs) perceive their deviation and their actual deviation.
BACKGROUND
Guidelines recommend surgical treatment for asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with a diameter of at least 55 mm for men and 50 mm for women. We evaluate reasons to deviate from these guidelines, and focus on the difference in how Dutch vascular surgical units (VSUs) perceive their deviation and their actual deviation.
METHODS
All patients undergoing elective AAA repair between 2013 and 2016 registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA) were included. Surgery at diameters of <55 mm for men and <50 mm for women were considered guideline deviations. National deviation and hospital variation in deviation were evaluated over time. Questionnaires were distributed among all Dutch VSUs, inquiring for acceptable reasons for guideline deviation. VSUs were asked to estimate the guideline deviation percentage in their hospital which was then compared with their DSAA percentage.
RESULTS
In all, 9039 patients were included. In 15%, we found guideline deviation, varying from 2% to 40% between VSUs. Over time, 21 VSUs were identified with a lower percentage of deviation than the national mean each year and 8 VSUs with a higher percentage. 44/60 VSUs completed the questionnaire. Most commonly reported reasons to deviate were concomitant large iliac diameter (91%) and saccular aneurysm (82%). The majority of the VSUs (77%) estimated their guideline deviation to be <5%. Eleven VSUs (25%) estimated their deviation concordant with their DSAA percentage, but 75% of VSUs underestimated their deviation.
CONCLUSIONS
Dutch VSUs regularly deviate from the guidelines regarding aneurysm diameter, with variation between VSUs. Consensus exists amongst VSUs on acceptable reasons for guideline deviations; however, the majority underestimates their actual deviation percentage.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30216222
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003050
pii: 00000658-202004000-00028
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
781-789Références
Lo RC, Lu B, Fokkema MT, et al. Relative importance of aneurysm diameter and body size for predicting abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture in men and women. J Vasc Surg 2014; 59:1209–1216.
Chaikof EL, Dalman RL, Eskandari MK, et al. The Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines on the care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg 2018; 67:2–77. e72.
Moll FL, Powell JT, Fraedrich G, et al. Management of abdominal aortic aneurysms clinical practice guidelines of the European society for vascular surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2011; 41: (Suppl 1): S1–S58.
Lederle FA, Wilson SE, Johnson GR, et al. Immediate repair compared with surveillance of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med 2002; 346:1437–1444.
Powell JT, Brown LC, Forbes JF, et al. Final 12-year follow-up of surgery versus surveillance in the UK Small Aneurysm Trial. Br J Surg 2007; 94:702–708.
Ouriel K, Clair DG, Kent KC, et al. Positive impact of endovascular options for treating aneurysms early I. Endovascular repair compared with surveillance for patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 2010; 51:1081–1087.
Filardo G, Powell JT, Martinez MA, et al. Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; CD001835.
Powell JT, Brady AR, Brown LC, et al. United Kingdom Small Aneurysm Trial Participants. Long-term outcomes of immediate repair compared with surveillance of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med 2002; 346:1445–1452.
Lijftogt N, Vahl AC, Wilschut ED, et al. Adjusted hospital outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery reported in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2017; 53:520–532.
Available at: https://www.dica.nl/jaarrapportage-2014/assets/uploads/DICA-JAAR-OFFLINE-2014.pdf. Accessed June 2, 2018.
Beck AW, Sedrakyan A, Mao J, et al. Variations in abdominal aortic aneurysm care: a report from the International Consortium of Vascular Registries. Circulation 2016; 134:1948–1958.
Zettervall SL, Buck DB, Soden PA, et al. Regional variation exists in patient selection and treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 2016; 64:921–927. e921.
Karthikesalingam A, Vidal-Diez A, Holt PJ, et al. Thresholds for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in England and the United States. N Engl J Med 2016; 375:2051–2059.
Cao P, De Rango P, Verzini F, et al. Comparison of surveillance versus aortic endografting for small aneurysm repair (CAESAR): results from a randomised trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2011; 41:13–25.
Birkmeyer JD, Reames BN, McCulloch P, et al. Understanding of regional variation in the use of surgery. Lancet 2013; 382:1121–1129.
Tomee SM, Bastiaannet E, Schermerhorn ML, et al. The consequences of real life practice of early abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a cost-benefit analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2017; 54:28–33.
Darling RC, Messina CR, Brewster DC, et al. Autopsy study of unoperated abdominal aortic aneurysms. The case for early resection. Circulation 1977; 56: (3 Suppl): II161–II164.
Scott RA, Wilson NM, Ashton HA, et al. Is surgery necessary for abdominal aortic aneurysm less than 6 cm in diameter? Lancet 1993; 342:1395–1396.
Powell JT, Sweeting MJ, Brown LC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of growth rates of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Br J Surg 2011; 98:609–618.
Thompson SG, Brown LC, Sweeting MJ, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the growth and rupture rates of small abdominal aortic aneurysms: implications for surveillance intervals and their cost-effectiveness. Health Technol Assess 2013; 17:1–118.
Ho NC, Tran JR, Bektas A. Marfan's syndrome. Lancet 2005; 366:1978–1981.
Roberts WC, Honig HS. The spectrum of cardiovascular disease in the Marfan syndrome: a clinico-morphologic study of 18 necropsy patients and comparison to 151 previously reported necropsy patients. Am Heart J 1982; 104:115–135.
Hagerty T, Geraghty P, Braverman AC. Abdominal aortic aneurysm in Marfan syndrome. Ann Vasc Surg 2017; 40:294.e1–294.e6.
Takayama T, Miyata T, Nagawa H. True abdominal aortic aneurysm in Marfan syndrome. J Vasc Surg 2009; 49:1162–1165.
Shang EK, Nathan DP, Boonn WW, et al. A modern experience with saccular aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 2013; 57:84–88.
Kristmundsson T, Dias N, Resch T, et al. Morphology of small abdominal aortic aneurysms should be considered before continued ultrasound surveillance. Ann Vasc Surg 2016; 31:18–22.
Brown LC, Powell JT. Risk factors for aneurysm rupture in patients kept under ultrasound surveillance. UK Small Aneurysm Trial Participants. Ann Surg 1999; 230:289–296. [discussion 296–287].
Sweeting MJ, Thompson SG, Brown LC, et al. RESCAN Collaborators. Meta-analysis of individual patient data to examine factors affecting growth and rupture of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Br J Surg 2012; 99:655–665.
Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; CD000259.