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

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was 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 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, most 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 using evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, while incorporating patient preferences, to reduce the existing variability and ensure appropriate selection of AAA repair technique.

Descriptive and follow-up study of patients treated surgically for abdominal aortic aneurysm at tertiary hospitals in Spain.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess potential variability in the clinical characteristics and treatment of patients undergoing elective surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) across five hospitals in Spain. METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with AAA and treated with open surgical repair (OSR) or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). We evaluated clinical and demographic variables, including comorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI]); anatomic characteristics; surgical risk (ASA Score); aneurysm characteristics; and in-hospital and overall mortality. All patients were followed for three years. RESULTS: A total of 186 patients were included, mean age 72.5 (standard deviation [SD], 8.4), mean CCI 2.04 (SD, 1.9). The surgical technique was EVAR in 46.8% of cases (N.=87) and OSR in 53.2% (N.=99). The in-hospital mortality rate was 2.2%, with no differences between groups. The overall mortality rate during follow-up (mean, 2.9 years) was 24.1% for EVAR versus 8.1% for the OSR group (odds ratio [OR], 3.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.60-3.64; P=0.004). EVAR was the only independent risk factor for mortality (OR, 3.89; 95% CI: 3.87-3.92; P=0.004). Inter-center variability in the type of surgery was high, with EVAR accounting for 19.4% to 75% of the surgical procedures, depending on the treating center (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study the in-hospital mortality rates for elective EVAR and OSR were similar. However, after the follow-up, patients who underwent EVAR had a three-fold greater mortality rate than those treated with OSR. There was substantial inter-hospital variability, underscoring the need to standardize treatment selection in patients who undergo elective surgery for AAA repair.