Optimizing Surveillance and Re-intervention Strategy Following Elective Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysm has an initial survival advantage over OR, but more frequent complications increase costs and long-term aneurysm-related mortality. Randomized controlled trials of EVAR versus OR have shown EVAR is not cost-effective over a patient's lifetime. However, in the EVAR-1 trial, postoperative surveillance may have been sub-optimal, as the importance of sac growth as a predictor of graft failure was overlooked. METHODS: Real-world data informed a discrete event simulation model of postoperative outcomes following EVAR. Outcomes observed EVAR-1 were compared with those from 5 alternative postoperative surveillance and re-intervention strategies. Key events, quality-adjusted life years and costs were predicted. The impact of using complication and rupture rates from more recent devices, imaging and re-intervention methods was also explored. RESULTS: Compared with observed EVAR-1 outcomes, modeling full adherence to the EVAR-1 scan protocol reduced abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) deaths by 3% and increased elective re-interventions by 44%. European Society re-intervention guidelines provided the most clinically effective strategy, with an 8% reduction in AAA deaths, but a 52% increase in elective re-interventions. The cheapest and most cost-effective strategy used lifetime annual ultrasound in primary care with confirmatory computed tomography if necessary, and reduced AAA-related deaths by 5%. Using contemporary rates for complications and rupture did not alter these conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: All alternative strategies improved clinical benefits compared with the EVAR-1 trial. Further work is needed regarding the cost and accuracy of primary care ultrasound, and the potential impact of these strategies in the comparison with OR.

Strategy of endovascular versus open repair for patients with clinical diagnosis of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: the IMPROVE RCT.

BACKGROUND: Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a common vascular emergency. The mortality from emergency endovascular repair may be much lower than the 40-50% reported for open surgery. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether or not a strategy of endovascular repair compared with open repair reduces 30-day and mid-term mortality (including costs and cost-effectiveness) among patients with a suspected ruptured AAA. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial, with computer-generated telephone randomisation of participants in a 1 : 1 ratio, using variable block size, stratified by centre and without blinding. SETTING: Vascular centres in the UK (n = 29) and Canada (n = 1) between 2009 and 2013. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 613 eligible participants (480 men) with a ruptured aneurysm, clinically diagnosed at the trial centre. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 316 participants were randomised to the endovascular strategy group (immediate computerised tomography followed by endovascular repair if anatomically suitable or, if not suitable, open repair) and 297 were randomised to the open repair group (computerised tomography optional). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was 30-day mortality, with 30-day reinterventions, costs and disposal as early secondary outcome measures. Later outcome measures included 1- and 3-year mortality, reinterventions, quality of life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality was 35.4% in the endovascular strategy group and 37.4% in the open repair group [odds ratio (OR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.28; p = 0.62, and, after adjustment for age, sex and Hardman index, OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.33]. The endovascular strategy appeared to be more effective in women than in men (interaction test p = 0.02). More discharges in the endovascular strategy group (94%) than in the open repair group (77%) were directly to home (p < 0.001). Average 30-day costs were similar between groups, with the mean difference in costs being -£1186 (95% CI -£2997 to £625), favouring the endovascular strategy group. After 1 year, survival and reintervention rates were similar in the two groups, QoL (at both 3 and 12 months) was higher in the endovascular strategy group and the mean cost difference was -£2329 (95% CI -£5489 to £922). At 3 years, mortality was 48% and 56% in the endovascular strategy group and open repair group, respectively (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.00; p = 0.053), with a stronger benefit for the endovascular strategy in the subgroup of 502 participants in whom repair was started for a proven rupture (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89; p = 0.009), whereas aneurysm-related reintervention rates were non-significantly higher in this group. At 3 years, considering all participants, there was a mean difference of 0.174 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% CI 0.002 to 0.353 QALYs) and, among the endovascular strategy group, a cost difference of -£2605 (95% CI -£5966 to £702), leading to 88% of estimates in the cost-effectiveness plane being in the quadrant showing the endovascular strategy to be 'dominant'. LIMITATIONS: Because of the pragmatic design of this trial, 33 participants in the endovascular strategy group and 26 in the open repair group breached randomisation allocation. CONCLUSIONS: The endovascular strategy was not associated with a significant reduction in either 30-day mortality or cost but was associated with faster participant recovery. By 3 years, the endovascular strategy showed a survival and QALY gain and was highly likely to be cost-effective. Future research could include improving resuscitation for older persons with circulatory collapse, the impact of local anaesthesia and emergency consent procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48334791 and NCT00746122. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The UK EndoVascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) randomised controlled trials: long-term follow-up and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Short-term survival benefits of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair (OR) of intact abdominal aortic aneurysms have been shown in randomised trials, but this early survival benefit is soon lost. Survival benefit of EVAR was unclear at follow-up to 10 years. OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term efficacy of EVAR against OR in patients deemed fit and suitable for both procedures (EVAR trial 1; EVAR-1); and against no intervention in patients unfit for OR (EVAR trial 2; EVAR-2). To appraise the long-term significance of type II endoleak and define criteria for intervention. DESIGN: Two national, multicentre randomised controlled trials: EVAR-1 and EVAR-2. SETTING: Patients were recruited from 37 hospitals in the UK between 1 September 1999 and 31 August 2004. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women aged ≥ 60 years with an aneurysm of ≥ 5.5 cm (as identified by computed tomography scanning), anatomically suitable and fit for OR were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to either EVAR (n = 626) or OR (n = 626) in EVAR-1 using computer-generated sequences at the trial hub. Patients considered unfit were randomly assigned to EVAR (n = 197) or no intervention (n = 207) in EVAR-2. There was no blinding. INTERVENTIONS: EVAR, OR or no intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end points were total and aneurysm-related mortality until mid-2015 for both trials. Secondary outcomes for EVAR-1 were reinterventions, costs and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: In EVAR-1, over a mean of 12.7 years (standard deviation 1.5 years; maximum 15.8 years), we recorded 9.3 deaths per 100 person-years in the EVAR group and 8.9 deaths per 100 person-years in the OR group [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.27; p = 0.14]. At 0-6 months after randomisation, patients in the EVAR group had a lower mortality (adjusted HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.02 for total mortality; HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.93 for aneurysm-related mortality; p = 0.031), but beyond 8 years of follow-up patients in the OR group had a significantly lower mortality (adjusted HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.56, p = 0.048 for total mortality; HR 5.82, 95% CI 1.64 to 20.65, p = 0.0064 for aneurysm-related mortality). The increased aneurysm-related mortality in the EVAR group after 8 years was mainly attributable to secondary aneurysm sac rupture, with increased cancer mortality also observed in the EVAR group. Overall, aneurysm reintervention rates were higher in the EVAR group than in the OR group, 4.1 and 1.7 per 100 person-years, respectively (p < 0.001), with reinterventions occurring throughout follow-up. The mean difference in costs over 14 years was £3798 (95% CI £2338 to £5258). Economic modelling based on the outcomes of the EVAR-1 trial showed that the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the patient's lifetime exceeds conventional thresholds used in the UK. In EVAR-2, patients died at the same rate in both groups, but there was suggestion of lower aneurysm mortality in those who actually underwent EVAR. Type II endoleak itself is not associated with a higher rate of mortality. LIMITATIONS: Devices used were implanted between 1999 and 2004. Newer devices might have better results. Later follow-up imaging declined, particularly for OR patients. Methodology to capture reinterventions changed mainly to record linkage through the Hospital Episode Statistics administrative data set from 2009. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR has an early survival benefit but an inferior late survival benefit compared with OR, which needs to be addressed by lifelong surveillance of EVAR and reintervention if necessary. EVAR does not prolong life in patients unfit for OR. Type II endoleak alone is relatively benign. FUTURE WORK: To find easier ways to monitor sac expansion to trigger timely reintervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55703451. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and the results will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Endovascular or open repair strategy for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: 30 day outcomes from IMPROVE randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a strategy of endovascular repair (if aortic morphology is suitable, open repair if not) versus open repair reduces early mortality for patients with suspected ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 30 vascular centres (29 UK, 1 Canadian), 2009-13. PARTICIPANTS: 613 eligible patients (480 men) with a clinical diagnosis of ruptured aneurysm. INTERVENTIONS: 316 patients were randomised to the endovascular strategy (275 confirmed ruptures, 174 anatomically suitable for endovascular repair) and 297 to open repair (261 confirmed ruptures). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 30 day mortality, with 24 hour and in-hospital mortality, costs, and time and place of discharge as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: 30 day mortality was 35.4% (112/316) in the endovascular strategy group and 37.4% (111/297) in the open repair group: odds ratio 0.92 (95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.28; P=0.62); odds ratio after adjustment for age, sex, and Hardman index 0.94 (0.67 to 1.33). Women may benefit more than men (interaction test P=0.02) from the endovascular strategy: odds ratio 0.44 (0.22 to 0.91) versus 1.18 (0.80 to 1.75). 30 day mortality for patients with confirmed rupture was 36.4% (100/275) in the endovascular strategy group and 40.6% (106/261) in the open repair group (P=0.31). More patients in the endovascular strategy than in the open repair group were discharged directly to home (189/201 (94%) v 141/183 (77%); P<0.001). Average 30 day costs were similar between the randomised groups, with an incremental cost saving for the endovascular strategy versus open repair of £1186 (€1420; $1939) (95% confidence interval -£625 to £2997). CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of endovascular repair was not associated with significant reduction in either 30 day mortality or cost. Longer term cost effectiveness evaluations are needed to assess the full effects of the endovascular strategy in both men and women. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48334791.

Endovascular repair of aortic aneurysm in patients physically ineligible for open repair.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm was originally developed for patients who were considered to be physically ineligible for open surgical repair. Data are lacking on the question of whether endovascular repair reduces the rate of death among these patients. METHODS: From 1999 through 2004 at 33 hospitals in the United Kingdom, we randomly assigned 404 patients with large abdominal aortic aneurysms (> or = 5.5 cm in diameter) who were considered to be physically ineligible for open repair to undergo either endovascular repair or no repair; 197 patients were assigned to undergo endovascular repair, and 207 were assigned to have no intervention. Patients were followed for rates of death, graft-related complications and reinterventions, and costs until the end of 2009. Cox regression was used to compare outcomes in the two groups. RESULTS: The 30-day operative mortality was 7.3% in the endovascular-repair group. The overall rate of aneurysm rupture in the no-intervention group was 12.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.6 to 16.2) per 100 person-years. Aneurysm-related mortality was lower in the endovascular-repair group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.89; P=0.02). This advantage did not result in any benefit in terms of total mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.27; P=0.97). A total of 48% of patients who survived endovascular repair had graft-related complications, and 27% required reintervention within the first 6 years. During 8 years of follow-up, endovascular repair was considerably more expensive than no repair (cost difference, 9,826 pounds sterling [U.S. $14,867]; 95% CI, 7,638 to 12,013 [11,556 to 18,176]). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial involving patients who were physically ineligible for open repair, endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm was associated with a significantly lower rate of aneurysm-related mortality than no repair. However, endovascular repair was not associated with a reduction in the rate of death from any cause. The rates of graft-related complications and reinterventions were higher with endovascular repair, and it was more costly. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN55703451.)

Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations.

Surgical innovation is an important part of surgical practice. Its assessment is complex because of idiosyncrasies related to surgical practice, but necessary so that introduction and adoption of surgical innovations can derive from evidence-based principles rather than trial and error. A regulatory framework is also desirable to protect patients against the potential harms of any novel procedure. In this first of three Series papers on surgical innovation and evaluation, we propose a five-stage paradigm to describe the development of innovative surgical procedures.

No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations.

Surgery and other invasive therapies are complex interventions, the assessment of which is challenged by factors that depend on operator, team, and setting, such as learning curves, quality variations, and perception of equipoise. We propose recommendations for the assessment of surgery based on a five-stage description of the surgical development process. We also encourage the widespread use of prospective databases and registries. Reports of new techniques should be registered as a professional duty, anonymously if necessary when outcomes are adverse. Case series studies should be replaced by prospective development studies for early technical modifications and by prospective research databases for later pre-trial evaluation. Protocols for these studies should be registered publicly. Statistical process control techniques can be useful in both early and late assessment. Randomised trials should be used whenever possible to investigate efficacy, but adequate pre-trial data are essential to allow power calculations, clarify the definition and indications of the intervention, and develop quality measures. Difficulties in doing randomised clinical trials should be addressed by measures to evaluate learning curves and alleviate equipoise problems. Alternative prospective designs, such as interrupted time series studies, should be used when randomised trials are not feasible. Established procedures should be monitored with prospective databases to analyse outcome variations and to identify late and rare events. Achievement of improved design, conduct, and reporting of surgical research will need concerted action by editors, funders of health care and research, regulatory bodies, and professional societies.

Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation.

Research on surgical interventions is associated with several methodological and practical challenges of which few, if any, apply only to surgery. However, surgical evaluation is especially demanding because many of these challenges coincide. In this report, the second of three on surgical innovation and evaluation, we discuss obstacles related to the study design of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies assessing surgical interventions. We also describe the issues related to the nature of surgical procedures-for example, their complexity, surgeon-related factors, and the range of outcomes. Although difficult, surgical evaluation is achievable and necessary. Solutions tailored to surgical research and a framework for generating evidence on which to base surgical practice are essential.