Assessment of Subclinical Atherosclerosis in Asymptomatic People In Vivo: Measurements Suitable for Biomarker and Mendelian Randomization Studies.

BACKGROUND: One strategy to reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease is the early detection and treatment of atherosclerosis. This has led to significant interest in studies of subclinical atherosclerosis, using different phenotypes, not all of which are accurate reflections of the presence of asymptomatic atherosclerotic plaques. The aim of part 2 of this series is to provide a review of the existing literature on purported measures of subclinical disease and recommendations concerning which tests may be appropriate in the prevention of incident cardiovascular disease. METHODS: We conducted a critical review of measurements used to infer the presence of subclinical atherosclerosis in the major conduit arteries and focused on the predictive value of these tests for future cardiovascular events, independent of conventional cardiovascular risk factors, in asymptomatic people. The emphasis was on studies with >10 000 person-years of follow-up, with meta-analysis of results reporting adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs. The arterial territories were limited to carotid, coronary, aorta, and lower limb arteries. RESULTS: In the carotid arteries, the presence of plaque (8 studies) was independently associated with future stroke (pooled HR, 1.89 [1.04-3.44]) and cardiac events (7 studies), with a pooled HR, 1.77 (1.19-2.62). Increased coronary artery calcium (5 studies) was associated with the risk of coronary heart disease events, pooled HR, 1.54 (1.07-2.07) and increasing severity of calcification (by Agaston score) was associated with escalation of risk (13 studies). An ankle/brachial index (ABI) of <0.9, the pooled HR for cardiovascular death from 7 studies was 2.01 (1.43-2.81). There were insufficient studies of either, thoracic or aortic calcium, aortic diameter, or femoral plaque to synthesize the data based on consistent reporting of these measures. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of carotid plaque, coronary artery calcium, or abnormal ankle pressures seems to be a valid indicator of the presence of subclinical atherosclerosis and may be considered for use in biomarker, Mendelian randomization and similar studies.

Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an abnormal ballooning of the major abdominal artery. Some AAAs present as emergencies and require surgery; others remain asymptomatic. Treatment of asymptomatic AAAs depends on many factors, but the size of the aneurysm is important, as risk of rupture increases with aneurysm size. Large asymptomatic AAAs (greater than 5.5 cm in diameter) are usually repaired surgically; very small AAAs (less than 4.0 cm diameter) are monitored with ultrasonography. Debate continues over the roles of early repair versus surveillance with repair on subsequent enlargement in people with asymptomatic AAAs of 4.0 cm to 5.5 cm diameter. This is the fourth update of the review first published in 1999. OBJECTIVES: To compare mortality and costs, as well as quality of life and aneurysm rupture as secondary outcomes, following early surgical repair versus routine ultrasound surveillance in people with asymptomatic AAAs between 4.0 cm and 5.5 cm in diameter. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, two other databases, and two trials registers to 10 July 2019. We handsearched conference proceedings and checked reference lists of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials where people with asymptomatic AAAs of 4.0 cm to 5.5 cm were randomly allocated to early repair or imaging-based surveillance at least every six months. Outcomes had to include mortality or survival. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data, which were cross-checked by other team members. Outcomes were mortality, costs, quality of life, and aneurysm rupture. For mortality, we estimated risk ratios (RR) (endovascular aneurysm repair only), hazard ratios (HR) (open repair only), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on Mantel-Haenszel Chi2 statistics at one and six years (open repair only) following randomisation. MAIN RESULTS: We found no new studies for this update. Four trials with 3314 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two trials compared early open repair with surveillance and two trials compared early endovascular repair (EVAR) with surveillance. We used GRADE to access the certainty of the evidence for mortality and cost, which ranged from high to low. We downgraded the certainty in the evidence from high to moderate and low due to risk of bias concerns and imprecision (some outcomes were only reported by one study). All four trials showed an early survival benefit in the surveillance group (due to 30-day operative mortality with repair) but no evidence of differences in long-term survival. One study compared early open repair with surveillance with an adjusted HR of 0.88 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.02, mean follow-up 10 years; HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.54, mean follow-up 4.9 years). Pooled analysis of participant-level data from the two trials comparing early open repair with surveillance (maximum follow-up seven to eight years) showed no evidence of a difference in survival (propensity score-adjusted HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.18; 2226 participants; high-certainty evidence). This lack of treatment effect did not vary to three years by AAA diameter (P = 0.39), participant age (P = 0.61), or for women (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.11). Two studies compared EVAR with surveillance and there was no evidence of a survival benefit for early EVAR at 12 months (RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.73 to 5.06; 846 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two trials reported costs. The mean UK health service costs per participant over the first 18 months after randomisation were higher in the open repair surgery than the surveillance group (GBP 4978 in the repair group versus GBP 3914 in the surveillance group; mean difference (MD) GBP 1064, 95% CI 796 to 1332; 1090 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was a similar difference after 12 years. The mean USA hospital costs for participants at six months after randomisation were higher in the EVAR group than in the surveillance group (USD 33,471 with repair versus USD 5520 with surveillance; MD USD 27,951, 95% CI 25,156 to 30,746; 614 participants; low-certainty evidence). After four years, there was no evidence of a difference in total medical costs between groups (USD 48,669 with repair versus USD 46,112 with surveillance; MD USD 2557, 95% CI -8043 to 13,156; 614 participants; low-certainty evidence). All studies reported quality of life but used different assessment measurements and results were conflicting. All four studies reported aneurysm rupture. There were very few ruptures reported in the trials of EVAR versus surveillance up to three years. In the trials of open surgery versus surveillance, there were ruptures to at least six years and there were more ruptures in the surveillance group, but most of these ruptures occurred in aneurysms that had exceeded the threshold for surgical repair. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of an advantage to early repair for small AAA (4.0 cm to 5.5 cm), regardless of whether open repair or EVAR is used and, at least for open repair, regardless of patient age and AAA diameter. Thus, neither early open nor early EVAR of small AAAs is supported by currently available evidence. Long-term data from the two trials investigating EVAR are not available, so, we can only draw firm conclusions regarding outcomes after the first few years for open repair. Research regarding the risks related to and management of small AAAs in ethnic minorities and women is urgently needed, as data regarding these populations are lacking.

Biomechanical Assessment Predicts Aneurysm Related Events in Patients with Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether aneurysm biomechanical ratio (ABR; a dimensionless ratio of wall stress and wall strength) can predict aneurysm related events. METHODS: In a prospective multicentre clinical study of 295 patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA; diameter ≥ 40 mm), three dimensional reconstruction and computational biomechanical analyses were used to compute ABR at baseline. Participants were followed for at least two years and the primary end point was the composite of aneurysm rupture or repair. RESULTS: The majority were male (87%), current or former smokers (86%), most (72%) had hypertension (mean ± standard deviation [SD] systolic blood pressure 140 ± 22 mmHg), and mean ± SD baseline diameter was 49.0 ± 6.9 mm. Mean ± SD ABR was 0.49 ± 0.27. Participants were followed up for a mean ± SD of 848 ± 379 days and rupture (n = 13) or repair (n = 102) occurred in 115 (39%) cases. The number of repairs increased across tertiles of ABR: low (n = 24), medium (n = 34), and high ABR (n = 44) (p = .010). Rupture or repair occurred more frequently in those with higher ABR (log rank p = .009) and ABR was independently predictive of this outcome after adjusting for diameter and other clinical risk factors, including sex and smoking (hazard ratio 1.41; 95% confidence interval 1.09-1.83 [p = .010]). CONCLUSION: It has been shown that biomechanical ABR is a strong independent predictor of AAA rupture or repair in a model incorporating known risk factors, including diameter. Determining ABR at baseline could help guide the management of patients with AAA.

Editor's Choice - Sex Specific Differences in the Management of Descending Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess sex specific differences in 30 day mortality, length of hospital stay, and adverse neurological events following repair of intact degenerative descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs), by either thoracic endovascular (TEVAR) or open repair. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched from 2005 to 2019, using ProQuest Dialog. The reviews were registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017020026) and performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The primary outcome was 30 day mortality; secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay and adverse neurological events. Forest plots with random effects meta-analysis to provide odds ratios (OR) were used for primary assessment. RESULTS: For TEVAR, seven studies were identified, including 2758 women and 4674 men; of these studies six were eligible for the primary outcome of 30 day mortality, including 1756 women and 2619 men. There were 94/1756 deaths in women and 82/2619 deaths in men, yielding a pooled 30 day mortality of 5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3-7) in women and 3% (95% CI 2-4) in men (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.29-2.38). Length of hospital stay was longer in women, with a standardised mean difference of 0.3 days (95% CI 0.14-0.47; six studies): meta-regression analysis did not identify the slightly older age of women as significant factor in these differences. Stroke rate was not different between the sexes. For open repair only a single study, with national coverage, was identified: this study reported similar 30 day mortality in men and women. CONCLUSIONS: In the management of intact degenerative descending TAAs, 30 day mortality after TEVAR appears to be much higher in women than men with no reasons for this difference identified. However, for open repair there is a lack of contemporary evidence owing to insufficient recent data.

Screening women aged 65 years or over for abdominal aortic aneurysm: a modelling study and health economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening programmes have been established for men in the UK to reduce deaths from AAA rupture. Whether or not screening should be extended to women is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of population screening for AAAs in women and compare a range of screening options. DESIGN: A discrete event simulation (DES) model was developed to provide a clinically realistic model of screening, surveillance, and elective and emergency AAA repair operations. Input parameters specifically for women were employed. The model was run for 10 million women, with parameter uncertainty addressed by probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. SETTING: Population screening in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged ≥ 65 years, followed up to the age of 95 years. INTERVENTIONS: Invitation to ultrasound screening, followed by surveillance for small AAAs and elective surgical repair for large AAAs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of operations undertaken, AAA-related mortality, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), NHS costs and cost-effectiveness with annual discounting. DATA SOURCES: AAA surveillance data, National Vascular Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics, trials of elective and emergency AAA surgery, and the NHS Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programme (NAAASP). REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews of AAA prevalence and, for elective operations, suitability for endovascular aneurysm repair, non-intervention rates, operative mortality and literature reviews for other parameters. RESULTS: The prevalence of AAAs (aortic diameter of ≥ 3.0 cm) was estimated as 0.43% in women aged 65 years and 1.15% at age 75 years. The corresponding attendance rates following invitation to screening were estimated as 73% and 62%, respectively. The base-case model adopted the same age at screening (65 years), definition of an AAA (diameter of ≥ 3.0 cm), surveillance intervals (1 year for AAAs with diameter of 3.0-4.4 cm, 3 months for AAAs with diameter of 4.5-5.4 cm) and AAA diameter for consideration of surgery (5.5 cm) as in NAAASP for men. Per woman invited to screening, the estimated gain in QALYs was 0.00110, and the incremental cost was £33.99. This gave an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £31,000 per QALY gained. The corresponding incremental net monetary benefit at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained was -£12.03 (95% uncertainty interval -£27.88 to £22.12). Almost no sensitivity analyses brought the ICER below £20,000 per QALY gained; an exception was doubling the AAA prevalence to 0.86%, which resulted in an ICER of £13,000. Alternative screening options (increasing the screening age to 70 years, lowering the threshold for considering surgery to diameters of 5.0 cm or 4.5 cm, lowering the diameter defining an AAA in women to 2.5 cm and lengthening the surveillance intervals for the smallest AAAs) did not bring the ICER below £20,000 per QALY gained when considered either singly or in combination. LIMITATIONS: The model for women was not directly validated against empirical data. Some parameters were poorly estimated, potentially lacking relevance or unavailable for women. CONCLUSION: The accepted criteria for a population-based AAA screening programme in women are not currently met. FUTURE WORK: A large-scale study is needed of the exact aortic size distribution for women screened at relevant ages. The DES model can be adapted to evaluate screening options in men. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015020444 and CRD42016043227. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Analysis of clinical benefit, harms, and cost-effectiveness of screening women for abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: A third of deaths in the UK from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are in women. In men, national screening programmes reduce deaths from AAA and are cost-effective. The benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness in offering a similar programme to women have not been formally assessed, and this was the aim of this study. METHODS: We developed a decision model to assess predefined outcomes of death caused by AAA, life years, quality-adjusted life years, costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a population of women invited to AAA screening versus a population who were not invited to screening. A discrete event simulation model was set up for AAA screening, surveillance, and intervention. Relevant women-specific parameters were obtained from sources including systematic literature reviews, national registry or administrative databases, major AAA surgery trials, and UK National Health Service reference costs. FINDINGS: AAA screening for women, as currently offered to UK men (at age 65 years, with an AAA diagnosis at an aortic diameter of ≥3·0 cm, and elective repair considered at ≥5·5cm) gave, over 30 years, an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £30 000 (95% CI 12 000-87 000) per quality-adjusted life year gained, with 3900 invitations to screening required to prevent one AAA-related death and an overdiagnosis rate of 33%. A modified option for women (screening at age 70 years, diagnosis at 2·5 cm and repair at 5·0 cm) was estimated to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £23 000 (9500-71 000) per quality-adjusted life year and 1800 invitations to screening required to prevent one AAA-death, but an overdiagnosis rate of 55%. There was considerable uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness ratio, largely driven by uncertainty about AAA prevalence, the distribution of aortic sizes for women at different ages, and the effect of screening on quality of life. INTERPRETATION: By UK standards, an AAA screening programme for women, designed to be similar to that used to screen men, is unlikely to be cost-effective. Further research on the aortic diameter distribution in women and potential quality of life decrements associated with screening are needed to assess the full benefits and harms of modified options. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

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.

Assessment of unilateral neglect in stroke: Simplification and structuring of test items.

STATEMENT OF CONTEXT: Unilateral neglect is a complex impairment that is common after stroke and limits occupational performance. Sensitive assessment of unilateral neglect is critical for planning treatment and ensuring safe community discharge. CRITICAL REFLECTION ON PRACTICE: This reflection describes unexpected findings in the assessment of neglect with two individuals in the acute phase of recovery post stroke. When trialing a new activity based test battery, we observed few neglect behaviors during test tasks despite observation of multiple neglect behaviors outside of the testing situation. Upon reflection, we better understood how simplification and structuring of test items and environments could impact the observation and assessment of neglect behaviors. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This practice analysis further supports the use of multiple assessments when evaluating unilateral neglect and specifically encourages the inclusion of assessment methods that maintain the complexity of everyday tasks and environments.

An evaluation of the effect of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor on the growth rate of small abdominal aortic aneurysms: a randomised placebo-controlled trial (AARDVARK).

BACKGROUND: Although data are inconsistent, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) have been associated with a reduced incidence of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture in analysis of administrative databases. OBJECTIVES: (1) To investigate whether or not the ACE-I perindopril (Coversyl arginine, Servier) reduces small AAA growth rate and (2) to evaluate blood pressure (BP)-independent effects of perindopril on small AAA growth and to compare the repeatability of measurement of internal and external aneurysm diameters. DESIGN: A three-arm, multicentre, single-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Fourteen hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: Men or women aged ≥ 55 years with an AAA of 3.0-5.4 cm in diameter by internal or external measurement according to ultrasonography and who met the trial eligibility criteria. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to receive 10 mg of perindopril arginine daily, 5 mg of the calcium channel blocker amlodipine daily or placebo daily. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was AAA diameter growth using external measurements in the longitudinal plane, which in-trial studies suggested was the preferred measure. Secondary outcome measures included AAA rupture, AAA repair, modelling of the time taken for the AAA to reach the threshold for intervention (5.5 cm) or referral for surgery, tolerance of study medication (measured by compliance, adverse events and quality of life) and a comparison of the repeatability of measures of internal and external AAA diameter. Patients were followed up every 3-6 months over 2 years. RESULTS: In total, 227 patients were recruited and randomised into the three groups, which were generally well matched at baseline. Multilevel modelling was used to determine the maximum likelihood estimates for AAA diameter growth. No significant differences in the estimates of annual growth were apparent [1.68 (standard error 0.02) mm, 1.77 (0.02) mm and 1.81 (0.02) mm in the placebo, perindopril and amlodipine groups, respectively]. Similarly, no significant differences in the slopes of modelled growth over time were apparent between perindopril and placebo (p = 0.78) or between perindopril and amlodipine (p = 0.89). The results were essentially unaffected by adjustment for potential confounders. Compliance, measured by pill counts, was good throughout (> 80% at all visit time points). There were no significant in-trial safety concerns. Six patients withdrew because of adverse events attributed to the study medications (n = 2 perindopril, n = 4 amlodipine). No patients ruptured their AAA and 27 underwent elective surgery during the trial (n = 9 placebo, n = 10 perindopril, n = 8 amlodipine). CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to demonstrate a significant impact of perindopril compared with placebo or amlodipine on small AAA growth over a 2-year period. Furthermore, there were no differences in the times to reach a diameter of 5.5 cm or undergo surgery among the three groups. Perindopril and amlodipine were well tolerated by this population. External AAA measurements were found to be more repeatable than internal measurements. The observed AAA growth measurement variability was greater than that expected pre trial. This, combined with slower than expected mean growth rates, resulted in our having limited power to detect small differences between growth rates and hence this adds uncertainty to the interpretation of the results. Several further analyses are planned including a multivariate analysis of determinants of AAA growth, an evaluation of the possible differential effect of perindopril on fast AAA growth and an investigation into the roles of central BP and BP variability on AAA growth. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51383267. 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. 20, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The NIHR Biomedical Research Centre based at Imperial College NHS Trust supported the trial. Servier provided perindopril at no charge.

Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an abnormal ballooning of the major abdominal artery. Some AAAs present as emergencies and require surgery; others remain asymptomatic. Treatment of asymptomatic AAAs depends on many factors, but an important one is the size of the aneurysm, as risk of rupture increases with aneurysm size. Large asymptomatic AAAs (greater than 5.5 cm in diameter) are usually repaired surgically; very small AAAs (less than 4.0 cm diameter) are monitored with ultrasonography. Debate continues over the appropriate roles of immediate repair and surveillance with repair on subsequent enlargement in people presenting with asymptomatic AAAs of 4.0 cm to 5.5 cm diameter. This is the third update of the review first published in 1999. OBJECTIVES: To compare mortality, quality of life, and cost effectiveness of immediate surgical repair versus routine ultrasound surveillance in people with asymptomatic AAAs between 4.0 cm and 5.5 cm in diameter. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (February 2014) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 1). We checked reference lists of relevant articles for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in which men and women with asymptomatic AAAs of diameter 4.0 cm to 5.5 cm were randomly allocated to immediate repair or imaging-based surveillance at least every six months. Outcomes had to include mortality or survival. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three members of the review team independently extracted the data, which were cross-checked by other team members. Risk ratios (RR) (endovascular aneurysm repair only), hazard ratios (HR) (open repair only), and 95% confidence intervals based on Mantel-Haenszel Chi(2) statistic were estimated at one and six years (open repair only) following randomisation. We included all relevant published studies in this review. MAIN RESULTS: For this update, four trials with a combined total of 3314 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two trials compared surveillance with immediate open repair; two trials compared surveillance with immediate endovascular repair. Overall, the risk of bias within the included studies was low and the quality of the evidence high. The four trials showed an early survival benefit in the surveillance group (due to 30-day operative mortality with surgery) but no significant differences in long-term survival (adjusted HR 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.02, mean follow-up 10 years; HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.54, mean follow-up 4.9 years; HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.93, median follow-up 32.4 months; HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.07, mean follow-up 20 months). A pooled analysis of participant-level data from two trials (with a maximum follow-up of seven to eight years) showed no statistically significant difference in survival between immediate open repair and surveillance (propensity score-adjusted HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.18), and that this lack of treatment effect did not vary by AAA diameter (P = 0.39) or participant age (P = 0.61). The meta-analysis of mortality at one year for the endovascular trials likewise showed no significant association (RR at one year 1.15, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.17). Quality-of-life results among trials were conflicting. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results from the four trials to date demonstrate no advantage to immediate repair for small AAA (4.0 cm to 5.5 cm), regardless of whether open or endovascular repair is used and, at least for open repair, regardless of patient age and AAA diameter. Thus, neither immediate open nor immediate endovascular repair of small AAAs is supported by currently available evidence.

Aortic disease: thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

Following the first reported case of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in 1987, there has been rapid technological development and widespread uptake of this approach for thoracic aortic disease. TEVAR has particular advantages for acute thoracic syndromes and there is continuing development of TEVAR for use in the elective situation. This is still a young technology and many unknowns remain, including long-term outcomes and the relative advantages and disadvantages versus both conservative treatment and open surgical repair. The current uses of TEVAR in the treatment of aortic dissection, thoracic aortic aneurysm, penetrating aortic ulcer and trauma are discussed.

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.

Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an abnormal ballooning of the major abdominal artery. Some AAAs present as emergencies and require surgery; others remain asymptomatic. Treatment of asymptomatic AAAs depends on many factors but an important one is size of the aneurysm, as risk of rupture increases with aneurysm size. Large asymptomatic AAAs (> 5.5 cm in diameter) are usually operated on; very small AAAs (< 4.0 cm diameter) are monitored with ultrasonography. The optimal timing of surgery would benefit from further evidence. OBJECTIVES: This review compared long-term survival in patients with AAAs of diameter 4.0 to 5.5 cm who received immediate repair versus routine ultrasound surveillance. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched their Specialised Register (February 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 1). Reference lists of relevant articles were checked for additional studies and the searches were supplemented by handsearches of recent conference proceedings and information from experts in the field.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in which men and women with asymptomatic AAAs of diameter 4.0 to 5.5 cm were randomly allocated to immediate repair or imaging-based surveillance at least every six months. Outcomes had to include mortality or survival. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors (GF, MAMM) abstracted the data, which were cross-checked by the other authors (DJB, JTP). Due to the small number of trials, formal tests of heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses were not conducted. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials with a combined total of 3314 patients, the UK Small Aneurysm Trial (UKSAT), the Aneurysm Detection and Management (ADAM) trial, the Comparison of Surveillance Versus Aortic Endografting for Small Aneurysm Repair (CAESAR), and the Positive Impact of Endovascular Options for treating Aneurysms Early (PIVOTAL) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The four trials showed an early survival benefit in the surveillance group (due to 30-day operative mortality with surgery) but no significant differences in long-term survival (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.02, mean follow up 10 years (UKSAT); HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.54, mean follow up 4.9 years (ADAM); HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.93, median follow up 32.4 months (CAESAR); HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.07, mean follow up 20 months (PIVOTAL)). The meta analyses of mortality at one year (CAESAR and PIVOTAL only) and six years (UKSAT and ADAM only) revealed a non-significant association (Peto odds ratio at one year 1.15, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.25; Peto odds ratio at six years 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.34).   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results from the four trials to date demonstrate no advantage to early repair (via open or endovascular surgery) for small AAA (4.0 to 5.5 cm) and suggest that 'best care' for these patients favours surveillance. Furthermore, the more recent trials focused on the efficacy of endovascular aneurysm repair and still failed to show benefit. Thus, both open and endovascular repair of small AAAs are not supported by currently available evidence.

Clinical practice change requires more than comparative effectiveness evidence: abdominal aortic aneurysm management in the USA.

Adoption of healthcare innovations frequently outpaces the evidence of effectiveness. Endovascular repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms in the USA demonstrates how comparative effectiveness research without evidence-based reimbursement changes may fail to influence clinical practice. Randomized controlled trials for small abdominal aortic aneurysms demonstrate no lasting benefits of EVAR or open surgical repair (OSR) compared with surveillance, and for large abdominal aortic aneurysms demonstrate no lasting survival benefit of EVAR over OSR, and do show poorer durability and higher costs for EVAR. Nonetheless, >50% of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs in the USA use EVAR. Factors that may be driving the high use of EVAR include patient preference, surgeons' desire to appear 'up-to-date' in the procedures they offer, higher hourly surgeon reimbursement for EVAR than OSR, and the expansion of physician specialties able to perform abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from only vascular surgeons with OSR, to vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists/cardiologists with EVAR. By comparison, in Canada, where government health insurance restricts EVAR coverage to high surgical risk patients, only approximately 25% of abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs are performed using EVAR. Country-specific cost studies and a prospective population-based study collecting detailed clinical data to identify patient subgroups that truly benefit from a particular management strategy are needed to inform policy regarding EVAR availability and reimbursement.

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.)

Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Effective rehabilitative therapies are needed for patients with long-term deficits after stroke. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving 127 patients with moderate-to-severe upper-limb impairment 6 months or more after a stroke, we randomly assigned 49 patients to receive intensive robot-assisted therapy, 50 to receive intensive comparison therapy, and 28 to receive usual care. Therapy consisted of 36 1-hour sessions over a period of 12 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in motor function, as measured on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Sensorimotor Recovery after Stroke, at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were scores on the Wolf Motor Function Test and the Stroke Impact Scale. Secondary analyses assessed the treatment effect at 36 weeks. RESULTS: At 12 weeks, the mean Fugl-Meyer score for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy was better than that for patients receiving usual care (difference, 2.17 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.23 to 4.58) and worse than that for patients receiving intensive comparison therapy (difference, -0.14 points; 95% CI, -2.94 to 2.65), but the differences were not significant. The results on the Stroke Impact Scale were significantly better for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy than for those receiving usual care (difference, 7.64 points; 95% CI, 2.03 to 13.24). No other treatment comparisons were significant at 12 weeks. Secondary analyses showed that at 36 weeks, robot-assisted therapy significantly improved the Fugl-Meyer score (difference, 2.88 points; 95% CI, 0.57 to 5.18) and the time on the Wolf Motor Function Test (difference, -8.10 seconds; 95% CI, -13.61 to -2.60) as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with long-term upper-limb deficits after stroke, robot-assisted therapy did not significantly improve motor function at 12 weeks, as compared with usual care or intensive therapy. In secondary analyses, robot-assisted therapy improved outcomes over 36 weeks as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00372411.)

Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an abnormal ballooning of the major abdominal artery. Some AAAs present as emergencies and require surgery; others remain asymptomatic. Treatment of asymptomatic AAAs depends on many factors, including size: risk of rupture increases with aneurysm size. Large asymptomatic AAAs (> 5.5 cm in diameter) are usually operated on; very small AAAs (< 4.0 cm diameter) are monitored with ultrasonography. The optimal timing of surgery would benefit from further evidence. OBJECTIVES: This review compared long-term survival in patients with AAAs of diameter 4.0 to 5.5 cm who received immediate surgical repair versus routine ultrasound surveillance. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified through searching the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Specialised Register and reference lists of relevant articles, supplemented by handsearches of recent conference proceedings and information from experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in which men and women with asymptomatic AAAs of diameter 4.0 to 5.5 cm were randomly allocated to immediate surgery or imaging-based surveillance at least every 12 months. Outcomes had to include mortality or survival. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One author (GF) abstracted the data which were cross-checked by the other authors (DJB, FGRF, JTP). Due to the small number of trials, formal tests of heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses were not conducted. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials, the UK Small Aneurysm Trial (UKSAT) and the Aneurysm Detection and Management (ADAM) trial, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Both showed an early survival benefit in the surveillance group (due to 30-day operative mortality with surgery) but no significant differences in long-term survival (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.02, mean follow up 10 years) (UKSAT); HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.54, mean follow up 4.9 years) (ADAM). The meta-analysis of mortality at six years revealed a non-significant association (Peto odds ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.34). Neither trial independently had sufficient power for subgroup analyses (for example, by age or aneurysm size). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results from the two trials to date suggest no overall advantage to early surgery for small AAA (4.0 to 5.5 cm) but provide no additional guidelines for 'best-care' management of subgroups of patients. An individual patient-level data meta-analysis using the combined data from these studies will have sufficient power to conduct subgroup analyses, which are expected to elucidate risks and benefits of each treatment option for subgroups based on age, fitness and aneurysm size.

Accuracy of mild traumatic brain injury diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how often emergency department (ED) patients meeting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) criteria were diagnosed with a mild TBI by the ED physician. DESIGN: Prospective identification of cases of mild TBI in the ED by study personnel using scripted interviews and medical record data was compared with retrospective review of ED medical record documentation of mild TBI. SETTING: EDs of a level I trauma center and an academic nontrauma hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort of subjects (N=197; mean age, 32.6 y; 70% men) with arrival at the ED within 48 hours of injury, Glasgow Coma Scale score of 13 to 15, and injury circumstances, alteration of consciousness, and memory dysfunction consistent with the CDC mild TBI definition. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: ED medical record documentation of mild TBI. RESULTS: Fifty-six percent of mild TBI cases identified by study personnel did not have a documented mild TBI-related diagnosis in the ED record. The greatest agreement between study personnel and ED physicians for positive mild TBI-related findings was for loss of consciousness (72% vs 65%) with the greatest discrepancy for confusion (94% vs 28%). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of mild TBI was frequently absent from ED medical records despite patients reporting findings consistent with a mild TBI diagnosis when interviewed by study personnel. Asking a few targeted questions of ED patients with likely mechanisms of injury that could result in mild TBI could begin to improve diagnosis and, in turn, begin to improve patient management and the accuracy of estimates of mild TBI incidence.