Effects of hospital preference for endovascular repair on postoperative mortality after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: analysis of the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit.

BACKGROUND: Increased use of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and reduced open surgical repair (OSR), has decreased postoperative mortality after elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). The choice between EVAR or OSR depends on aneurysm anatomy, and the experience and preference of the vascular surgeon, and therefore differs between hospitals. The aim of this study was to investigate the current mortality risk difference (RD) between EVAR and OSR, and the effect of hospital preference for EVAR on overall mortality. METHODS: Primary elective infrarenal or juxtarenal aneurysm repairs registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (2013-2017) were analysed. First, mortality in hospitals with a higher preference for EVAR (high-EVAR group) was compared with that in hospitals with a lower EVAR preference (low-EVAR group), divided by the median percentage of EVAR. Second, the mortality RD between EVAR and OSR was determined by unadjusted and adjusted linear regression and propensity-score (PS) analysis and then by instrumental-variable (IV) analysis, adjusting for unobserved confounders; percentage EVAR by hospital was used as the IV. RESULTS: A total of 11 997 patients were included. The median hospital rate of EVAR was 76.6 per cent. The overall mortality RD between high- and low-EVAR hospitals was 0.1 (95 per cent -0.5 to 0.4) per cent. The OSR mortality rate was significantly higher among high-EVAR hospitals than low-EVAR hospitals: 7.3 versus 4.0 per cent (RD 3.3 (1.4 to 5.3) per cent). The EVAR mortality rate was also higher in high-EVAR hospitals: 0.9 versus 0.7 per cent (RD 0.2 (-0.0 to 0.6) per cent). The RD following unadjusted, adjusted, and PS analysis was 4.2 (3.7 to 4.8), 4.4 (3.8 to 5.0), and 4.7 (4.1 to 5.3) per cent in favour of EVAR over OSR. However, the RD after IV analysis was not significant: 1.3 (-0.9 to 3.6) per cent. CONCLUSION: Even though EVAR has a lower mortality rate than OSR, the overall effect is offset by the high mortality rate after OSR in hospitals with a strong focus on EVAR.

Data verification of nationwide clinical quality registries.

Background: Clinical auditing is an emerging instrument for quality assessment and improvement. Moreover, clinical registries facilitate medical research as they provide 'real world' data. It is important that entered data are robust and reliable. The aim of this study was to describe the evolving procedure and results of data verification within the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (DICA). Methods: Data verification performed on several (disease-specific) clinical registries between 2013 and 2015 was evaluated. Sign-up, sample size and process of verification were described. For each procedure, hospitals were visited by external data managers to verify registered data. Outcomes of data verification were completeness and accuracy. An assessment of the quality of data was given per registry, for each participating hospital. Using descriptive statistics, analyses were performed for different sections within the individual registries. Results: Seven of the 21 registries were verified, involving 174 visits to hospital departments. A step-by-step description of the data verification process was provided. Completeness of data in the registries varied from 97·2 to 99·4 per cent. Accuracy of data ranged from 88·2 to 100 per cent. Most discrepancies were observed for postoperative complications (0·7-7·5 per cent) and ASA classification (8·5-11·4 per cent). Data quality was assessed as 'sufficient' for 145 of the 174 hospital departments (83·3 per cent). Conclusion: Data verification revealed that the data entered in the observed DICA registries were complete and accurate.

Antecedentes: La auditoría clínica es un instrumento emergente para la evaluación y mejora de la calidad. Además, los registros clínicos facilitan la investigación médica ya que proporcionan datos de la "vida real". Es importante que los datos introducidos sean completos y fiables. El objetivo de este estudio fue describir la evolución y los resultados del procedimiento de verificación de datos en el seno del Instituto Holandés de Auditorias Clínicas (Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, DICA). Métodos: Se evaluó la verificación de datos realizada en varios registros clínicos (específicos de enfermedad) entre 2013­2015. Se describió el sistema de registro, tamaño de la muestra y el proceso de verificación. Para cada procedimiento, los hospitales fueron visitados por administradores de datos externos para verificar los datos registrados. Los resultados de la verificación de datos fueron la integridad y la exactitud. Se proporcionó una evaluación de la calidad de los datos para cada registro en cada uno de los hospitales que participaron. Mediante la utilización de estadística descriptiva, se realizaron análisis de diferentes secciones para cada uno de los registros. Resultados: Siete de los 21 registros fueron verificados, lo que implicó un total 174 visitas a los departamentos de los hospitales. Se proporcionó una descripción paso a paso del proceso de verificación de los datos. La integridad de los datos en los registros varió entre 97,3­99,4%. La exactitud de los datos varió entre 86,6­97,0%. La mayoría de las discrepancias se observaron en las complicaciones postoperatorias (0,7­7,5%) y clasificación ASA (7,5­11%). La calidad de los datos se consideró "suficiente" en 145 de 174 (83%) departamentos hospitalarios. Conclusión: La verificación de los datos reveló que la introducción de datos en los registros DICA analizados era bastante completa y exacta.

[When is carotid endarterectomy actually indicated for stenosis?] / Wie moet er eigenlijk nog aan vernauwing in de A. carotis geopereerd worden?

Criteria for carotid endarterectomy are based on the results of clinical trials that were conducted more than two decades ago. In the meantime medical treatment has improved, and surgery can be performed more safely. As such, it is currently unknown which patients should be recommended to undergo carotid surgery. The aim of the currently running European Carotid Surgery Trial 2 is to find better answers to this dilemma.