RESUMO
BACKGROUND: UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) draft clinical guidelines (CG) (2018) regarding aortic aneurysm repair were disputed internationally. We aim to appraise the academic response to the draft CG in terms of quantity and scientific quality by reviewing published conference abstracts from three major national and international, UK meetings. METHODS: Abstracts related to aortic practice from The Vascular Societies Annual Scientific Meeting, British Society for Endovascular Therapy (BSET) & Charing Cross (CX) meetings from 2019 were reviewed for methodology, sample size, data collection period, scientific quality and conclusions that supported or conflicted the draft guideline. RESULTS: A total of 549 abstracts were identified from VSGBI, BSET and CX abstract books of which, 226 (41.2%) were related to aortic practices. Of these, 115 (50.9%) were related to EVAR. Twenty-two of these abstracts (19.1%) were identified as having findings relevant to the draft guidelines. Eighteen (15.7%) were identified as findings that potentially conflict the draft CG and 4 (3.5%) that could support the initial recommendations. Six abstracts (5.2%) made direct reference to or challenged the draft CG. The median data collection period was 4 years. The median sample size was 102 patients. In general, scientific quality was poor, with 82% of selected abstracts were graded at level 2b. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated a concerted response to the draft NICE clinical guidelines relating to the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms at three large scientific meetings. As a result of which and other factors, significant changes were made to the finalized NG156. There is still paucity in evidence regarding the long-term safety and cost-effectiveness of EVAR.
