Learning curve analysis of complex endovascular aortic repair

Warmerdam, B.W.C.M.; Stevens, M.; Rijswijk, C.S.P. van; Eefting, D.; Meer, R.W. van der; Putter, H.; Hamming, J.F.; Vorst, J.R. van der; Schaik, J. van

doi:doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2023.01.044

Background: When introducing new techniques, attention must be paid to learning curve. Be-sides quantitative outcomes, qualitative factors of influence should be taken into consideration. This retrospective cohort study describes the quantitative learning curve of complex endovascu-lar aortic repair (EVAR) in a nonhigh-volume academic center and provides qualitative factors that were perceived as contributors to this learning curve. With these factors, we aim to aid in future implementation of new techniques. Methods: All patients undergoing complex EVAR in the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC) between July 2013 and April 2021 were included (n = 90). Quantitative outcomes were as follows: operating time, blood loss, volume of contrast, hospital stay, major adverse events (MAE), 30-day mortality, and complexity. Patients were divided into 3 temporal groups (n = 30) for dichotomous outcomes. Regression plots were used for continuous outcomes. In 2017, the treatment team was...Show moreBackground: When introducing new techniques, attention must be paid to learning curve. Be-sides quantitative outcomes, qualitative factors of influence should be taken into consideration. This retrospective cohort study describes the quantitative learning curve of complex endovascu-lar aortic repair (EVAR) in a nonhigh-volume academic center and provides qualitative factors that were perceived as contributors to this learning curve. With these factors, we aim to aid in future implementation of new techniques. Methods: All patients undergoing complex EVAR in the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC) between July 2013 and April 2021 were included (n = 90). Quantitative outcomes were as follows: operating time, blood loss, volume of contrast, hospital stay, major adverse events (MAE), 30-day mortality, and complexity. Patients were divided into 3 temporal groups (n = 30) for dichotomous outcomes. Regression plots were used for continuous outcomes. In 2017, the treatment team was interviewed by an external researcher. These interviews were reanalyzed for factors that contributed to successful implementation. Results: Length of hospital stay (P = 0.008) and operating time (P = 0.010) decreased signif-icantly over time. Fewer cardiac complications occurred in the third group (3: 0% vs. 2: 17% vs. 1: 17%, P = 0.042). There was a trend of increasing complexity (P = 0.076) and number of fen-estrations (P = 0.060). No significant changes occurred in MAE and 30-day mortality. Qualitative factors that, according to the interviewees, positively influenced the learning curve were as fol-lows: communication, mutual trust, a shared sense of responsibility and collective goals, clear authoritative structures, mutual learning, and team capabilities. Conclusions: In addition to factors previously identified in the literature, new learning curve factors were found (mutual learning and shared goals in the operating room (OR)) that should be taken into account when implementing new techniques.Show less

Leiden University Scholarly Publications

View statistics

Documents

In Collections

Learning curve analysis of complex endovascular aortic repair