Objective: The Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA) initiative was established in 2013 to monitor and improve nationwide outcomes of aortic aneurysm surgery. The objective of this study was to... Show moreObjective: The Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA) initiative was established in 2013 to monitor and improve nationwide outcomes of aortic aneurysm surgery. The objective of this study was to examine whether outcomes of surgery for intact abdominal aortic aneurysms (iAAA) have improved over time.Methods: Patients who underwent primary repair of an iAAA by standard endovascular (EVAR) or open surgical repair (OSR) between 2014 and 2019 were selected from the DSAA for inclusion. The primary outcome was peri-operative mortality trend per year, stratified by OSR and EVAR. Secondary outcomes were trends per year in major complications, textbook outcome (TbO), and characteristics of treated patients. The trends per year were evaluated and reported in odds ratios per year.Results: In this study, 11 624 patients (74.8%) underwent EVAR and 3 908 patients (25.2%) underwent OSR. For EVAR, after adjustment for confounding factors, there was no improvement in peri-operative mortality (aOR [adjusted odds ratio] 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 - 1.20), while major complications decreased (2014: 10.1%, 2019: 7.0%; aOR 0.91, 95% CI 0.88 - 0.95) and the TbO rate increased (2014: 68.1%, 2019: 80.9%; aOR 1.13, 95% CI 1.10 - 1.16). For OSR, the peri-operative mortality decreased (2014: 6.1%, 2019: 4.6%; aOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 - 0.98), as well as major complications (2014: 28.6%, 2019: 23.3%; aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 - 0.99). Furthermore, the proportion of TbO increased (2014: 49.1%, 2019: 58.3%; aOR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 - 1.10). In both the EVAR and OSR group, the proportion of patients with cardiac comorbidity increased.Conclusion: Since the establishment of this nationwide quality improvement initiative (DSAA), all outcomes of iAAA repair following EVAR and OSR have improved, except for peri-operative mortality following EVAR which remained unchanged. Show less
Background: Colonic ischemia remains a severe complication after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair and is associated with a high mortality. With open repair being one of the main risk factors... Show moreBackground: Colonic ischemia remains a severe complication after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair and is associated with a high mortality. With open repair being one of the main risk factors of colonic ischemia, deciding between endovascular or open aneurysm repair should be based on tailor-made medicine. This study aims to identify high-risk patients of colonic ischemia, a risk that can be taken into account while deciding on AAA treatment strategy.Methods: A nationwide population-based cohort study of 9,433 patients who underwent an AAA operation between 2014 and 2016 was conducted. Potential risk factors were determined by reviewing prior studies and univariate analysis. With logistic regression analysis, independent predictors of intestinal ischemia were established. These variables were used to form a prediction model.Results: Intestinal ischemia occurred in 267 patients (2.8%). Occurrence of intestinal ischemia was seen significantly more in open repair versus endovascular aneurysm repair (7.6% vs. 0.9%; P < 0.001). This difference remained significant after stratification by urgency of the procedure, in both intact open (4.2% vs. 0.4%; P < 0.001) and ruptured open repair (15.0% vs. 6.2%); P < 0.001). Rupture of the AAA was the most important predictor of developing intestinal ischemia (odds ratio [OR], 5.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.4-8.0), followed by having a suprarenal AAA (OR 3.4; CI 1.1-10.6). Associated procedural factors were open repair (OR 2.8; 95% CI 1.9-4.2), blood loss >1L (OR 3.6; 95% CI 1.7-7.5), and prolonged operating time (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.4-2.8). Patient characteristics included having peripheral arterial disease (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.3-4.4), female gender (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.2-2.4), renal insufficiency (OR 1.7; 1.3-2.2), and pulmonary history (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.2-2.2). Age <68 years proved to be a protective factor (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.4-0.8). Associated mortality was higher in patients with intestinal ischemia versus patients without (50.6% vs. 5.1%, P < 0.001). Each predictor was given a score between 1 and 4. Patients with a score of >= 10 proved to be at high risk. A prediction model with an excellent AUC = 0.873 (95% CI 0.855-0.892) could be formed.Conclusions: One of the main risk factors is open repair. Several other risk factors can contribute to developing colonic ischemia after AAA repair. The proposed prediction model can be used to identify patients at high risk for developing colonic ischemia. With the current trend in AAA repair leaning toward open repair for better long-term results, our prediction model allows a better informed decision can be made in AAA treatment strategy. Show less
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 ... Show moreBackground: 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. Show less
Background: While several observational studies suggested a lower postoperative mortality after minimal invasive endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic... Show moreBackground: While several observational studies suggested a lower postoperative mortality after minimal invasive endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA) compared to conventional open surgical repair (OSR), landmark randomized controlled trials have not been able to prove the superiority of EVAR over OSR. Randomized controlled trials contain a selected, homogeneous population, influencing external validity. Observational studies are biased and adjustment of confounders can be incomplete. Instrumental variable (IV) analysis (pseudorandomization) may help to answer the question if patients with an RAAA have lower postoperative mortality when undergoing EVAR compared to OSR.Methods: This is an observational study including all patients with an RAAA, registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit between 2013 and 2017. The risk difference (RD) in postoperative mortality (30 days/in-hospital) between patients undergoing EVAR and OSR was estimated, in which adjustment for confounding was performed in 3 ways: linear model adjusted for observed confounders, propensity score model (multivariable logistic regression analysis), and IV analysis (two-stage least square regression), adjusting for observed and unobserved confounders, with the variation in percentage of EVAR per hospital as the IV instrument.Results: 2419 patients with an RAAA (1489 OSR and 930 EVAR) were included. Unadjusted postoperative mortality was 34.9% after OSR and 22.6% after EVAR (RD 12.3%, 95% CI 8.5-16%). The RD adjusted for observed confounders using linear regression analysis and propensity score analysis was, respectively, 12.3% (95% CI 9.6-16.7%) and 13.2% (95%CI 9.3-17.1%) in favor of EVAR. Using IV analysis, adjusting for observed and unobserved confounders, RD was 8.9% (95% CI -1.1-18.9%) in favor of EVAR.Conclusions: Adjusting for observed confounders, patients with an RAAA undergoing EVAR had a significant better survival than OSR in a consecutive large cohort. Adjustment for unobserved confounders resulted in a clinical relevant RD. An "EVAR preference strategy'' in patients with an RAAA could result in lower postoperative mortality. Show less
Background: Long-term secondary aortic reinterventions (SARs) can be a sign of (lack of) effectiveness of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery. This study provides insight into the national... Show moreBackground: Long-term secondary aortic reinterventions (SARs) can be a sign of (lack of) effectiveness of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery. This study provides insight into the national number of SARs after primary AAA repair by endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) or by open surgical repair in the Netherlands.Methods: Observational study included all patients undergoing SAR between 2016 and 2017, registered in the compulsory Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA). The DSAA started in 2013, SARs are registered from 2016. Characteristics of SAR and postoperative outcomes (mortality/complications) were analyzed, stratified by urgency of SAR. Data of SARs were merged with data of their preceded primary AAA repair, registered in the DSAA after January 2013. In these patients undergoing SAR, treatment characteristics of the preceded primary AAA repair were additionally described, with focus on differences between stent grafts.Results: Between 2016 and 2017, 691 patients underwent SAR, this concerned 9.3% of all AAA procedures (infrarenal/juxtarenal/suprarenal) in the Netherlands (77% elective/11% acute symptomatic/12% ruptured). Endoleak (60%) was the most frequent indication for SAR. SARs were performed with EVAR in 66%. Postoperative mortalities after SAR were 3.4%, 11%, and 29% in elective, acute symptomatic, and ruptured patients, respectively. In 26% (n = 181) of the patients undergoing SAR their primary AAA repair was performed after January 2013 and data of primary and SAR procedures could be merged. In 93% (n = 136), primary AAA repair was EVAR. Endografts primarily used were nitinol/polyester (62%), nitinol/polytetrafluoroethylene (8%), endovascular sealing (21%), and others (9%), compared with their national market share of 76% (odds ratio [OR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.71), 15% (OR, 0.50; CI, 0.29-0.89), 4.9% (OR, 5.04; CI, 3.44-7.38), and 4.1% (OR, 2.81; CI, 1.66-4.74), respectively.Conclusions: In the Netherlands, about one-tenth of the annual AAA procedures concerns an SAR. A quarter of this cohort had an SAR within 1-5 years after their primary AAA repair. Most SARs followed after primary EVAR procedures, in which an overrepresentation of endovascular sealing grafts was seen. Postoperative mortality after SAR is comparable with primary AAA repair. Show less
