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
Karthaus, E.G.; Vahl, A.; Werf, L.R. van der; Elsman, B.H.P.; Herwaarden, J.A. van; Wouters, M.W.J.M.; Hamming, J.F. 2020
Objective: To evaluate reasons to deviate from aneurysm diameter thresholds, and focus on the difference in how Dutch vascular surgical units (VSUs) perceive their deviation and their actual... Show moreObjective: To evaluate reasons to deviate from aneurysm diameter thresholds, and focus on the difference in how Dutch vascular surgical units (VSUs) perceive their deviation and their actual deviation. Background: Guidelines recommend surgical treatment for asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with a diameter of at least 55 mm for men and 50 mm for women. We evaluate reasons to deviate from these guidelines, and focus on the difference in how Dutch vascular surgical units (VSUs) perceive their deviation and their actual deviation. Methods: All patients undergoing elective AAA repair between 2013 and 2016 registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA) were included. Surgery at diameters of <55 mm for men and <50 mm for women were considered guideline deviations. National deviation and hospital variation in deviation were evaluated over time. Questionnaires were distributed among all Dutch VSUs, inquiring for acceptable reasons for guideline deviation. VSUs were asked to estimate the guideline deviation percentage in their hospital which was then compared with their DSAA percentage. Results: In all, 9039 patients were included. In 15%, we found guideline deviation, varying from 2% to 40% between VSUs. Over time, 21 VSUs were identified with a lower percentage of deviation than the national mean each year and 8 VSUs with a higher percentage. 44/60 VSUs completed the questionnaire. Most commonly reported reasons to deviate were concomitant large iliac diameter (91%) and saccular aneurysm (82%). The majority of the VSUs (77%) estimated their guideline deviation to be <5%. Eleven VSUs (25%) estimated their deviation concordant with their DSAA percentage, but 75% of VSUs underestimated their deviation. Conclusions: Dutch VSUs regularly deviate from the guidelines regarding aneurysm diameter, with variation between VSUs. Consensus exists amongst VSUs on acceptable reasons for guideline deviations; however, the majority underestimates their actual deviation percentage. Show less
Objective/background: The Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA) is mandatory for all patients with primary abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in the Netherlands. The aims are to present the observed... Show moreObjective/background: The Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA) is mandatory for all patients with primary abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in the Netherlands. The aims are to present the observed outcomes of AAA surgery against the predicted outcomes by means of V-POSSUM (Vascular-Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and Morbidity). Adjusted mortality was calculated by the original and re-estimated V(physiology)-POSSUM for hospital comparisons. Methods: All patients operated on from January 2013 to December 2014 were included for analysis. Calibration and discrimination of V-POSSUM and V(p)-POSSUM was analysed. Mortality was benchmarked by means of the original V(p)-POSSUM formula and risk-adjusted by the re-estimated V(p)-POSSUM on the DSAA. Results: In total, 5898 patients were included for analysis: 4579 with elective AAA (EAAA) and 1319 with acute abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAAA), acute symptomatic (SAAA; n = 371) or ruptured (RAAA; n = 948). The percentage of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) varied between hospitals but showed no relation to hospital volume (EAAA: p = .12; AAAA: p = .07). EAAA, SAAA, and RAAA mortality was, respectively, 1.9%, 7.5%, and 28.7%. Elective mortality was 0.9% after EVAR and 5.0% after open surgical repair versus 15.6% and 27.4%, respectively, after AAAA. V-POSSUM overestimated mortality in most EAAA risk groups (p < .01). The discriminative ability of V-POSSUM in EAAA was moderate (C-statistic: .719) and poor for V(p)-POSSUM (C-statistic: .665). V-POSSUM in AAAA repair overestimated in high risk groups, and underestimated in low risk groups (p < .01). The discriminative ability in AAAA of V-POSSUM was moderate (.713) and of V(p)-POSSUM poor (.688). Risk adjustment by the re-estimated V(p)-POSSUM did not have any effect on hospital variation in EAAA but did in AAAA. Conclusion: Mortality in the DSAA was in line with the literature but is not discriminative for hospital comparisons in EAAA. Adjusting for V(p)-POSSUM, revealed no association between hospital volume and treatment or outcome. Risk adjustment for case mix by V(p)-POSSUM in patients with AAAA has been shown to be important. Show less
