Objective: The aim of this was to analyze differences between saccularshaped abdominal aortic aneurysms (SaAAAs) and fusiform abdominal aortic aneurysms (FuAAAs) regarding patient characteristics,... Show moreObjective: The aim of this was to analyze differences between saccularshaped abdominal aortic aneurysms (SaAAAs) and fusiform abdominal aortic aneurysms (FuAAAs) regarding patient characteristics, treatment, and outcome, to advise a threshold for intervention for SaAAAs.Background: Based on the assumption that SaAAAs are more prone to rupture, guidelines suggest early elective treatment. However, little is known about the natural history of SaAAAs and the threshold for intervention is not substantiated.Methods: Observational study including primary repairs of degenerative AAAs in the Netherlands between 2016 and 2018 in which the shape was registered, registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA). Patients were stratified by urgency of surgery; elective versus acute (symptomatic/ruptured). Patient characteristics, treatment, and outcome were compared between SaAAAs and FuAAAs.Results: A total of 7659 primary AAA-patients were included, 6.1% (n = 471) SaAAAs and 93.9% (n = 7188) FuAAAs. There were 5945 elective patients (6.5% SaAAA) and 1714 acute (4.8% SaAAA). Acute SaAAApatients were more often female (28.9% vs 17.2%, P = 0.007) compared with acute FuAAA-patients. SaAAAs had smaller diameters than FuAAAs, in elective (53.0mm vs 61 mm, P = 0.000) and acute (68mm vs 75 mm, P = 0.002) patients, even after adjusting for sex. In addition, 25.2% of acute SaAAA-patients presented with diameters <55mm and 8.4% <45 mm, versus 8.1% and 0.6% of acute FuAAA-patients (P = 0.000). Postoperative outcomes did not significantly differ between shapes in both elective and acute patients.Conclusions: SaAAAs become acute at smaller diameters than FuAAAs in DSAA patients. This study therefore supports the current idea that SaAAAs should be electively treated at smaller diameters than FuAAAs. The exact diameter threshold for elective treatment of SaAAAs is difficult to determine, but a diameter of 45mm seems to be an acceptable threshold. 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
