Comparison of Surgeon Assessment to Frailty Measurement in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Abstract

BackgroundEndovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) allows us to intervene on patients otherwise considered poor candidates for open repair. Despite its importance in determining operative approach, no comparison has been made between the subjective “eyeball test” and an objective measurement of preoperative frailty for EVAR patients. Materials and methodsPatients undergoing elective EVAR were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database (2003-2017). Patients were classified “unfit” based on a surgeon-reported variable. Frailty was defined using the VQI-derived Risk Analysis Index, which includes sex, age, BMI, renal failure, congestive heart failure, dyspnea, preoperative ambulation, and functional status. The association between fitness and/or frailty and adverse outcomes was determined by logistic regression. ResultsA total of 11,694 patients undergoing elective EVAR were included of which only 18.1% were “unfit,” whereas 34.6% were “frail” and overall 43.6% “unfit or frail.” Patients deemed “unfit” or “frail” had significantly increased odds of mortality, complications, and nonhome discharge (P < 0.001), and both frailty and unfitness generated negative predictive values for these outcomes greater than 93%. In adjusted logistic regression, the addition of objective frailty significantly improved model performance in predicting nonhome discharge (C-statistic 0.65 versus 0.71, P < 0.001) and complications (0.59 versus 0.61, P = 0.01), but similarly predicted mortality (0.74 versus 0.73, P = 0.99). ConclusionsPreoperative frailty assessment provides a useful objective measure of risk stratification as an adjunct to a physician's clinical intuition. The addition of frailty expands the pool of high-risk patients who are more likely to experience adverse postoperative events after elective EVAR and may benefit from uniquely tailored perioperative interventions.