Difference In Reintervention Rate Research Articles

Multicentre Post-EVAR Surveillance Evaluation Study (EVAR-SCREEN)

Surveillance imaging is considered mandatory after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), but many patients are lost to follow up and the impact of this is poorly understood. This study aimed to examine compliance with post-operative surveillance in the UK and the impact of mal-/non-compliance on endograft re-interventions and survival. EVAR-SCREEN centres reported EVAR for intact infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2010, with follow up included up to 31 July 2014. Non-compliance was defined by the presence of a single 18 month period in which no surveillance imaging was performed. The outcomes were reported in compliant and non-compliant groups with survival analysis. EVAR was performed in 1414 patients in 10 UK centres. At the end of the study period there were 378 patients with five years of follow up available for analysis. Compliance with surveillance was 66% (61-68%). Compliance varied widely, from 9% to 88% between centres. Age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.05; p=.02) and distance from hospital (HR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.01; p<.001) were independent predictors of non-compliance. Non-compliant patients had lower all cause mortality in the first three years after EVAR, whereas compliant patients had lower all cause mortality 4-5 years after EVAR (p<.001). No significant difference in re-intervention rates was found between compliant and non-compliant patients. A substantial proportion of patients were non-compliant with surveillance after EVAR in the UK with considerable variation between centres. The survival benefit for EVAR after three years appeared to be related to compliance with surveillance which has implications for the future delivery of EVAR.

The influence of hospital volume upon clinical management and outcomes of esophageal achalasia: an English national population-based cohort study.

Management of achalasia is potentially complex. Previous studies have identified equivalence between pneumatic dilatation and surgical cardiomyotomy in terms of clinical outcomes. However, previous research has not investigated whether a management strategies and outcomes are different in high-volume achalasia centers. This national population-based cohort study aimed to identify the treatment modalities utilized in centers, which regularly manage achalasia and those which manage it infrequently. This study also assessed rates of re-intervention and complications to establish if a volume-outcome relationship exists for the management of achalasia in England. In this study, the Hospitals Episode Statistics database was used to identify all patients treated for achalasia in England from 2002 to 2012. Primary treatment was defined as surgical cardiomyotomy, sequential pneumatic dilatation, or botulinum toxin therapy. Primary outcome measure was reintervention. Centers were divided into regular achalasia centers (≥5.7 cases per annum) and infrequent achalasia centers (<5.7 cases per annum), and were analyzed according to tertiary cancer center status. In total, there were 7,487 patients treated for achalasia. Out of 1,947 cases (26%) were treated in regular achalasia centers, with 5,540 (74%) treated in infrequent centers. In binary logistic regression modeling regular centers treated a similar proportion of patients with primary surgical cardiomyotomy (OR: 1.11 (95% CI 0.98-1.27)) and had similar rates of re-intervention to infrequent achalasia centers (HR: 1.03 (0.94-1.12)). RA-CUSUM analysis demonstrated no relationship between total hospital volume and reintervention rates. Tertiary cancer centers treated more achalasia patients with primary surgical cardiomyotomy (OR: 1.51 (95% CI 1.31-1.73)) but there was no significant difference in reintervention rates (OR: 1.05 (95% CI 0.95-1.16)). In conclusion, this analysis failed to demonstrate a volume-outcome relationship in the management of achalasia in England. This study highlights that achalasia is treated infrequently by the majority of centers.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical outcomes in Marfan patients undergoing aortic root surgery by composite-valve graft or valve sparing root replacement.

A major, life-limiting feature of Marfan syndrome (MFS) is the presence of aneurysmal disease. Cardiovascular intervention has dramatically improved the life expectancy of Marfan patients. Traditionally, the management of aortic root disease has been undertaken with composite-valve graft replacing the aortic valve and proximal aorta; more recently, valve sparing procedures have been developed to avoid the need for anticoagulation. This meta-analysis assesses the important surgical outcomes of the two surgical techniques. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies reporting the outcomes of aortic root surgery in Marfan patients with data extracted for outcomes of early and late mortality, thromboembolic events, late bleeding complications and surgical reintervention rates. The outcomes of 2,976 Marfan patients undergoing aortic root surgery were analysed, 1,624 patients were treated with composite valve graft (CVG) and 1,352 patients were treated with valve sparing root replacement (VSRR). When compared against CVG, VSRR was associated with reduced risk of thromboembolism (OR =0.32; 95% CI, 0.16-0.62, P=0.0008), late hemorrhagic complications (OR =0.18; 95% CI, 0.07-0.45; P=0.0003) and endocarditis (OR =0.27; 95% CI, 0.10-0.68; P=0.006). Importantly there was no significant difference in reintervention rates between VSRR and CVG (OR =0.89; 95% CI, 0.35-2.24; P=0.80). There is an increasing body of evidence that VSRR can be reliably performed in Marfan patients, resulting in a durable repair with no increased risk of re-operation compared to CVG, thus avoiding the need for systemic anticoagulation in selected patients.

Outcomes for concomitant common iliac artery aneurysms after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveThis study evaluated the morbidity of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with concomitant common iliac artery aneurysm (CCIAA). MethodsThis was a retrospective review of all patients who underwent elective EVAR from June 2006 through June 2012 at a single institution. Demographics, comorbidities, preoperative presentation, intraoperative details, and postoperative complications were tabulated. Patients with CCIAA were categorized into three groups according to the distal extent of their iliac limb: iliac limb extension into the external iliac artery with internal iliac artery coil embolization (EE); flared iliac limb ≥20 mm in diameter to the iliac bifurcation (FL); and iliac limb ≤20 mm ending proximal to the CCIAA (no-FL). ResultsDuring this period, 627 consecutive patients underwent elective EVAR and preoperative computed tomographic angiograms were available for 523 patients to evaluate the presence of CCIAA. Of these, 211 patients (40.2%) had a CCIAA in at least one common iliac artery, with a total of 307 aneurysmal arteries. Of these 307 aneurysmal arteries, 62 (20.2%) were treated with EE, 132 (43.0%) were treated with FL, and 113 (36.8%) had a sufficient landing zone in the proximal common iliac artery to use an iliac limb ≤20 mm in diameter (no-FL). The overall reintervention rate was 12.4% of patients, with a higher reintervention rate between patients with CCIAA compared with those without (15.2% vs 10.9%; P = .039). There were no significant differences in reintervention rates between the EE, FL, and no-FL techniques (4.5% vs 4.8% vs 6.2%; P = .802) over a mean 59.8 months follow-up. The FL and EE techniques had a lower risk of distal endoleak than the no-FL technique, but the difference was not statistically significant (3.2% vs 2.3% vs 5.3% compared with 4.23% in the entire cohort). ConclusionsPatients with CCIAA had a higher reintervention rate after EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysm compared with non-CCIAA patients. Of the techniques studied (EE, FL, and no-FL), there was no significant difference in reintervention rates between the three. All three techniques remain viable options for the endovascular repair of CCIAA.

Mid-term cost-effectiveness analysis of open and endovascular repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

Emergency endovascular repair (EVAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) may have lower operative mortality rates than open surgical repair. Concerns remain that the early survival benefit after EVAR for rAAA may be offset by late reinterventions. The aim of this study was to compare reintervention rates and cost-effectiveness of EVAR and open repair for rAAA. A retrospective analysis was undertaken of patients with rAAA undergoing EVAR or open repair over 6 years. A health economic model developed for the cost-effectiveness of elective EVAR was used in the emergency setting. Sixty-two patients (mean age 77·9 years) underwent EVAR and 85 (mean age 75·9 years) had open repair of rAAA. Median follow-up was 42 and 39 months respectively. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality rates after EVAR and open repair (18 and 26 per cent respectively; P = 0·243). Reintervention rates were also similar (32 and 31 per cent; P = 0·701). The mean cost per patient was €26,725 for EVAR and €30,297 for open repair, and the cost per life-year gained was €7906 and €9933 respectively (P = 0·561). Open repair had greater initial costs: longer procedural times (217 versus 178·5 min; P < 0·001) and intensive care stay (5·0 versus 1·0 days; P = 0·015). Conversely, EVAR had greater reintervention (€156,939 versus €35,335; P = 0·001) and surveillance (P < 0·001) costs. There was no significant difference in reintervention rates after EVAR or open repair for rAAA. EVAR was as cost-effective at mid-term follow-up. The increased procedural costs of open repair are not outweighed by greater surveillance and reintervention costs after EVAR.