RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze the appropriateness of the type of repair (open or endovascular) performed for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in five university hospitals in Spain, according to evidence-based recommendations. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cross-sectional study of patients with AAA who underwent elective open surgical repair (OSR) or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Data were collected on demographic and clinical variables and type of surgical repair. A pair of vascular surgeons from each participating hospital performed a blinded assessment based on GRADE recommendations. The concordance between the two evaluators and the agreement between their evidence-based recommendation and the procedure performed were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 186 patients were selected; 179 were included. Mean age was 72.5 years (standard deviation [SD], 8.4), mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was 2.04 (SD, 1.9). OSR was performed in 53.2% (N.=99) and EVAR in 46.8% (N.=87) of cases. Overall, 65.9% (118/179) of interventions performed were considered appropriate: 50% (47/94) of OSRs and 83.5% (71/85) of EVARs. The patient characteristics were similar for all the hospitals, but the chosen surgical technique did show significant differences among these centers. There were no significant differences among the hospitals in the proportion of cases judged as appropriate, either overall (P=0.346) or for each type of procedure (P=0.531 and P=0.538 for OSR and EVAR, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, most of the AAA repairs performed were appropriate according to GRADE recommendations. A higher proportion of EVARs were considered appropriate than OSRs. Choice of AAA repair should be standardized using evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, while incorporating patient preferences, to reduce the existing variability and ensure appropriate selection of AAA repair technique.
