Evaluation of risk prediction models, V-POSSUM and GAS, in patients with acute abdominal aortic rupture treated with EVAR or an open procedure.

BACKGROUND: In this time of outcome measurements predictive models are needed for correction of comorbidity, in order to perform audits on the outcome of patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of risk-predicting scoring methods in the treatment of RAAA with emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) and open repair in order to analyze outcomes. METHODS: Two hundred and six consecutive patients underwent open repair or eEVAR for RAAA. Patients data were compared with preoperative risk assessments according to the V-POSSUM and the Glasgow Aneurysm Score (GAS). RESULTS: The 30-day mortality rate was 45/206 (22%) in the whole cohort, 41/179 (23%) (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 17-30) after open repair and 4/27 (15%, 95% CI 6-32) after eEVAR. The patient population did not significantly change over time, according to age, gender, V-POSSUM and GAS, neither did the 30-day mortality. The GAS appeared to be a reasonable predictor of postoperative outcome for both open and endovascular RAAA repair, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.73 (SD 0.04; 95% CI 0.65-0.80; P<0.001). The V-POSSUM predicted mortality was somewhat less accurate: AUC 0.69 (SD 0.05; 95% CI 0.60-0.77; P<0.001). The only pre-operative variables independently predicting 30-day mortality were age (P=0.006) and lowest pre-operative systolic blood pressure (P=0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative risk assessment with either V-POSSUM or GAS does not identify patients with fatal outcome at the individual level. However, these risk models may be useful as a relative estimate, in surgical audit or for inter- and intra-hospital comparisons.

Mortality of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm treated with open or endovascular repair.

OBJECTIVES: The study defined the selection criteria used for treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAAs) and reviewed results during a 5-year period. METHODS: From 2002 on, our tertiary referral center adopted a protocol of selective use of endovascular repair for RAAAs. The study included all patients with a proven RAAA who were admitted to our hospital from 2002 to 2006. The primary outcome measure was surgical mortality. RESULTS: A total of 187 patients were admitted with an acute AAA, and an RAAA was confirmed 135 (72%) by computed tomography scanning or at laparotomy, and 125 (93%) were treated, 89 by open means and 36 by endovascular means. The overall mortality rate was 24% and the mortality rate was 13.9% for endovascular repair. Endovascular repair was consistently used more often in patients with favorable anatomy and in patients who were hemodynamically more stable. There were considerable differences in approach between the four consultant vascular surgeons. The overall evaluation and inclusion for endovascular treatment increased during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: A strict protocol for admission, evaluation, and treatment of RAAA, with selective use of endovascular repair, resulted in low mortality rates in our center.

Emergency abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with a preferential endovascular strategy: mortality and cost-effectiveness analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess mortality and treatment costs of a new management protocol with preferential use of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) for acute abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). METHODS: From September 2003 until February 2005, 49 consecutive patients (45 men; mean age 71 years) with acute AAA were entered into a prospective study of a new management protocol that featured preferential use of eEVAR (n=18); patients with unsuitable anatomy or who were hemodynamically unstable underwent open repair (n=31). Mortality data and costs of treatment were compared in this mixed prospective group to a historical control group consisting of 147 patients (128 men; mean age 71 years) who underwent open repair from January 1998 to December 2001. All direct medical costs were included from the moment of admission until discharge from the hospital. RESULTS: Mortality in the mixed prospective group (18%) was lower than in the historical control group (31%), but the difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0.099). The mean total cost in the mixed prospective group was 17,164 euro compared to 21,084 euro in the historical open repair group (p=0.255). CONCLUSION: A preferential eEVAR protocol for acute AAA can decrease mortality and does not increase overall costs during initial treatment, but larger studies are needed to determine if these trends are statistically significant.