Editor's Choice - Nationwide Analysis of Patients Undergoing Iliac Artery Aneurysm Repair in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: The new 2019 guideline of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) recommends consideration for elective iliac artery aneurysm (eIAA) repair when the iliac diameter exceeds 3.5 cm, as opposed to 3.0 cm previously. The current study assessed diameters at time of eIAA repair and ruptured IAA (rIAA) repair and compared clinical outcomes after open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: This retrospective observational study used the nationwide Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA) registry that includes all patients who undergo aorto-iliac aneurysm repair in the Netherlands. All patients who underwent primary IAA repair between 1 January 2014 and 1 January 2018 were included. Diameters at time of eIAA and rIAA repair were compared in a descriptive fashion. The anatomical location of the IAA was not registered in the registry. Patient characteristics and outcomes of OSR and EVAR were compared with appropriate statistical tests. RESULTS: The DSAA registry comprised 974 patients who underwent IAA repair. A total of 851 patients were included after exclusion of patients undergoing revision surgery and patients with missing essential variables. eIAA repair was carried out in 713 patients, rIAA repair in 102, and symptomatic IAA repair in 36. OSR was performed in 205, EVAR in 618, and hybrid repairs and conversions in 28. The median maximum IAA diameter at the time of eIAA and rIAA repair was 43 (IQR 38-50) mm and 68 (IQR 58-85) mm, respectively. Mortality was 1.3% (95% CI 0.7-2.4) after eIAA repair and 25.5% (95% CI 18.0-34.7) after rIAA repair. Mortality was not significantly different between the OSR and EVAR subgroups. Elective OSR was associated with significantly more complications than EVAR (intra-operative: 9.8% vs. 3.6%, post-operative: 34.0% vs. 13.8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In the Netherlands, most eIAA repairs are performed at diameters larger than recommended by the ESVS guideline. These findings appear to support the recent increase in the threshold diameter for eIAA repair.

Medical technology assessment: the use of the analytic hierarchy process as a tool for multidisciplinary evaluation of medical devices.

Most types of medical technology assessment are performed only after the technology has been developed. Consequently, they have only minor effects on changes in clinical practice. Our study introduces a new method of constructive medical technology assessment that can change the development and diffusion of a medical device to improve its later clinical effectiveness. The method, based on Saaty's Analytic Hierarchy Process, quantitatively supports discussions between various parties involved in technological development and diffusion. We applied this method in comparing a new blood pump with two competitors based on technical, medical and social requirements. These discussions changed the evaluators' perspectives, reduced diasagreements, and ended in a reliable evaluation of the pump's performance. On the basis of these results, adaptations were derived which improved the design and diffusion of the blood pump. This application shows the adequate potential of our method to steer technological development and diffusion of artificial organs.

Assessing medical technologies in development. A new paradigm of medical technology assessment.

OBJECTIVE: Our study aims to provide a practical contribution to the field of medical technology assessment within a new paradigm. This paradigm indicates the need for more comprehensive technology assessments in the development stage of a new technology. METHOD: We introduce a method, based on Saaty's Analytic Hierarchy Process, which quantitatively supports discussions between the various actors that shape the technology's development and diffusion. These discussions focus on technical, medical, social, and economical requirements relevant to the design and diffusion of the new technology. DISCUSSION: In contrast to more traditional technology assessments, our method encompasses the perspectives of the diverse actors in the social context of technology development and diffusion. It influences their decision making on technology design and diffusion in order to improve this technology's later clinical as well as social effectiveness.