Literature DB >> 19775919

Patient preference for surgical method of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: postal survey.

J A Reise1, H Sheldon, J Earnshaw, A R Naylor, F Dick, J T Powell, R M Greenhalgh.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether men with small abdominal aortic aneurysm have a preference between either endovascular or open aneurysm repair for future treatment.
DESIGN: Prospective study of self-declared treatment preference following receipt of a validated patient information pack. PARTICIPANTS: Men aged 65-84 years (n=237) with asymptomatic aneurysm (4.0-5.4 cm) detected by population-based screening.
METHODS: An unbiased, validated patient information pack and questionnaire were developed to conduct a postal survey.
RESULTS: One hundred sixty seven participants (70%) returned a completed questionnaire; 24 (10%) did not respond at all. Initially, only 38 (23%) declared a treatment preference. After reading the information pack, 130 participants (80%) declared a treatment preference: 30 preferred open repair (18%), 77 endovascular repair (46%), 23 were happy with either option (14%) and only 34 remained without any preference (20%). Nearly all (92%) thought that the information pack had prepared them well for future discussions with clinicians and with no single feature identified as influencing the preference-making process, 66 respondents (40%) still opted to 'take the advice of the doctor'.
CONCLUSION: The patient information pack facilitated the development of treatment preferences with endovascular repair being preferred to open repair. Nevertheless for patient-centred care, vascular centres must continue to safely provide both open and endovascular repair. Copyright 2009. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19775919     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2009.08.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg        ISSN: 1078-5884            Impact factor:   7.069


  5 in total

1.  Survey of management of common iliac artery aneurysms by members of the Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Authors:  S K Williams; W B Campbell; J J Earnshaw
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.891

2.  Institutional differences in endovascular aneurysm repair and aneurysm morphology.

Authors:  Andrew L Tambyraja; Julio A Rodriguez-Lopez; Venkatesh Ramaiah; Edward B Diethrich; Roderick T Chalmers
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Is Age a Determinant Factor in EVAR as a Predictor of Outcomes or in the Selection Procedure? Our Experience.

Authors:  Rui Machado; Gabriela Teixeira; Pedro Oliveira; Luís Loureiro; Carlos Pereira; Rui Almeida
Journal:  Braz J Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2016-04

4.  Meta-analysis of individual-patient data from EVAR-1, DREAM, OVER and ACE trials comparing outcomes of endovascular or open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm over 5 years.

Authors:  J T Powell; M J Sweeting; P Ulug; J D Blankensteijn; F A Lederle; J-P Becquemin; R M Greenhalgh
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 5.  Editor's Choice - The Implications of Non-compliance to Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Surveillance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Matthew Joe Grima; Mourad Boufi; Martin Law; Dan Jackson; Kate Stenson; Benjamin Patterson; Ian Loftus; Matt Thompson; Alan Karthikesalingam; Peter Holt
Journal:  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 7.069

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.