BACKGROUND: Lifelong surveillance is standard after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR), but remains costly, heterogeneous and poorly calibrated. This study aimed to develop and validate a scoring system for aortic complications after EVAR, informing rationalized surveillance. METHODS: Patients undergoing EVAR at two centres were studied from 2004 to 2010. Preoperative morphology was quantified using three-dimensional computed tomography according to a validated protocol, by investigators blinded to outcomes. Proportional hazards modelling was used to identify factors predicting aortic complications at the first centre, and thereby derive a risk score. Sidak tests between risk quartiles dichotomized patients to low- or high-risk groups. Aortic complications were reported by Kaplan-Meier analysis and risk groups were compared by log rank test. External validation was by comparison of aortic complications between risk groups at the second centre. RESULTS: Some 761 patients, with a median age of 75 (interquartile range 70-80) years, underwent EVAR. Median follow-up was 36 (range 11-94) months. Physiological variables were not associated with aortic complications. A morphological risk score incorporating maximum aneurysm diameter (P < 0·001) and largest common iliac diameter (measured 10 mm from the internal iliac origin; P = 0·004) allocated 75 per cent of patients to a low-risk group, with excellent discrimination between 5-year rates of aortic complication in low- and high-risk groups at both centres (centre 1: 12 versus 31 per cent, P < 0·001; centre 2: 12 versus 45 per cent, P = 0·002). CONCLUSION: The risk score uses commonly available morphological data to stratify the rate of complications after EVAR. The proposals for rationalized surveillance could provide clinical and economic benefits.
BACKGROUND: Lifelong surveillance is standard after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR), but remains costly, heterogeneous and poorly calibrated. This study aimed to develop and validate a scoring system for aortic complications after EVAR, informing rationalized surveillance. METHODS: Patients undergoing EVAR at two centres were studied from 2004 to 2010. Preoperative morphology was quantified using three-dimensional computed tomography according to a validated protocol, by investigators blinded to outcomes. Proportional hazards modelling was used to identify factors predicting aortic complications at the first centre, and thereby derive a risk score. Sidak tests between risk quartiles dichotomized patients to low- or high-risk groups. Aortic complications were reported by Kaplan-Meier analysis and risk groups were compared by log rank test. External validation was by comparison of aortic complications between risk groups at the second centre. RESULTS: Some 761 patients, with a median age of 75 (interquartile range 70-80) years, underwent EVAR. Median follow-up was 36 (range 11-94) months. Physiological variables were not associated with aortic complications. A morphological risk score incorporating maximum aneurysm diameter (P < 0·001) and largest common iliac diameter (measured 10 mm from the internal iliac origin; P = 0·004) allocated 75 per cent of patients to a low-risk group, with excellent discrimination between 5-year rates of aortic complication in low- and high-risk groups at both centres (centre 1: 12 versus 31 per cent, P < 0·001; centre 2: 12 versus 45 per cent, P = 0·002). CONCLUSION: The risk score uses commonly available morphological data to stratify the rate of complications after EVAR. The proposals for rationalized surveillance could provide clinical and economic benefits.
Authors: Alan Karthikesalingam; Sandeep S Bahia; Shaneel R Patel; Bilal Azhar; Dan Jackson; Lynne Cresswell; Robert J Hinchliffe; Peter J E Holt; Matt M Thompson Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Alan Karthikesalingam; Omneya Attallah; Xianghong Ma; Sandeep Singh Bahia; Luke Thompson; Alberto Vidal-Diez; Edward C Choke; Matt J Bown; Robert D Sayers; Matt M Thompson; Peter J Holt Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: I Grootes; J K Barrett; P Ulug; F Rohlffs; S J Laukontaus; R Tulamo; M Venermo; R M Greenhalgh; M J Sweeting Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Omneya Attallah; Alan Karthikesalingam; Peter J E Holt; Matthew M Thompson; Rob Sayers; Matthew J Bown; Eddie C Choke; Xianghong Ma Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Bartosz Symonides; Andrzej Śliwczyński; Zbigniew Gałązka; Jarosław Pinkas; Zbigniew Gaciong Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-06-14 Impact factor: 3.240