Search

Objective: In the present study, we compared the outcomes of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in patients with and without rheumatoid arthritis (RA) stratified by the type of surgery., Methods: A retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted from 2003 to 2016. Linked administrative health data from Ontario, Canada were used to identify all patients aged ≥65 years who had undergone elective open or endovascular AAA repair during the study period. Patients were identified using validated procedure and billing codes and matching using propensity scores. The primary outcome was survival. The secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)-free survival (defined as freedom from death, myocardial infarction, and stroke), reintervention, and secondary rupture., Results: Of 14,816 patients undergoing elective AAA repair, a diagnosis of RA was present for 309 (2.0%). The propensity-matched cohort included 234 pairs of RA and control patients. The matched cohort was followed up for a mean ± standard deviation of 4.93 ± 3.35 years, and the median survival was 6.76 and 7.31 years for the RA and control groups, respectively. Cox regression analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences in the hazards for death, MACE, reintervention, or secondary rupture. Analysis of the differences in outcomes stratified by repair approach also showed no statistically significant differences in the hazards for death, MACE, reintervention, or secondary rupture., Conclusions: We found no statistically significant differences in survival, MACE, reintervention, or secondary rupture among patients with RA undergoing elective AAA repair compared with controls. Further studies are required to evaluate the impact of comorbidities and antirheumatic medications on the outcomes of elective AAA repair., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Existing data regarding endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) are conflicting in their findings. The purpose of this paper was to determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR vs open surgical repair (OSR) for treatment of rAAA., Methods: A population-based retrospective cohort study of all patients 40 years or more that underwent OSR or EVAR of rAAA in Ontario, Canada, from 2003 to 2016 was conducted. Administrative data from the province of Ontario was used as the data source. The propensity for repair approach was calculated using a logistic regression model including all covariates and used for inverse probability of treatment weighting. Cox proportional hazards regression was conducted using the weighted cohort to determine the survival and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-free survival of EVAR relative to OSR for rAAA up to 10 years after repair., Results: A total of 2692 rAAA (261 EVAR [10%] and 2431 OSR [90%]) repairs were recorded from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2016. Mean follow-up for the entire cohort was 3.4 years (standard deviation [SD], 3.9 years), with a maximum follow-up of 14.0 years. OSR patients were followed for a mean of 3.5 years (SD, 4.0 years) and maximum of 14.0 years, and EVAR patients were followed for a mean of 2.7 years (SD, 2.7 years) and a maximum of 11.4 years. Median survival was 2.7 years overall, and 2.5 and 3.7 years for OSR and EVAR patients, respectively. There were no significant baseline differences between EVAR and OSR patients after inverse probability of treatment weighting. EVAR patients were at lower hazard for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.65; P < .01), and MACE (hazard ratio, 0.51, 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.66; P < .01) within 30 days of repair. There were no statistically significant differences between EVAR and OSR in the hazard for all-cause mortality or MACE from 30 days to 5 years, and 5 to 10 years. Despite this, the upfront mortality and MACE benefits of EVAR persisted for more than 4.5 years after repair., Conclusions: This population-based cohort study using administrative data from Ontario, Canada, demonstrated lower hazards for all-cause mortality and MACE within 30 days of operation in favor of EVAR, but no differences in the mid- or longer-term results. More work is needed to understand and improve the long-term outcomes of ruptured endovascular aortic aneurysm repair and ruptured open surgical repair., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study synthesized the literature comparing the long-term (5-9 years) and very long-term (≥10 years) all-cause mortality, reintervention, and secondary rupture rates between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA)., Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception to May 2018 for studies comparing EVAR to OSR with a minimum follow-up period of 5 years. Study selection, data abstraction, and quality assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers, with a third author resolving discrepancies. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane and Newcastle-Ottawa scales. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I 2 statistic, and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots., Results: Our search yielded 3431 unique articles. Three randomized controlled trials and 68 observational studies comparing 151,092 EVAR to 148,692 OSR patients were included. Inter-rater agreement was excellent at the screening (κ = 0.78) and full-text review (κ = 0.89) stages. Overall, the risk of bias was low to moderate. For long-term outcomes, 54 studies reported all-cause mortality (n = 203,246), 23 reported reintervention (n = 157,151), and 4 reported secondary rupture (n = 150,135). EVAR was associated with higher long-term all-cause mortality (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06-1.33; P = .003, I 2  = 91%), reintervention (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.67-2.69; P < .00001, I 2  = 96%), and secondary rupture rates (OR, 4.84; 95% CI, 2.63-8.89; P < .00001, I 2  = 92%). For very long-term outcomes, 15 studies reported all-cause mortality (n = 48,721), 9 reported reintervention (n = 7511), and 1 reported secondary rupture (n = 1116). There was no mortality difference between groups, but EVAR was associated with higher reintervention (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.71-3.57; P < .00001, I 2  = 84%) and secondary rupture rates (OR, 8.10; 95% CI, 1.01-64.99; P = .05). Subanalysis of more recent studies, with last year of patient recruitment 2010 or after, demonstrated no long-term mortality differences between EVAR and OSR., Conclusions: EVAR is associated with higher long-term all-cause mortality, reintervention, and secondary rupture rates compared with OSR. In the very long-term, EVAR is also associated with higher reintervention and secondary rupture rates. Notably, EVAR mortality has improved over time. Vigilant long-term surveillance of EVAR patients is recommended., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Vascular surgeons have a central role in managing peripheral artery disease (PAD). This study assessed their knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding pharmacologic risk reduction in PAD and results were compared to a similar 2004 survey conducted by our group., Methods: An online questionnaire was administered to 161 active members of the Canadian Society for Vascular Surgery., Results: Forty-eight participants (30%) completed the survey. Recommended targets for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose were known by 52%, 38%, and 50% of vascular surgeons, respectively. Almost all participants recognized antiplatelet dosages and statin indications, but less than half could identify indications (29%) and precautions (44%) for angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor therapy. A majority (58%) routinely evaluate risk factors in <50% of their patients. Most vascular surgeons regularly provide risk reduction counseling, but less than 10% initiate or modify antihypertensive or ACE inhibitor therapy. Compared to 2004, knowledge of targets and indications/precautions for common cardiovascular medications and frequency of risk factor assessment have not changed. Rates of counseling for diabetes control and statin prescription have improved, but remain suboptimal. Regarding newer medications with cardiovascular benefit, less than 10% would prescribe proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors if they were available. The majority of vascular surgeons rate their PAD risk reduction knowledge as average and support an up-to-date Canadian PAD guideline. Most participants believe that risk reduction therapy is best provided by family physicians and internists, but also acknowledge that vascular surgeons should be well-versed in assessing and managing risk factors in PAD., Conclusions: Significant knowledge and action gaps exist among Canadian vascular surgeons with regards to pharmacologic cardiovascular risk reduction in PAD. Although there is recognition that vascular surgeons are central to the medical management of patients with PAD, few routinely evaluate risk factors and prescribe medications. There is little evidence of sufficient improvement since 2004. New educational and clinical strategies are needed to improve PAD risk reduction pharmacotherapy among Canadian vascular surgeons., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)