Search

Markov models are often used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of new healthcare interventions but they are sometimes not flexible enough to allow accurate modeling or investigation of alternative scenarios and policies. A Markov model previously demonstrated that a one-off invitation to screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) for men aged 65 y in the UK and subsequent follow-up of identified AAAs was likely to be highly cost-effective at thresholds commonly adopted in the UK (£20,000 to £30,000 per quality adjusted life-year). However, new evidence has emerged and the decision problem has evolved to include exploration of the circumstances under which AAA screening may be cost-effective, which the Markov model is not easily able to address. A new model to handle this more complex decision problem was needed, and the case of AAA screening thus provides an illustration of the relative merits of Markov models and discrete event simulation (DES) models. An individual-level DES model was built using the R programming language to reflect possible events and pathways of individuals invited to screening v. those not invited. The model was validated against key events and cost-effectiveness, as observed in a large, randomized trial. Different screening protocol scenarios were investigated to demonstrate the flexibility of the DES. The case of AAA screening highlights the benefits of DES, particularly in the context of screening studies.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to develop a 48-h mortality risk score, which included morphology data, for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm presenting to an emergency department, and to assess its predictive accuracy and clinical effectiveness in triaging patients to immediate aneurysm repair, transfer or palliative care. METHODS: Data from patients in the IMPROVE (Immediate Management of the Patient With Ruptured Aneurysm: Open Versus Endovascular Repair) randomized trial were used to develop the risk score. Variables considered included age, sex, haemodynamic markers and aortic morphology. Backwards selection was used to identify relevant predictors. Predictive performance was assessed using calibration plots and the C-statistic. Validation of the newly developed and other previously published scores was conducted in four external populations. The net benefit of treating patients based on a risk threshold compared with treating none was quantified. RESULTS: Data from 536 patients in the IMPROVE trial were included. The final variables retained were age, sex, haemoglobin level, serum creatinine level, systolic BP, aortic neck length and angle, and acute myocardial ischaemia. The discrimination of the score for 48-h mortality in the IMPROVE data was reasonable (C-statistic 0·710, 95 per cent c.i. 0·659 to 0·760), but varied in external populations (from 0·652 to 0·761). The new score outperformed other published risk scores in some, but not all, populations. An 8 (95 per cent c.i. 5 to 11) per cent improvement in the C-statistic was estimated compared with using age alone. CONCLUSION: The assessed risk scores did not have sufficient accuracy to enable potentially life-saving decisions to be made regarding intervention. Focus should therefore shift to offering repair to more patients and reducing non-intervention rates, while respecting the wishes of the patient and family.

BACKGROUND: Although women represent an increasing proportion of those presenting with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture, the current prevalence of AAA in women is unknown. The contemporary population prevalence of screen-detected AAA in women was investigated by both age and smoking status. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken of studies screening for AAA, including over 1000 women, aged at least 60 years, done since the year 2000. Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL databases until 13 January 2016. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scoring system. RESULTS: Eight studies were identified, including only three based on population registers. The largest studies were based on self-purchase of screening. Altogether 1 537 633 women were screened. Overall AAA prevalence rates were very heterogeneous, ranging from 0·37 to 1·53 per cent: pooled prevalence 0·74 (95 per cent c.i. 0·53 to 1·03) per cent. The pooled prevalence increased with both age (more than 1 per cent for women aged over 70 years) and smoking (more than 1 per cent for ever smokers and over 2 per cent in current smokers). CONCLUSION: The current population prevalence of screen-detected AAA in older women is subject to wide demographic variation. However, in ever smokers and those over 70 years of age, the prevalence is over 1 per cent.

Objective To assess the three year clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of a strategy of endovascular repair (if aortic morphology is suitable, open repair if not) versus open repair for patients with suspected ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Design Randomised controlled trial. Participants 613 eligible patients (480 men) with a clinical diagnosis of ruptured aneurysm, of whom 502 underwent emergency repair for rupture. Interventions 316 patients were randomised to an endovascular strategy (275 with confirmed rupture) and 297 to open repair (261 with confirmed rupture). Main outcome measures Mortality, with reinterventions after aneurysm repair, quality of life, and hospital costs to three years as secondary measures. Results The maximum follow-up for mortality was 7.1 years, with two patients in each group lost to follow-up by three years. After similar mortality by 90 days, in the mid-term (three months to three years) there were fewer deaths in the endovascular than the open repair group (hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.90), but by seven years mortality was about 60% in each group (hazard ratio 0.92, 0.75 to 1.13). Results for the 502 patients with repaired ruptures were more pronounced: three year mortality was lower in the endovascular strategy group (42% v 54%; odds ratio 0.62, 0.43 to 0.88), but after seven years there was no clear difference between the groups (hazard ratio 0.86, 0.68 to 1.08). Reintervention rates up to three years were not significantly different between the randomised groups (hazard ratio 1.02, 0.79 to 1.32); the initial rapid rate of reinterventions was followed by a much slower mid-term reintervention rate in both groups. The early higher average quality of life in the endovascular strategy versus open repair group, coupled with the lower mortality at three years, led to a gain in average quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at three years of 0.17 (95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.33). The endovascular strategy group spent fewer days in hospital and had lower average costs of −£2605 (€2813; $3439) (95% confidence interval −£5966 to £702). The probability that the endovascular strategy is cost effective was >90% at all levels of willingness to pay for a QALY gain. Conclusions At three years, compared with open repair, an endovascular strategy for suspected ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm was associated with a survival advantage, a gain in QALYs, similar levels of reintervention, and reduced costs, and this strategy was cost effective. These findings support the increasing use of an endovascular strategy, with wider availability of emergency endovascular repair. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48334791; ClinicalTrials NCT00746122

Background Prognosis for women with abdominal aortic aneurysm might be worse than the prognosis for men. We aimed to systematically quantify the differences in outcomes between men and women being assessed for repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysm using data from study periods after the year 2000. Methods In these systematic reviews and meta-analysis, we identified studies (randomised, cohort, or cross-sectional) by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and grey literature published between Jan 1, 2005, and Sept 2, 2016, for two systematic reviews and Jan 1, 2009, and Sept 2, 2016, for one systematic review. Studies were included if they were of both men and women, with data presented for each sex separately, with abdominal aortic aneurysms being assessed for aneurysm repair by either endovascular repair (EVAR) or open repair. We conducted three reviews based on whether studies reported the proportion morphologically suitable (within manufacturers' instructions for use) for EVAR (EVAR suitability review), non-intervention rates (non-intervention review), and 30-day mortality (operative mortality review) after intact aneurysm repair. Studies had to include at least 20 women (for the EVAR suitability review), 20 women (for the non-intervention review), and 50 women (for the operative mortality review). Studies were excluded if they were review articles, editorials, letters, or case reports. For the operative review, studies were also excluded if they only provided hazard ratios or only reported in-hospital mortality. We assessed the quality of the studies using the Newcastle–Ottawa scoring system, and contacted authors for the provision of additional data if needed. We combined results across studies by random-effects meta-analysis. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016043227. Findings Five studies assessed the morphological eligibility for EVAR (1507 men, 400 women). The overall pooled proportion of women eligible (34%) for EVAR was lower than it was in men (54%; odds ratio [OR] 0·44, 95% CI 0·32–0·62). Four single-centre studies reported non-intervention rates (1365 men, 247 women). The overall pooled non-intervention rates were higher in women (34%) than men (19%; OR 2·27, 95% CI 1·21–4·23). The review of 30-day mortality included nine studies (52 018 men, 11 076 women). The overall pooled estimate for EVAR was higher in women (2·3%) than in men (1·4%; OR 1·67, 95% CI 1·38–2·04). The overall estimate for open repair also was higher in women (5·4%) than in men (2·8%; OR 1·76, 95% CI 1·35–2·30). Interpretation Compared with men, a smaller proportion of women are eligible for EVAR, a higher proportion of women are not offered intervention, and operative mortality is much higher in women for both EVAR and open repair. The management of abdominal aortic aneurysm in women needs improvement.

Aim To explore areas of consensus and disagreement concerning the interhospital transfer of patients with a clinical diagnosis of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Methods A three-round Delphi questionnaire approach was used among vascular and endovascular surgery and emergency medicine specialists to explore patient characteristics and clinical management issues for emergency interhospital transfer. Analysis is based on 38 responses to rounds 2 and 3 (19 vascular surgeons, 6 interventional radiologists, 13 emergency care specialists) with agreement reported when 70% of respondents were in agreement. Results Initially there was agreement that transfer patients should be

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to develop a 48-h mortality risk score, which included morphology data, for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm presenting to an emergency department, and to assess its predictive accuracy and clinical effectiveness in triaging patients to immediate aneurysm repair, transfer or palliative care. METHODS: Data from patients in the IMPROVE (Immediate Management of the Patient With Ruptured Aneurysm: Open Versus Endovascular Repair) randomized trial were used to develop the risk score. Variables considered included age, sex, haemodynamic markers and aortic morphology. Backwards selection was used to identify relevant predictors. Predictive performance was assessed using calibration plots and the C-statistic. Validation of the newly developed and other previously published scores was conducted in four external populations. The net benefit of treating patients based on a risk threshold compared with treating none was quantified. RESULTS: Data from 536 patients in the IMPROVE trial were included. The final variables retained were age, sex, haemoglobin level, serum creatinine level, systolic BP, aortic neck length and angle, and acute myocardial ischaemia. The discrimination of the score for 48-h mortality in the IMPROVE data was reasonable (C-statistic 0·710, 95 per cent c.i. 0·659 to 0·760), but varied in external populations (from 0·652 to 0·761). The new score outperformed other published risk scores in some, but not all, populations. An 8 (95 per cent c.i. 5 to 11) per cent improvement in the C-statistic was estimated compared with using age alone. CONCLUSION: The assessed risk scores did not have sufficient accuracy to enable potentially life-saving decisions to be made regarding intervention. Focus should therefore shift to offering repair to more patients and reducing non-intervention rates, while respecting the wishes of the patient and family.