Assessment of failure to rescue after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure-targeted data set

Hanaa Dakour-Aridi, Nawar Z. Paracha, Satinderjit Locham, Besma Nejim, Mahmoud B. Malas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: Open aortic repair (OAR) is associated with higher risk of mortality compared with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The aim of this study was to compare failure to rescue (FTR) after major predischarge complications in patients undergoing OAR and EVAR. Methods: Patients who underwent OAR or EVAR in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program between 2011 and 2015 were selected. Patients with ruptured aneurysm and those with type IV thoracoabdominal aneurysms were excluded. The primary outcome was FTR, defined as 30-day mortality in patients who developed at least one complication during their hospital stay. Univariable and multivariable statistics were used. Results: A total of 9097 patients underwent abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Of those, 3291 (36.2%) had at least one major predischarge complication, 82.5% after OAR (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.9%-84.1%) vs 21.3% after EVAR (95% CI, 20.4%-22.3%; P <.001). Increased FTR was seen after aneurysm rupture, cardiac arrest, septic shock, and acute kidney injury. On multivariable analysis, FTR was not significantly different between OAR and EVAR (adjusted odds ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.61-1.24; P =.44). Propensity score matching and coarsened exact matching showed similar results. Conclusions: Although EVAR has fewer complications and lower in-hospital mortality than OAR, FTR after major predischarge complications does not depend on the type of surgical approach. When an in-hospital major complication occurs after EVAR, surgeons should be alert that FTR risk resulting in mortality is similar to that of OAR. Therefore, there is no safety net with EVAR.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
Quality Improvement
Aneurysm
Confidence Intervals
Mortality
Datasets
Propensity Score
Ruptured Aneurysm
Septic Shock
Hospital Mortality
Heart Arrest
Acute Kidney Injury
Rupture
Length of Stay
Odds Ratio
Safety

Keywords

  • Abdominal aortic aneurysm
  • Endovascular repair
  • Failure to rescue
  • Open repair

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Assessment of failure to rescue after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure-targeted data set. / Dakour-Aridi, Hanaa; Paracha, Nawar Z.; Locham, Satinderjit; Nejim, Besma; Malas, Mahmoud B.

In: Journal of Vascular Surgery, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8022f6d1ae004ab6a9a855e68ddfb512,
title = "Assessment of failure to rescue after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure-targeted data set",
abstract = "Objective: Open aortic repair (OAR) is associated with higher risk of mortality compared with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The aim of this study was to compare failure to rescue (FTR) after major predischarge complications in patients undergoing OAR and EVAR. Methods: Patients who underwent OAR or EVAR in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program between 2011 and 2015 were selected. Patients with ruptured aneurysm and those with type IV thoracoabdominal aneurysms were excluded. The primary outcome was FTR, defined as 30-day mortality in patients who developed at least one complication during their hospital stay. Univariable and multivariable statistics were used. Results: A total of 9097 patients underwent abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Of those, 3291 (36.2{\%}) had at least one major predischarge complication, 82.5{\%} after OAR (95{\%} confidence interval [CI], 80.9{\%}-84.1{\%}) vs 21.3{\%} after EVAR (95{\%} CI, 20.4{\%}-22.3{\%}; P <.001). Increased FTR was seen after aneurysm rupture, cardiac arrest, septic shock, and acute kidney injury. On multivariable analysis, FTR was not significantly different between OAR and EVAR (adjusted odds ratio, 0.87; 95{\%} CI, 0.61-1.24; P =.44). Propensity score matching and coarsened exact matching showed similar results. Conclusions: Although EVAR has fewer complications and lower in-hospital mortality than OAR, FTR after major predischarge complications does not depend on the type of surgical approach. When an in-hospital major complication occurs after EVAR, surgeons should be alert that FTR risk resulting in mortality is similar to that of OAR. Therefore, there is no safety net with EVAR.",
keywords = "Abdominal aortic aneurysm, Endovascular repair, Failure to rescue, Open repair",
author = "Hanaa Dakour-Aridi and Paracha, {Nawar Z.} and Satinderjit Locham and Besma Nejim and Malas, {Mahmoud B.}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jvs.2018.01.059",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Vascular Surgery",
issn = "0741-5214",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment of failure to rescue after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure-targeted data set

AU - Dakour-Aridi, Hanaa

AU - Paracha, Nawar Z.

AU - Locham, Satinderjit

AU - Nejim, Besma

AU - Malas, Mahmoud B.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Objective: Open aortic repair (OAR) is associated with higher risk of mortality compared with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The aim of this study was to compare failure to rescue (FTR) after major predischarge complications in patients undergoing OAR and EVAR. Methods: Patients who underwent OAR or EVAR in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program between 2011 and 2015 were selected. Patients with ruptured aneurysm and those with type IV thoracoabdominal aneurysms were excluded. The primary outcome was FTR, defined as 30-day mortality in patients who developed at least one complication during their hospital stay. Univariable and multivariable statistics were used. Results: A total of 9097 patients underwent abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Of those, 3291 (36.2%) had at least one major predischarge complication, 82.5% after OAR (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.9%-84.1%) vs 21.3% after EVAR (95% CI, 20.4%-22.3%; P <.001). Increased FTR was seen after aneurysm rupture, cardiac arrest, septic shock, and acute kidney injury. On multivariable analysis, FTR was not significantly different between OAR and EVAR (adjusted odds ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.61-1.24; P =.44). Propensity score matching and coarsened exact matching showed similar results. Conclusions: Although EVAR has fewer complications and lower in-hospital mortality than OAR, FTR after major predischarge complications does not depend on the type of surgical approach. When an in-hospital major complication occurs after EVAR, surgeons should be alert that FTR risk resulting in mortality is similar to that of OAR. Therefore, there is no safety net with EVAR.

AB - Objective: Open aortic repair (OAR) is associated with higher risk of mortality compared with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The aim of this study was to compare failure to rescue (FTR) after major predischarge complications in patients undergoing OAR and EVAR. Methods: Patients who underwent OAR or EVAR in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program between 2011 and 2015 were selected. Patients with ruptured aneurysm and those with type IV thoracoabdominal aneurysms were excluded. The primary outcome was FTR, defined as 30-day mortality in patients who developed at least one complication during their hospital stay. Univariable and multivariable statistics were used. Results: A total of 9097 patients underwent abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Of those, 3291 (36.2%) had at least one major predischarge complication, 82.5% after OAR (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.9%-84.1%) vs 21.3% after EVAR (95% CI, 20.4%-22.3%; P <.001). Increased FTR was seen after aneurysm rupture, cardiac arrest, septic shock, and acute kidney injury. On multivariable analysis, FTR was not significantly different between OAR and EVAR (adjusted odds ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.61-1.24; P =.44). Propensity score matching and coarsened exact matching showed similar results. Conclusions: Although EVAR has fewer complications and lower in-hospital mortality than OAR, FTR after major predischarge complications does not depend on the type of surgical approach. When an in-hospital major complication occurs after EVAR, surgeons should be alert that FTR risk resulting in mortality is similar to that of OAR. Therefore, there is no safety net with EVAR.

KW - Abdominal aortic aneurysm

KW - Endovascular repair

KW - Failure to rescue

KW - Open repair

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047226685&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047226685&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.01.059

DO - 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.01.059

M3 - Article

C2 - 29784568

AN - SCOPUS:85047226685

JO - Journal of Vascular Surgery

JF - Journal of Vascular Surgery

SN - 0741-5214

ER -