In this edition of EJVES, the Gloucester group report that 18% of screen diagnosed cases of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in need of preventive repair haven't received repair after 3 months; 22% of these received repair later on with no 30 day post-operative deaths, so the final turn down rate was 13%.
1
The reasons are not given, but could be a sign of a kind of “intelligent waiting” where you take the chance of repair if progression is worrying, weak symptoms develop, or health conditions improve.However, “intelligent waiting” is a dangerous strategy because about 20% of patients in the current report experienced rupture. Clearly, earlier intervention seems more attractive. In addition, three major questions arise from this report if generalisation is possible.
When we created a model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of screening for AAA in a modern context, we needed to know the proportion not repaired, and studied the four AAA screening randomised controlled trials; 15% didn't receive repair.
2
, 3
However, these figures are mainly from the 1990s when the operative risk was 5% before endovascular aneurysm repair and the knowledge that treatment of screen detected cases carries a one third risk compared with incidentally detected cases.4
However, initial results from the British National AAA screening programme (BNASP) reported that 26% of 417 referred patients weren't yet repaired, and although probably biased by other factors, the proportion seems very high.5
The first major question to be raised is whether screening is still beneficial and cost-effective. As mentioned, such rejection fractions for repair were also seen in the MASS and Viborg trials, both of which have reported efficient and cost-effective screening programmes. In order to evaluate the consequences in a modern context,
2
we ran sensitivity analyses of our modern model in which the originally used unfit proportion was exchanged with the proportions reported from Gloucester and the BNASP, respectively. It showed decreased efficacy from 32% to 30% and 23% reduced AAA specific mortality, respectively. Whether it remains cost-effective needs further time consuming calculations to clarify.A second major question to be raised is whether one of five or higher deemed unfit initially is acceptable according to the fundamental criteria for screening formulated by the WHO. Although some of them receive repair later, the initial refusal leaves the patients with the knowledge of having a life threatening condition with the obvious risk of losing life and quality of life. However, it seems to be correctable as the potentially maintained high rejection rate is combined with a tremendous decline in the operative risk from about 5% to about 1%.
4
We must not forget when the size criterion of 55 mm is met the condition is life threatening. If we assume the median size of referred AAAs is 6 cm and such an AAA carries an annual rupture risk of 10% with 75% overall mortality,
2
, 6
then survival curves of early surgery populations will cross those deemed unfit after just 1 year if the operative risk is as high as 7.5%.Modern public surveillance of results and risk of audits may have triggered this development, especially in Great Britain where individual surgeon outcomes are published.
7
Consequently, the third major question is whether we as vascular surgeons have failed by continuing to select people to repair using outdated criteria that are no longer balanced by the decreased risk of repair?
References
- Outcome in men with a screen-detected abdominal aortic aneurysm who are not fit for intervention.Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;
- Cost effectiveness of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening and rescreening in men in a modern context: evaluation of a hypothetical cohort using a decision analytical model.BMJ. 2012; 345: e4276
- Technical report. Modelling cost-effectiveness of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening.University of Southern Denmark, 2011
- Statin use and rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysm.Br J Surg. 2014; 101: 966-975
- Implementation of the National Health Service Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Program in England.J Vasc Surg. 2013; 57: 1440-1445
- Prognosis of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms in Denmark from 1994–2008.Clin Epidemiol. 2012; 4: 111-113
- Risk aversion in vascular intervention: the consequences of publishing surgeon-specific mortality for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 29, 2015
Identification
Copyright
© 2015 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc.
User license
Elsevier user license | How you can reuse 
Elsevier's open access license policy
Elsevier user license
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article
Not Permitted
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
Elsevier's open access license policy
ScienceDirect
Access this article on ScienceDirectLinked Article
- Outcome in Men with a Screen-detected Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Who are not Fit for InterventionEuropean Journal of Vascular and Endovascular SurgeryVol. 50Issue 6Open Archive
Related Articles
Comments
Commenting Guidelines
To submit a comment for a journal article, please use the space above and note the following:
- We will review submitted comments as soon as possible, striving for within two business days.
- This forum is intended for constructive dialogue. Comments that are commercial or promotional in nature, pertain to specific medical cases, are not relevant to the article for which they have been submitted, or are otherwise inappropriate will not be posted.
- We require that commenters identify themselves with names and affiliations.
- Comments must be in compliance with our Terms & Conditions.
- Comments are not peer-reviewed.
