Size thresholds for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms warrant reconsideration

BACKGROUND

The historical size threshold for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair is widely accepted to be 5.5 cm for men and 5.0 cm for women. However, contemporary AAA rupture risks may be lower than historical benchmarks, which has implications for when AAAs should be repaired. Our objective was to use contemporary AAA rupture rates to inform optimal size thresholds for AAA repair.

METHODS

We used a Markov chain analysis to estimate life expectancy for patients with AAA. The primary outcome was AAA-related mortality. We estimated survival using Social Security Administration life tables and published contemporary AAA rupture estimates. For those undergoing repair, we modified survival estimates using data from the Vascular Quality Initiative and Medicare on complications, late rupture, and open conversion. We used this model to estimate the AAA repair size threshold that minimizes AAA-related mortality for 60-year-old average-health men and women. We performed a sensitivity analysis of poor-health patients and 70- and 80-year-old base cases.

RESULTS

The annual risk of all-cause mortality under surveillance for a 60-year-old woman presenting with a 5.0 cm AAA using repair thresholds of 5.5 cm, 6.0 cm, 6.5 cm, and 7.0 cm was 1.7%, 2.3%, 2.7%, and 2.8%, respectively. The corresponding risk for a man was 2.3%, 2.9%, 3.3%, and 3.4% for the same repair thresholds, respectively. For a 60-year-old average-health woman, an AAA repair size of 6.1 cm was the optimal threshold to minimize AAA-related mortality. Life expectancy varied by <2 months for repair at sizes from 5.7 cm to 7.1 cm. For a 60-year-old average-health man, an AAA repair size of 6.9 cm was the optimal threshold to minimize AAA-related mortality. Life expectancy varied by <2 months for repair at sizes from 6.0 cm to 7.4 cm. Women in poor health, at various age strata, had optimal AAA repair size thresholds that were >6.5 cm, whereas men in poor health, at all ages, had optimal repair size thresholds that were >8.0 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal threshold for AAA repair is more nuanced than a discrete size. Specifically, there appears to be a range of AAA sizes for which repair is reasonable to minmized AAA-related mortality. Notably, they all are greater than current guideline recommendations. These findings would suggest that contemporary AAA size thresholds for repair should be reconsidered.

Stress testing before abdominal aortic aneurysm repair does not lead to a reduction in perioperative cardiac events

OBJECTIVE

Stress testing is often used before abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Whether stress testing leads to a reduction in cardiac events after AAA repair has remained unclear. Our objective was to study the national stress test usage rates and compare the perioperative outcomes between centers with high and low usage of stress testing.

METHODS

We used the Vascular Quality Initiative to study patients who had undergone elective endovascular AAA repair (EVAR) or open AAA repair (OAR). We measured the usage rates of stress testing across centers and compared the Vascular Study Group of New England cardiac risk index (VSG-CRI) among patients who had and had not undergone preoperative stress testing. We determined the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of perioperative myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure exacerbation, and death across the centers. We compared the MACE and 1-year mortality between the centers in the highest quintile of stress test usage and the lowest quintile.

RESULTS

We studied 43,396 EVAR patients and 8935 OAR patients across 324 centers. The median proportion of stress test usage across centers before EVAR was 35.9% and varied from 10.2% (5th percentile) to 73.7% (95th percentile), with similar variability for OAR (median, 57.9%; 5th percentile, 13.0%; 95th percentile, 86.0%). The mean VSG-CRI for the EVAR group with preoperative stress testing was 5.6 ± 2.1 compared with 5.4 ± 2.1 (P < .001) for the EVAR group without preoperative stress testing. The findings were similar for OAR, with a VSG-CRI of 5.1 ± 2.0 vs 4.8 ± 2.1 (P < .001) for those with and without preoperative stress testing, respectively. The rate of MACE was 1.8% after EVAR and 11.6% after OAR. The 1-year mortality was 4.6% for EVAR and 6.6% for OAR. The centers in the highest quintile of stress testing had a higher adjusted likelihood of MACE after both EVAR (odds ratio [OR], 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-2.30) and OAR (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.53-2.59) but similar 1-year mortality (EVAR: OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.02-1.37; OAR: OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.65-1.17) compared with the centers in the lowest quintile. The VSG-CRI was not different between the high stress test centers (EVAR, 5.5 ± 2.1; OAR: 5.0 ± 2.0), and low stress test centers (EVAR, 5.5 ± 2.1; P = .403; OAR, 4.9 ± 2.0; P = .563).

CONCLUSIONS

Stress test usage before AAA repair varied widely across Vascular Quality Initiative centers despite similar patient risk profiles. No reduction was observed in MACE or 1-year mortality among centers with high stress test usage. The value of routine stress testing before AAA repair should be reconsidered, and stress testing should be used more selectively, given these findings and the associated costs of widespread testing.