Home > Riviste > International Angiology > Fascicoli precedenti > International Angiology 2017 December;36(6) > International Angiology 2017 December;36(6):531-5

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Estratti
Permessi
Per citare questo articolo

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   Freefree

International Angiology 2017 December;36(6):531-5

DOI: 10.23736/S0392-9590.17.03858-5

Copyright © 2017 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

Is the management of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms consistent across the UK? A questionnaire-based survey

Eleanor ATKINS 1, Ranjeet NARLAWAR 2, Francesco TORELLA 3, George A. ANTONIOU 1

1 Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, The Royal Oldham Hospital, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Manchester, UK; 2 Department of Radiology, The Royal Oldham Hospital, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Manchester, UK; 3 Liverpool Vascular and Endovascular Service, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK


PDF


BACKGROUND: Our objective was to quantify variability across the UK in the management of a complex abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).
METHODS: An online survey was emailed to all members of the Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland. The survey presented a vignette of a 63-year-old woman with significant respiratory co-morbidity whose computed tomographic (CT) angiogram demonstrated a 54 mm AAA with a short (7 mm) proximal neck but no other adverse morphological features for a standard or complex endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The survey included images and questions related to AAA management as well as surgeon access to operating facilities. 111 responses were received.
RESULTS: 47% of participants indicated a preference for continuing surveillance, 29% for fenestrated EVAR and 7% each for no operative intervention and open surgical repair. The remainder indicated various preferences including standard EVAR (3%), standard EVAR with endoanchors (3%), chimney EVAR (2%), EVAS (endovascular aneurysm sealing) (1%) and chimney EVAS (1%). Of the 47% who wanted to continue surveillance, once their threshold was reached, 73% would manage with a fenestrated EVAR, 17% with open repair and the remainder with standard EVAR with endoanchors (2%), EVAS (2%) or chimney EVAS (2%). 49% of participants carried out endovascular procedures in hybrid theatres, 36% in radiology angiosuites and 15% in standard operating theatres. The location had no significant effect on the consultant choice of treatment method.
CONCLUSIONS: The study results support anecdotal variation in practice among vascular specialists. This reflects the lack of solid evidence on the optimal management of complex AAA.


KEY WORDS: Abdominal aortic aneurysm - Vascular surgical procedures - Aortic diseases

inizio pagina