腹主动脉瘤患者的血管内与开放式修复:日本基于索赔的数据分析

IF 2.1 Q2 SURGERY BMJ Surgery Interventions Health Technologies Pub Date : 2022-07-29 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjsit-2022-000131
Yuki Kimura, Hiroshi Ohtsu, Naohiro Yonemoto, Nobuyoshi Azuma, Kazuhiro Sase
{"title":"腹主动脉瘤患者的血管内与开放式修复:日本基于索赔的数据分析","authors":"Yuki Kimura,&nbsp;Hiroshi Ohtsu,&nbsp;Naohiro Yonemoto,&nbsp;Nobuyoshi Azuma,&nbsp;Kazuhiro Sase","doi":"10.1136/bmjsit-2022-000131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) evolved through competition with open aortic repair (OAR) as a safe and effective treatment option for appropriately selected patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Although endoleaks are the most common reason for post-EVAR reintervention, compliance with lifelong regular follow-up imaging remains a challenge.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective data analysis.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The Japan Medical Data Center (JMDC), a claims database with anonymous data linkage across hospitals, consists of corporate employees and their families of ≤75 years of age.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>The analysis included participants in the JMDC who underwent EVAR or OAR for intact (iAAA) or ruptured (rAAA) AAA. Patients with less than 6 months of records before the aortic repair were excluded.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Overall survival and reintervention rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 986 cases (837 iAAA and 149 rAAA) from JMDC with first aortic repairs between January 2015 and December 2020. The number of patients, median age (years (IQR)), follow-up (months) and post-procedure CT scan (times per year) were as follows: iAAA (OAR: n=593, 62.0 (57.0-67.0), 26.0, 1.6, EVAR: n=244, 65.0 (31.0-69.0), 17.0, 2.2), rAAA (OAR: n=110, 59.0 (53.0-59.0), 16.0, 2.1, EVAR: n=39, 62.0 (31.0-67.0), 18.0, 2.4). Reintervention rate was significantly higher among EVAR than OAR in rAAA (15.4% vs 8.2%, p=0.04). In iAAA, there were no group difference after 5 years (7.8% vs 11.0%, p=0.28), even though EVAR had initial advantage. There were no differences in mortality rate between EVAR and OAR for either rAAA or iAAA.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Claims-based analysis in Japan showed no statistically significant difference in 5-year survival rates of the OAR and EVAR groups. However, the reintervention rate of EVAR in rAAA was significantly higher, suggesting the need for regular post-EVAR follow-up with imaging. Therefore, international collaborations for long-term outcome studies with real-world data are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":33349,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Surgery Interventions Health Technologies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/31/5d/bmjsit-2022-000131.PMC9345055.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Endovascular versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm: a claims-based data analysis in Japan.\",\"authors\":\"Yuki Kimura,&nbsp;Hiroshi Ohtsu,&nbsp;Naohiro Yonemoto,&nbsp;Nobuyoshi Azuma,&nbsp;Kazuhiro Sase\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjsit-2022-000131\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) evolved through competition with open aortic repair (OAR) as a safe and effective treatment option for appropriately selected patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Although endoleaks are the most common reason for post-EVAR reintervention, compliance with lifelong regular follow-up imaging remains a challenge.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective data analysis.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The Japan Medical Data Center (JMDC), a claims database with anonymous data linkage across hospitals, consists of corporate employees and their families of ≤75 years of age.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>The analysis included participants in the JMDC who underwent EVAR or OAR for intact (iAAA) or ruptured (rAAA) AAA. Patients with less than 6 months of records before the aortic repair were excluded.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Overall survival and reintervention rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 986 cases (837 iAAA and 149 rAAA) from JMDC with first aortic repairs between January 2015 and December 2020. The number of patients, median age (years (IQR)), follow-up (months) and post-procedure CT scan (times per year) were as follows: iAAA (OAR: n=593, 62.0 (57.0-67.0), 26.0, 1.6, EVAR: n=244, 65.0 (31.0-69.0), 17.0, 2.2), rAAA (OAR: n=110, 59.0 (53.0-59.0), 16.0, 2.1, EVAR: n=39, 62.0 (31.0-67.0), 18.0, 2.4). Reintervention rate was significantly higher among EVAR than OAR in rAAA (15.4% vs 8.2%, p=0.04). In iAAA, there were no group difference after 5 years (7.8% vs 11.0%, p=0.28), even though EVAR had initial advantage. There were no differences in mortality rate between EVAR and OAR for either rAAA or iAAA.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Claims-based analysis in Japan showed no statistically significant difference in 5-year survival rates of the OAR and EVAR groups. However, the reintervention rate of EVAR in rAAA was significantly higher, suggesting the need for regular post-EVAR follow-up with imaging. Therefore, international collaborations for long-term outcome studies with real-world data are warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":33349,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Surgery Interventions Health Technologies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/31/5d/bmjsit-2022-000131.PMC9345055.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Surgery Interventions Health Technologies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsit-2022-000131\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Surgery Interventions Health Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsit-2022-000131","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:血管内主动脉修复(EVAR)在与开放式主动脉修复(OAR)的竞争中发展成为一种安全有效的腹主动脉瘤(AAA)患者的治疗选择。虽然内漏是evar后再干预的最常见原因,但终身定期随访成像仍然是一个挑战。设计:回顾性数据分析。背景:日本医疗数据中心(JMDC)是一个跨医院匿名数据链接的索赔数据库,由年龄≤75岁的企业员工及其家属组成。参与者:该分析包括JMDC中接受完整(iAAA)或破裂(rAAA) AAA的EVAR或OAR的参与者。排除主动脉修复前记录少于6个月的患者。主要结局指标:总生存率和再干预率。结果:我们在2015年1月至2020年12月期间确定了986例JMDC患者(837例iAAA和149例rAAA)进行了首次主动脉修复。患者数、中位年龄(IQR)、随访时间(月)、术后CT扫描(年)次数如下:iAAA (OAR: n=593、62.0(57.0 ~ 67.0)、26.0、1.6次,EVAR: n=244、65.0(31.0 ~ 69.0)、17.0、2.2次),rAAA (OAR: n=110、59.0(53.0 ~ 59.0)、16.0、2.1次,EVAR: n=39、62.0(31.0 ~ 67.0)、18.0、2.4次)。EVAR组再干预率明显高于OAR组(15.4% vs 8.2%, p=0.04)。在iAAA中,尽管EVAR具有初始优势,但5年后没有组间差异(7.8% vs 11.0%, p=0.28)。无论是rAAA还是iAAA, EVAR和OAR的死亡率均无差异。结论:日本基于索赔的分析显示,OAR组和EVAR组的5年生存率无统计学差异。然而,在rAAA中EVAR的再干预率明显较高,提示需要在EVAR后定期随访影像学。因此,有必要开展国际合作,利用真实世界的数据进行长期结果研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Endovascular versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm: a claims-based data analysis in Japan.

Objectives: Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) evolved through competition with open aortic repair (OAR) as a safe and effective treatment option for appropriately selected patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Although endoleaks are the most common reason for post-EVAR reintervention, compliance with lifelong regular follow-up imaging remains a challenge.

Design: Retrospective data analysis.

Setting: The Japan Medical Data Center (JMDC), a claims database with anonymous data linkage across hospitals, consists of corporate employees and their families of ≤75 years of age.

Participants: The analysis included participants in the JMDC who underwent EVAR or OAR for intact (iAAA) or ruptured (rAAA) AAA. Patients with less than 6 months of records before the aortic repair were excluded.

Main outcome measures: Overall survival and reintervention rates.

Results: We identified 986 cases (837 iAAA and 149 rAAA) from JMDC with first aortic repairs between January 2015 and December 2020. The number of patients, median age (years (IQR)), follow-up (months) and post-procedure CT scan (times per year) were as follows: iAAA (OAR: n=593, 62.0 (57.0-67.0), 26.0, 1.6, EVAR: n=244, 65.0 (31.0-69.0), 17.0, 2.2), rAAA (OAR: n=110, 59.0 (53.0-59.0), 16.0, 2.1, EVAR: n=39, 62.0 (31.0-67.0), 18.0, 2.4). Reintervention rate was significantly higher among EVAR than OAR in rAAA (15.4% vs 8.2%, p=0.04). In iAAA, there were no group difference after 5 years (7.8% vs 11.0%, p=0.28), even though EVAR had initial advantage. There were no differences in mortality rate between EVAR and OAR for either rAAA or iAAA.

Conclusions: Claims-based analysis in Japan showed no statistically significant difference in 5-year survival rates of the OAR and EVAR groups. However, the reintervention rate of EVAR in rAAA was significantly higher, suggesting the need for regular post-EVAR follow-up with imaging. Therefore, international collaborations for long-term outcome studies with real-world data are warranted.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊最新文献
The impact of adjuvant antibiotic hydrogel application on the primary stability of uncemented hip stems. Prospective randomized evaluation of the sustained impact of assistive artificial intelligence on anesthetists' ultrasound scanning for regional anesthesia. Clinical effectiveness of a modified muscle sparing posterior technique compared with a standard lateral approach in hip hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular fractures (HemiSPAIRE): a multicenter, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial. IDEAL evaluation for global surgery innovation. No frugal innovation without frugal evaluation: the Global IDEAL Sub-Framework.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1