Effects of abdominal aortic aneurysm appropriateness dashboard on clinical practice

Objective: The Society for Vascular Surgery published abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) practice guidelines in 2003, 2009, and 2018 to improve the management and treatment of AAAs. In 2014, our vascular surgery department implemented a quarterly AAA dashboard (AAAdb) to record the perioperative outcomes and guideline compliance with a focus on intervention appropriateness and procedural follow-up, which supplemented our Vascular Quality Initiative data. From the available reported evidence and expert consensus opinions, nine additional criteria for the appropriate treatment of AAAs <5 cm in women and <5.5 cm in men were noted, when applicable. The purpose of our study was to assess the effects of AAAdb implementation on adherence to society and institutional guidelines, documentation of treatment rationale, and the quality of follow-up. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of elective open and endovascular AAA repair at a single institution from 2010 to 2018. The AAAdb was implemented in the middle of this period in 2014. The patient demographics, aortic size, repair indication, repair type, 30-day mortality, and postoperative and 1-year follow-up imaging findings were analyzed. The primary outcome was adherence to intervention appropriateness and the follow-up guidelines. The categorical factors were summarized using frequencies and percentages and compared using the Pearson chi(2) test or Fisher exact test. Continuous measures were summarized using the mean +/- standard deviation and compared between study periods using two-sample t tests. Results: From 2010 to 2018, 1549 patients had undergone elective AAA repair: 657 before and 892 after AAAdb implementation. No differences were found in AAA size after AAAdb (5.6 +/- 1.2 cm vs 5.6 +/- 1.1 cm; P = .88). However, the proportion of size-appropriate repairs increased (64.1% vs 71.3%; P = .003). The proportion of small AAA repairs with a documented rationale had increased (64.4% vs 80.5%; P < .001), with rapid disease progression cited most often. No difference was found in 30-day mortality (1.2% vs 1.5%; P = .69). Follow-up imaging after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair increased at <60 days postoperatively (76% vs 84%; P = .004) and at 1 year of follow-up (78% vs 86%; P = .0005). The proportion of patients with endoleak at <60 days postoperatively had increased in the post-AAAdb cohort (21% vs 29%; P = .012). Conclusions: The AAAdb served as a centerpiece for improving the appropriateness of care and compliance with national and institutional guidelines, including treatment of small AAAs in special circumstances. Its implementation was associated with higher quality follow-up and surveillance in a high-volume, regional aortic center. Consideration should be given to adding additional criteria to the Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines and Vascular Quality Initiative reporting.