MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220893745 · doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2022.02.050

Impact of an emergency endovascular aneurysm repair protocol on 30-day ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm mortality

2022· article· en· W4220893745 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa Jones, Hannah Koury, Peter Faris, Randy D. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vascular Surgery · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic aneurysm repair treatments
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of CalgaryPetro-Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAbdominal aortic aneurysmAneurysmSurgeryEndovascular aneurysm repairRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the longstanding impact of an emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) protocol for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) on 30-day mortality. METHODS: All adult patients with an rAAA who underwent a surgical or endovascular intervention at a tertiary care center between March 2001 and December 2018 were evaluated. An emergency EVAR protocol was introduced in January 2004. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality, which was calculated using risk-adjusted logistic regression for the preprotocol and postprotocol periods. A risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis examined changes in 30-day mortality after protocol implementation. RESULTS: We identified 376 patients with rAAA between 2001 and 2018 (75 preprotocol and 301 postprotocol), with a decreasing incidence of rAAA during the study period. The introduction of the protocol in 2004 was associated with increased EVAR use (63.6% vs 6.7%; P < .001). Patients managed according to the protocol were more frequently unstable (systolic blood pressure [SBP] of ≤80 mm Hg, 46.5% postprotocol vs 22.7% preprotocol; P < 0.001), with a lower average SBP (87.4 mm Hg postprotocol vs 106 mm Hg preprotocol; P < .001) and worse renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate 61.5 mL/min postprotocol vs 83.2 mL/min preprotocol; P < .001). The risk-adjusted 30-day mortality was 23.2% with the emergency EVAR protocol, versus 35.8% preprotocol (P = .0727). A subgroup analysis demonstrated improved the 30-day mortality for unstable patients (SBP of ≤80 mm Hg) at 38.0% (vs 62.4% preprotocol introduction; P = .0190). A cumulative sum analysis demonstrated worse than expected mortality outcomes in the preprotocol period, and stability of surgical performance over 15 years after protocol introduction. CONCLUSIONS: On reflection of a 17-year experience with EVAR for rAAA, the implementation of an emergency EVAR protocol demonstrated stable surgical performance for all patients with an rAAA and evidence of improved 30-day mortality for unstable patients with an rAAA. Since the protocol introduction, EVAR has become a mainstay intervention and, despite an increase in comorbid patients, the overall incidence of rAAA is declining. EVAR should be considered the first-line intervention for the appropriate patient unstable with an rAAA.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vascular SurgerySame topicAortic aneurysm repair treatmentsFrench-language works237,207