MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Variation in care in individuals hospitalised with abdominal aortic aneurysm in nine high-income countries: a cross-sectional cohort study

2024· article· en· W4403806945 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laura Pasea, Peter Cram, P Bakx, Nicole Huang, Dennis T. Ko, Nitzan Burrack, Lisa M. Lix, Sang Jin Kim, Saeed Al‐Azazi, Jean-François Cordier, Laura A. Hatfield, Jonas Cuzulan Hirani, CA Uyl‐de Groot, Bruce E. Landon, Amitava Banerjee

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare InnovationUniversity of ManitobaInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAbdominal aortic aneurysmCross-sectional studyCohortAneurysmCohort studyInternal medicineCardiologyEmergency medicineRadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) can be safely repaired using either endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) or open repair when intact, but after rupture morbidity and mortality are extremely high. Treatment patterns and outcomes for intact AAA are likely to differ between countries due to differences in AAA screening policies, health system capacity and payment approaches, and other factors, such as demographics and lifestyle, but are poorly studied. Methods We conducted a retrospective serial cross-sectional cohort study of adults aged ≥66 years hospitalised for with an intact AAA and repair procedure in the same admission between 2011 and 2019 in nine countries (US, Canada, England, Denmark, Netherlands, Switzerland, Taiwan, South Korea and Israel) using population-representative administrative data. We investigated age-sex standardised (to the 2019 US population) repair rates (open repair or EVAR) and health system performance measures, including hospital length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, and all-cause mortality (30 days and 1 year). Results The number of intact AAA hospital admissions between 2011 and 2019 ranged from 1,290 in Israel to 199,764 in the US. The rates of intact AAA repair per 1000 population varied between countries and over time, from 0.11 per 1000 (South Korea) to 0.69 per 1000 (US) in 2011 and from 0.14 per 1000 (Taiwan) to 0.57 per 1000 (the Netherlands) in 2019. Most countries saw a decline in the rate of AAA repair over the study period. The proportion repaired using open repair vs EVAR also varied widely across the countries. In the US, Israel and Taiwan open repair was used in 11% or fewer cases whereas in the remaining countries we observed open repair in 25.1 % (South Korea) to 56.7% (Denmark) of cases. (Figure 1) Mortality was generally higher following open repairs compared to EVAR in all countries. In 2019, following EVAR, 30-day mortality varied from 0.6% (8.1% at 1 year) in South Korea to 2.3% (11.7% at 1 year) in Israel and following open repair varied from 2.9 (4.4% at 1 year) in England to 7.6% (15.1% at 1 year) in the US. (Figure 2) Mean hospital LOS in 2019 ranged from 2.5 days (US) to 12.2 days (South Korea), following EVAR and from 9.1 days (Taiwan) to 21.5 days (South Korea) following open repair. The 30-day readmission rate in 2019 ranged from 8.1% (US) to 31.8% in Israel following EVAR and from 11.4% (US) to 22.2% (South Korea) following open repair. Conclusions We observed substantial between-country variation in surgical approaches, mortality, and health system performance measures for AAA. Further research is needed to understand and plan optimal, evidence-based AAA screening and treatment strategies.Rates of EVAR and open repairAdjusted 30-day all-cause mortality

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.385 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207