Comparative safety of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair over open repair using patient safety indicators during...

In 2003, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality established Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) to monitor preventable adverse events during hospitalizations.

To evaluate the comparative safety of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) vs open aneurysm repair (OAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm by measuring PSIs associated with each procedure over time.

Cases of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair were extracted from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2003-2010). Patient Safety Indicators were calculated using Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality software (Win QI, version 4.4). Unadjusted analysis included year, age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidities, rupture status, hospital teaching status, and emergency status. Multivariable analysis was stratified by year for any PSI in EVAR vs OAR. Postoperative mortality was analyzed to control for the overall safety.

Patient Safety Indicators and mortality.

In total, 43,385 EVARs and 27,561 OARs were documented, with 1289 (3.0%) and 3094 (11.2%) associated PSIs, respectively. Compared with those receiving OAR, patients receiving EVAR were more likely to be male, older, and of white race/ethnicity; have a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index; and seek care at teaching hospitals (P < .001 for all). Patients were less likely to have a PSI after EVAR than after OAR. Overall, multivariable analysis showed that EVAR was associated with a 42.1% decrease in the risk-adjusted odds of any PSI compared with OAR (odds ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51-0.65). Stratified by year, the risk-adjusted odds of any PSI after EVAR were comparatively less likely than after OAR every year except for 2007, and the odds of death were comparatively less every year. The annual percentage of PSIs among all aortic repairs decreased from 7.4% in 2003 to 4.4% in 2010, while the proportion of total repairs that were EVARs increased from 41.1% in 2003 to 75.3% in 2010.

Patient Safety Indicators can be used to monitor the comparative safety of emerging surgical technologies. Herein, EVAR was safer than OAR. The adoption of minimally invasive technology can improve safety among surgical admissions.