Risk assessment in aortic aneurysm repair by medical specialists versus the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator outcomes

Objective The aim of this online clinical vignette-based survey study was to compare risk assessments by vascular surgeons, anaesthesiologists and interventional radiologists involved in treating patients with aortic aneurysms in the Netherlands with the NSQIP risk calculator outcomes. Methods Parti...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jan van Schaik, Tessa M Hers, Carla SP van Rijswijk, Maaike S Schooneveldt, Hein Putter, Daniël Eefting, Joost R van der Vorst
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2021-04-01
Series:JRSM Cardiovascular Disease
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/20480040211006582
id doaj-abef4ac7a12b45028cedbd3e4b222083
record_format Article
spelling doaj-abef4ac7a12b45028cedbd3e4b2220832021-04-10T00:03:22ZengSAGE PublishingJRSM Cardiovascular Disease2048-00402021-04-011010.1177/20480040211006582Risk assessment in aortic aneurysm repair by medical specialists versus the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator outcomesJan van SchaikTessa M HersCarla SP van RijswijkMaaike S SchooneveldtHein PutterDaniël EeftingJoost R van der VorstObjective The aim of this online clinical vignette-based survey study was to compare risk assessments by vascular surgeons, anaesthesiologists and interventional radiologists involved in treating patients with aortic aneurysms in the Netherlands with the NSQIP risk calculator outcomes. Methods Participants, recruited using purposive sampling, provided their estimation of the likelihood of postoperative complications and events following aortic surgery in five fictional cases. These cases were subsequently scored using the NSQIP calculator. The risk assessments were statistically analysed using the ANOVA and student t-test. Results All participating specialists i.e. twelve vascular surgeons, ten interventional radiologists and ten anaesthesiologists completed the survey. In the vast majority of outcomes and vignettes, no significant differences were found between various specialists, whereas significant differences were found between the NSQIP risk calculator outcomes and the combined risk assessments of the specialists. Overall, specialist risk assessments differ from the NSQIP, but neither particularly higher nor lower compared to the risk calculator. Conclusions Risk assessment by vascular surgeons, anaesthesiologists and interventional radiologists differs significantly with NSQIP risk calculator outcomes, within the framework of both endovascular and open aortic aneurysm repair. Based on these results, implementing the NSQIP risk calculator in preoperative workup could be of added value in both patient planning as well as adequately informing patients for obtaining consent.https://doi.org/10.1177/20480040211006582
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jan van Schaik
Tessa M Hers
Carla SP van Rijswijk
Maaike S Schooneveldt
Hein Putter
Daniël Eefting
Joost R van der Vorst
spellingShingle Jan van Schaik
Tessa M Hers
Carla SP van Rijswijk
Maaike S Schooneveldt
Hein Putter
Daniël Eefting
Joost R van der Vorst
Risk assessment in aortic aneurysm repair by medical specialists versus the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator outcomes
JRSM Cardiovascular Disease
author_facet Jan van Schaik
Tessa M Hers
Carla SP van Rijswijk
Maaike S Schooneveldt
Hein Putter
Daniël Eefting
Joost R van der Vorst
author_sort Jan van Schaik
title Risk assessment in aortic aneurysm repair by medical specialists versus the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator outcomes
title_short Risk assessment in aortic aneurysm repair by medical specialists versus the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator outcomes
title_full Risk assessment in aortic aneurysm repair by medical specialists versus the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator outcomes
title_fullStr Risk assessment in aortic aneurysm repair by medical specialists versus the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator outcomes
title_full_unstemmed Risk assessment in aortic aneurysm repair by medical specialists versus the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator outcomes
title_sort risk assessment in aortic aneurysm repair by medical specialists versus the american college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program risk calculator outcomes
publisher SAGE Publishing
series JRSM Cardiovascular Disease
issn 2048-0040
publishDate 2021-04-01
description Objective The aim of this online clinical vignette-based survey study was to compare risk assessments by vascular surgeons, anaesthesiologists and interventional radiologists involved in treating patients with aortic aneurysms in the Netherlands with the NSQIP risk calculator outcomes. Methods Participants, recruited using purposive sampling, provided their estimation of the likelihood of postoperative complications and events following aortic surgery in five fictional cases. These cases were subsequently scored using the NSQIP calculator. The risk assessments were statistically analysed using the ANOVA and student t-test. Results All participating specialists i.e. twelve vascular surgeons, ten interventional radiologists and ten anaesthesiologists completed the survey. In the vast majority of outcomes and vignettes, no significant differences were found between various specialists, whereas significant differences were found between the NSQIP risk calculator outcomes and the combined risk assessments of the specialists. Overall, specialist risk assessments differ from the NSQIP, but neither particularly higher nor lower compared to the risk calculator. Conclusions Risk assessment by vascular surgeons, anaesthesiologists and interventional radiologists differs significantly with NSQIP risk calculator outcomes, within the framework of both endovascular and open aortic aneurysm repair. Based on these results, implementing the NSQIP risk calculator in preoperative workup could be of added value in both patient planning as well as adequately informing patients for obtaining consent.
url https://doi.org/10.1177/20480040211006582
work_keys_str_mv AT janvanschaik riskassessmentinaorticaneurysmrepairbymedicalspecialistsversustheamericancollegeofsurgeonsnationalsurgicalqualityimprovementprogramriskcalculatoroutcomes
AT tessamhers riskassessmentinaorticaneurysmrepairbymedicalspecialistsversustheamericancollegeofsurgeonsnationalsurgicalqualityimprovementprogramriskcalculatoroutcomes
AT carlaspvanrijswijk riskassessmentinaorticaneurysmrepairbymedicalspecialistsversustheamericancollegeofsurgeonsnationalsurgicalqualityimprovementprogramriskcalculatoroutcomes
AT maaikesschooneveldt riskassessmentinaorticaneurysmrepairbymedicalspecialistsversustheamericancollegeofsurgeonsnationalsurgicalqualityimprovementprogramriskcalculatoroutcomes
AT heinputter riskassessmentinaorticaneurysmrepairbymedicalspecialistsversustheamericancollegeofsurgeonsnationalsurgicalqualityimprovementprogramriskcalculatoroutcomes
AT danieleefting riskassessmentinaorticaneurysmrepairbymedicalspecialistsversustheamericancollegeofsurgeonsnationalsurgicalqualityimprovementprogramriskcalculatoroutcomes
AT joostrvandervorst riskassessmentinaorticaneurysmrepairbymedicalspecialistsversustheamericancollegeofsurgeonsnationalsurgicalqualityimprovementprogramriskcalculatoroutcomes
_version_ 1721532092127379456