Gen Surg SAQs · vascular
Screening invitation, small-AAA calendar and the ruptured night — intervals, thresholds and strategy
Fellowship SAQ on AAA screening evidence with all-cause honesty, RESCAN surveillance intervals with threshold trials, and IMPROVE rupture strategy with reinterventions and guideline discordance.
On this page
Study tools
Target exams
Write your answer
Saved on this device. No marking — you are the marker.
Model answer
(A) Justify screening and state its limits (3 marks). MASS invited 67,800 men at 65 to 74 and cut AAA death 42% (65 versus 113 deaths; 53% in attenders), with elective repair at 6% against emergency at 37% — the benefit sustained at 13 years (224 versus 381, NNI 216).[18][19] The USPSTF pool (50 studies, 323,279 participants) confirms AAA death OR 0.65, rupture OR 0.62 and emergency operations OR 0.57 — but all-cause mortality sits at RR 0.99 with 44% more procedures and no long-term quality-of-life difference, so promise fewer aneurysm deaths and fewer emergency operations, never longer life.[20] Sweden is the contemporary anchor: 302,957 invited, 84% attend, 1.5% prevalence, 30-day death 0.9% (1.3 open, 0.3 EVAR), 667 screened and 1.5 operated per premature death prevented at EUR 7770 per QALY.[21]
(B) Set the 4.4 cm calendar (3 marks). Survey — Cochrane's 3314-patient pool gives early repair of 4.0 to 5.5 cm no long-term advantage (pooled open HR 0.99), and CAESAR's 360 patients tie immediate EVAR against surveillance (HR 0.76 nonsignificant).[1][2] Space scans by the ladder: around 1 year suits 4.0 to 4.9 cm per HTA, or RESCAN's rule that each 0.5 cm adds 0.59 mm per year of growth and multiplies rupture 1.91.[4][3] Weight his modifiers — smoking accelerates growth 0.35 mm per year and doubles rupture, higher pressure raises rupture, diabetes slows growth — and repair at 5.5 cm, 1 cm per year growth, or symptoms, warning that 59.7% need repair by 36 months.[4][2]
(C) Run the rupture night (4 marks). Activate the endovascular-first strategy where anatomy suits and the service runs around the clock: IMPROVE's 613 suspected ruptures tie at 30 days (35.4 versus 37.4%, OR 0.92) with more home discharges (94 versus 77%), then diverge mid-term to 48 versus 56% at 3 years (42 versus 54% repaired) with QALY and cost wins and tied reinterventions.[14][16] Consent for reintervention as the norm — 186 versus 226 per 100 person-years early, 13% needing mid-term reintervention mostly for endoleak after EVAR, mandating bespoke surveillance.[17] Name the guideline split the examiner expects: NICE runs open-first for elective AAA on old RCTs and UK modelling while ESVS runs EVAR-first on modern observational evidence — methods, not error, explain it.[23]
References12ShowHide
- [18]Ashton HA, et al. The Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) into the effect of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening on mortality in men: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2002.PMID 12443589
- [19]Thompson SG, et al. Final follow-up of the Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) randomized trial of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Br J Surg, 2012.PMID 23034729
- [20]Guirguis-Blake JM, et al. Primary Care Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA, 2019.PMID 31821436
- [21]Wanhainen A, et al. Outcome of the Swedish Nationwide Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Program. Circulation, 2016.PMID 27630132
- [3]Bown MJ, et al. Surveillance intervals for small abdominal aortic aneurysms: a meta-analysis. JAMA, 2013.PMID 23443444
- [1]Ulug P, et al. Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2020.PMID 32609382
- [2]Cao P, et al. Comparison of surveillance versus aortic endografting for small aneurysm repair (CAESAR): results from a randomised trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 2011.PMID 20869890
- [4]Thompson SG, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the growth and rupture rates of small abdominal aortic aneurysms: implications for surveillance intervals and their cost-effectiveness. Health Technol Assess, 2013.PMID 24067626
- [14]Powell JT, et al. Endovascular or open repair strategy for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: 30 day outcomes from IMPROVE randomised trial. BMJ, 2014.PMID 24418950
- [16]IMPROVE Trial Investigators Comparative clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of endovascular strategy v open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: three year results of the IMPROVE randomised trial. BMJ, 2017.PMID 29138135
- [17]Powell JT, et al. Editor's Choice - Re-interventions After Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Report From the IMPROVE Randomised Trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 2018.PMID 29503083
- [23]Powell JT, et al. Analysis of the Differences Between the ESVS 2019 and NICE 2020 Guidelines for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 2020.PMID 32439141