NEW YORK – Published 12 months apart, guidelines on management of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) from the European Society for Vascular Surgery are similar but diverged in instructive ways from those of the Society for Vascular Surgery, according to a critical review at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. “Some of the differences were almost unavoidable in the sense that the ESVS guidelines represent multiple idiosyncratic health care systems across Europe,” reported Ronald L. Dalman, MD, chief of vascular surgery, Stanford (Calif.) University.
Ted Bosworth/MDedge News
Dr. Ronald L. Dalman
As a result, the ESVS guidelines provide very little specificity about pharmacologic options because of the differences in availability of these treatments within specific health systems. In addition, both open and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are given similar emphasis because of the limited availability of EVAR in some parts of Europe.
“The ESVS guidelines specifically recommend repair of an aneurysm within 8 weeks when repair is indicated, but there are not many aneurysms that go 8 weeks in the U.S. without being fixed by a fee-for-service surgeon,” Dr. Dalman observed.
The SVS AAA guidelines were published in January 2018 (J Vasc Surg 2018;67:2-77) and the ESVS guidelines followed 1 year later (Eur J Vasc Surg 2019;57:8-93).
The differences in the guidelines, although modest, are interesting because each set of guidelines was based largely on the same set of trials and published studies, according to Dr. Dalman, who was a coauthor of the SVS guidelines and an external reviewer for the ESVS guidelines.
In the lag between completion of the two guidelines, new information led to three ESVS additions not found in the SVS guidelines, according to Dr. Dalman. They involved the importance of considering aneurysm diameter as a prognostic factor, new understanding of the limitations on endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS), and new information about how aneurysm size should affect frequency of surveillance.
Overall, the U.S. guidelines contain 111 recommendations based on 177 references, while the ESVS guidelines contain 125 guidelines based on 189 references. In retrospect, Dr. Dalman believes both sets of guidelines omitted some clinically meaningful information, such as the risk of large-diameter devices for causing endoleaks.
The authors of the ESVS guidelines did have an opportunity to review of a draft of the SVS guidelines, so differences can be interpreted as intentional. For example, the SVS guidelines recommend risk calculators, but Dr. Dalman suggested that the authors of the ESVS guidelines were less convinced that their utility was established.
The decision not to recommend a door-to-treatment time for ruptured aneurysms, as in the SVS recommendations, might have been in deference to disparate practice across European countries, Dr. Dalman suggested.
Ultimately, the guidelines are “substantially similar,” according to Dr. Dalman, but he expressed concerned that neither guideline is accompanied by a specific mechanism or recommended strategy to ensure implementation.
Many of the SVS recommendations are likely to be translated into quality metrics at U.S. institutions, but “there are implementation issues” for ensuring that each guideline is applied, Dr. Dalman said.
Given the agreement on the vast majority of the recommendations, Dr. Dalman suggested that “it might be time to consider global guidelines” for management of AAA and other vascular diseases. Some type of language might be required to accommodate divergent resources or practices across borders, but Dr. Dalman questioned the need to review the same literature to arrive at mostly the same conclusions.