Effect of Pre-surgical Time and Interfacility Transfer on Mortality in Patients with Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Population Based Study.
European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery · 2026-07-30 · Observational study
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: For patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA), rapid transfer to a vascular centre and evaluation for endovascular repair is recommended. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of pre-surgical time and interfacility transfer on the mortality rate in patients with rAAA. METHODS: This was a population based cohort study of consecutive patients admitted alive with rAAA in the Central Norway Regional Health Authority (2012 - 2022). Patient trajectories from symptom onset to arrival in the emergency department (pre-hospital time) were noted for all patients, and total pre-surgical time from symptom onset to start of surgery was noted for surgical patients. The impact of pre-surgical time and interfacility transfer on outcomes was evaluated, as well as reasons for palliation and outcomes after open and endovascular repair. RESULTS: Of 315 patients, 135 (42.9%) received palliative care and 180 (57.1%) underwent surgery. Overall thirty day mortality was 59.0%. In operated patients, thirty and ninety day mortality rates were 31.7% and 36.1%. Of 180 surgical patients, 73 (40.6%) had interfacility transfer before repair, no deaths occurred during interfacility transfer, and thirty and ninety day mortality rates did not differ between transferred patients and those directly admitted to a vascular centre (32% vs. 31.8%, p = 1.0; 38% vs. 34.6%, p = .75). Longer pre-surgical time was associated with haemodynamic stability at presentation, while no increase in mortality rate was observed with delayed intervention. Endovascular repair had lower thirty and ninety day mortality rates compared with open surgery (10% vs. 37.9%, p <.001; 18% vs. 41.4%, p = .005). CONCLUSION: In a healthcare region with considerable transfer distances, most patients with rAAA reaching hospital alive were sufficiently stable to undergo interfacility transfer and evaluation for endovascular repair. The results argue against using a fixed time threshold when deciding transfer to a vascular care centre. Safe transfer protocols and maximising access to endovascular repair should be the focus.
Abstract © the authors or publisher, via PubMed. Reuse and removal
Tags
Interfacility & critical care transport · Mortality & survival · Time intervals
Related articles
- Interfacility transfer of pediatric trauma patients to higher levels of care: The effect of transfer time and level of receiving trauma center. (J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2023)
- Factors associated with door-in to door-out delays among ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients transferred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada. (BMC Cardiovasc Disord, 2018)
- Should We Keep or Transfer Our Severely Injured Geriatric Patients to Higher Levels of Care? (J Surg Res, 2024)
- Impact of Direct Admission Versus Interfacility Transfer on Endovascular Treatment Outcomes for Acute Ischemic Stroke: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. (World Neurosurg, 2021)
- Comparing strategies for prehospital transport to specialty care after cardiac arrest. (Resuscitation, 2023)
- A comparison of major trauma patients transported to trauma centres vs. non-trauma centres in metropolitan Perth. (Resuscitation, 2011)