1. Wanhainen, A, Verzini, F, Van Herzeele, I, et al. Editor’s choice – European society for vascular surgery (ESVS) 2019 clinical practice guidelines on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2019; 57: 8–93.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline2. Erbel, R, Aboyans, V, Boileau, C, et al. ESC guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases: document covering acute and chronic aortic diseases of the thoracic and abdominal aorta of the adult. The task force for the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2014; 35: 2873–2926.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI3. Calero, A, Illig, KA. Overview of aortic aneurysm management in the endovascular era. Semin Vasc Surg 2016; 29: 3–17.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline4. Monahan, TS, Schneider, DB. Fenestrated and branched stent grafts for repair of complex aortic aneurysms. Semin Vasc Surg 2009; 22: 132–139.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI5. Sacks, GD, Dawes, AJ, Ettner, SL, et al. Impact of a risk calculator on risk perception and surgical decision making: a randomized trial. Ann Surg 2016; 264: 889–895.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline6. Ajitsaria, P, Eissa, SZ, Kerridge, RK. Risk assessment. Curr Anesthesiol Rep 2018; 8: 1–8.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline7. Bilimoria, KY, Liu, Y, Paruch, JL, et al. Development and evaluation of the universal ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator: a decision aid and informed consent tool for patients and surgeons. J Am Coll Surg 2013; 217: 833–842.e831–833.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI8. Hacohen Solovitz, A, Ivry, S, Ronen, O. Man against the machine – differences in surgical risk evaluation. A cohort prospective study. Int J Surg 2018; 60: 252–256.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline9. Veloski, J, Tai, S, Evans, AS, et al. Clinical vignette-based surveys: a tool for assessing physician practice variation. Am J Med Qual 2005; 20: 151–157.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI10. Peabody, JW, Luck, J, Glassman, P, et al. Measuring the quality of physician practice by using clinical vignettes: a prospective validation study. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 771–780.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI11. Evans, SC, Roberts, MC, Keeley, JW, et al. Vignette methodologies for studying clinicians’ decision-making: validity, utility, and application in ICD-11 field studies. Int J Clin Health Psychol 2015; 15: 160–170.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI12. Berg, S. Snowball sampling. In: Encyclopedia of statistical world. Edited by S.Kotz, C.Read, N.Balakrishnan, and B.Vidakovic. Thousand oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2006.
Google Scholar13. Castor, EDC. Castor electronic data capture, http//castoredc.com (2019, accessed 27 March 2020).
Google Scholar14. Boyd, O, Jackson, N. How is risk defined in high-risk surgical patient management? Crit Care 2005; 9: 390–396.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI15. Vosler, PS, Orsini, M, Enepekides, DJ, et al. Predicting complications of major head and neck oncological surgery: an evaluation of the ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018; 47: 21.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline16. Jiang, HY, Kohtakangas, EL, Asai, K, et al. Predictive power of the NSQIP risk calculator for early post-operative outcomes after whipple: experience from a regional center in Northern Ontario. J Gastrointest Cancer 2018; 49: 288–294.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline17. Hyde, LZ, Valizadeh, N, Al-Mazrou, AM, et al. ACS-NSQIP risk calculator predicts cohort but not individual risk of complication following colorectal resection. Am J Surg 2019; 218: 131–135.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline18. Keller, DS, Ho, JW, Mercadel, AJ, et al. Are we taking a risk with risk assessment tools? Evaluating the relationship between NSQIP and the ACS risk calculator in colorectal surgery. Am J Surg 2018; 216: 645–651.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline19. McMillan, MT, Allegrini, V, Asbun, HJ, et al. Incorporation of procedure-specific risk into the ACS-NSQIP surgical risk calculator improves the prediction of morbidity and mortality after pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 2017; 265: 978–986.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline20. Lyle, B, Landercasper, J, Johnson, JM, et al. Is the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program surgical risk calculator applicable for breast cancer patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery? Am J Surg 2016; 211: 820–823.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline21. Clark, DE, Fitzgerald, TL, Dibbins, AW. Procedure-based postoperative risk prediction using NSQIP data. J Surg Res 2018; 221: 322–327.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline22. Chaikof, EL, Fillinger, MF, Matsumura, JS, et al. Identifying and grading factors that modify the outcome of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2002; 35: 1061–1066.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI23. Nejim, B, Zarkowsky, D, Hicks, CW, et al. Predictors of in-hospital adverse events after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2019; 70: 80–91.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline24. Neal, D, Beck, AW, Eslami, M, et al. Validation of a preoperative prediction model for mortality within 1 year after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair of intact aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 2019; 70: 449–461.e443.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline25. Khashram, M, Williman, JA, Hider, PN, et al. Management of modifiable vascular risk factors improves late survival following abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Vasc Surg 2017; 39: 301–311.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline26. Khashram, M, Williman, JA, Hider, PN, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of factors influencing survival following abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2016; 51: 203–215.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI27. Otsu, M, Ishizaka, T, Watanabe, M, et al. Analysis of anatomical risk factors for persistent type II endoleaks following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using CT angiography. Surg Today 2016; 46: 48–55.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI28. Hye, RJ, Janarious, AU, Chan, PH, et al. Survival and reintervention risk by patient age and preoperative abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter after endovascular aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg 2019; 54: 215–225.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline29. Mahajan, A, Barber, M, Cumbie, T, et al. The impact of aneurysm morphology and anatomic characteristics on long-term survival after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg 2016; 34: 75–83.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline30. Kouvelos, GN, Antoniou, G, Spanos, K, et al. Endovascular aneurysm repair in patients with a wide proximal aortic neck: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. J Cardiovasc Surg 2019; 60: 167–174.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline31. Kouvelos, GN, Spanos, K, Nana, P, et al. Large diameter (≥ 29 mm) proximal aortic necks are associated with increased complication rates after endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm. Ann Vasc Surg 2019; 60: 70–75.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline32. Patel, SR, Allen, C, Grima, MJ, et al. A systematic review of predictors of reintervention after EVAR: guidance for risk-stratified surveillance. Vasc Endovascular Surg 2017; 51: 417–428.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI33. Oliveira, NFG, Ultee, K, van Rijn, MJ, et al. Anatomic predictors for late mortality after standard endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2019; 69: 1444–1451.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline34. American Society of Anaesthesiologists. ASA Physical Status Classification System, www.asahq.org/resources/clinical-information/asa-physical-statusclassification-system (2014, accessed 10 April 2020).
Google Scholar35. SVS Vascular Quality Initiative. SVS VQI Risk Calculators, www.vqi.org/resources/vqi-risk-calculators-2/ (2010, accessed 10 April 2020).
Google Scholar