Background and Objectives: It has been suggested that intense feelings of fear/anxiety and significant patient concerns may affect the perioperative course. Those findings emphasize the importance of surgical patients’ preoperative feelings. Still, current knowledge in this area is based on a limited number of studies. Thus, we think that there is a need to further explore patients’ preoperative fears, better characterize risk factors and reasons for their occurrence, and evaluate patients’ perspectives associated with anesthesia. Materials and Methods: A total of 385 patients undergoing vascular surgery were preoperatively interviewed using a questionnaire that included demographics and questions related to patients’ fears and perceptions of anesthesia. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, Pearson’s χ² and McNemar tests, and multivariate ordinal logistic regression. Results: The main causes of patients’ preoperative fear were surgery (53.2%), potential complications (46.5%), and anesthesia (40%). Female sex was a predictor of surgery and anesthesia-related fear (OR = 3.07, p = 0.001; OR = 2.4, p = 0.001, respectively). Previous experience lowered the fear of current surgery (OR = 0.65, p = 0.031) and anesthesia (OR = 0.6, p = 0.017). Type of surgery, type of anesthesia, educational and socioeconomic status, and personal knowledge of an anesthesiologist affected specific anesthesia-related fears. Over 25% of patients did not know that an anesthesiologist is a physician, and only 17.7% knew where anesthesiologists work. Level of education and place of residence influenced patients’ perceptions of anesthesia. Conclusions: Anesthesia-related fears are affected by the type of surgery/anesthesia, experience with previous surgery, and personal knowledge of an anesthesiologist. Women, patients with lower education levels, and patients with poorer socioeconomic status are at higher risk of developing those fears. The perception of anesthesiologists is inadequate, and knowledge of anesthesia is poor. Promotion of patient education regarding anesthesia is needed to alleviate those fears and increase understanding of anesthesia.

Objectives: Preoperative anxiety is common and might affect surgical treatment outcomes. The aim was to translate and validate the Serbian version of the Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale (APAIS).Methods: Following translation and initial evaluation, the Serbian version (S‐APAIS) was administered to 385 patients. Internal consistency, construct validity, prognostic criteria validity, and concurrent validity between S‐APAIS and Visual Analogue Scale for Anxiety (VAS‐A) were evaluated.Results: Factor analysis revealed two factors: APAIS‐anesthesia (items 1, 2, 3) and APAIS‐procedure (items 4, 5, 6). The whole scale, APAIS‐anesthesia, and APAIS‐procedure subscales showed an adequate level of internal consistency (Cronbach's αs: 0.787, 0.806, and 0.805, respectively). High concurrent validity was observed between APAIS‐anesthesia and VAS‐A (ρ = 0.628, p < .001). A moderate correlation was found between APAIS‐procedure and VAS‐A scale (ρ = 0.537, p < .001). At the cut‐off point of 9, the area under the curve (AUC) of APAIS‐anesthesia was 0.815 (95% CI: 0.77–0.85, p < .001). For the APAIS‐procedure, AUC was 0.772 (95% CI: 0.73–0.81, p < .001) at the cut‐off point of 8.Conclusion: The structure of S‐APAIS substantially differs from the original and allows separate measurement of anesthesia‐ and procedure‐related anxieties. S‐APAIS is a comprehensive, valid, and reliable instrument for the measurement of preoperative anxiety.

Background and Objectives: Despite the relatively large number of publications concerning the validation of these models, there is currently no solid evidence that they can be used with absolute precision to predict survival. The goal of this study is to identify preoperative factors that influenced 30-day mortality and to create a predictive model after open ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA) repair. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective single-center cohort study derived from a prospective collected database, between 1 January 2009 and 2016. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify all significant predictive factors. Variables that were identified in the multivariate analysis were dichotomized at standard levels, and logistic regression was used for the analysis. To ensure that dichotomized variables were not overly simplistic, the C statistic was evaluated for both dichotomized and continuous models. Results: There were 500 patients with complete medical data included in the analysis during the study period. Of them, 37.6% were older than 74 years, and 83.8% were males. Multivariable logistic regression showed five variables that were predictive of mortality: age > 74 years (OR = 4.01, 95%CI 2.43–6.26), loss of consciousness (OR = 2.21, 95%CI 1.11–4.40), previous myocardial infarction (OR = 2.35, 95%CI 1.19–4.63), development of ventricular arrhythmia (OR = 4.54, 95%CI 1.75–11.78), and DAP < 60 mmHg (OR = 2.32, 95%CI 1.17–4.62). Assigning 1 point for each variable, patients were stratified according to the preoperative RAAA mortality risk score (range 0–5). Patients with 1 point suffered 15.3% mortality and 3 points 68.2% mortality, while all patients with 5 points died. Conclusions: This preoperative RAAA score identified risk factors readily assessed at the bedside and provides an accurate prediction of 30-day mortality after open repair of RAAA.