Editor's Choice - Outcomes of Surgery for Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United Kingdom: A Population Based Study.

OBJECTIVE: There is limited information on changes in the patterns of care and outcomes for patients who had vascular procedures after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this population based study was to examine the patterns of care and outcomes for vascular lower limb procedures in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Lower limb revascularisations and major amputations performed from January 2019 to April 2021 in the UK and entered in the National Vascular Registry were included in the study. The primary outcome was in hospital post-operative death and secondary outcomes were complications and re-interventions. The study was divided into Pre-pandemic (1 January 2019 - 29 February 2020), Wave 1 (1 March - 30 June 2020), Respite (1 July - 31 October 2020), Wave 2/3 (1 November 2020 - 30 April 2021). RESULTS: The study included 36 938 procedures (7 245 major amputations, 16 712 endovascular, 12 981 open revascularisations), with 15 501 procedures after March 2020, a 27.7% reduction compared with pre-pandemic. The proportion of open surgical procedures performed under general anaesthetic was lower in Wave 1 and after compared with pre-pandemic (76.7% vs. 81.9%, p < .001). Only 4.6% of patients in the cohort had SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 708), but their in hospital post-operative mortality rate was 25.0% (n = 177), six times higher than patients without SARS-CoV-2 (adjusted odds ratio 5.88; 95% CI 4.80 - 7.21, p < .001). The in hospital mortality rate was higher during the pandemic than pre-pandemic after elective open and endovascular revascularisation (respectively 1.6% vs. 1.1%, p = .033, and 0.9% vs. 0.5%, p = .005) and after major amputations (10.4% during Wave 2/3 vs. 7.7% pre-pandemic, p = .022). CONCLUSION: There was excess post-operative mortality rate for patients undergoing lower limb vascular procedures during the pandemic, which was associated with SARS-CoV-2 infections. Further research should be conducted on long term outcomes of patients operated on during the COVID-19 pandemic period.

Monitoring indirect impact of COVID-19 pandemic on services for cardiovascular diseases in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To monitor hospital activity for presentation, diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular diseases during the COVID-19) pandemic to inform on indirect effects. METHODS: Retrospective serial cross-sectional study in nine UK hospitals using hospital activity data from 28 October 2019 (pre-COVID-19) to 10 May 2020 (pre-easing of lockdown) and for the same weeks during 2018-2019. We analysed aggregate data for selected cardiovascular diseases before and during the epidemic. We produced an online visualisation tool to enable near real-time monitoring of trends. RESULTS: Across nine hospitals, total admissions and emergency department (ED) attendances decreased after lockdown (23 March 2020) by 57.9% (57.1%-58.6%) and 52.9% (52.2%-53.5%), respectively, compared with the previous year. Activity for cardiac, cerebrovascular and other vascular conditions started to decline 1-2 weeks before lockdown and fell by 31%-88% after lockdown, with the greatest reductions observed for coronary artery bypass grafts, carotid endarterectomy, aortic aneurysm repair and peripheral arterial disease procedures. Compared with before the first UK COVID-19 (31 January 2020), activity declined across diseases and specialties between the first case and lockdown (total ED attendances relative reduction (RR) 0.94, 0.93-0.95; total hospital admissions RR 0.96, 0.95-0.97) and after lockdown (attendances RR 0.63, 0.62-0.64; admissions RR 0.59, 0.57-0.60). There was limited recovery towards usual levels of some activities from mid-April 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial reductions in total and cardiovascular activities are likely to contribute to a major burden of indirect effects of the pandemic, suggesting they should be monitored and mitigated urgently.

Evaluating quality in clinical care.

Defining and maintaining quality is essential to surgical practice. It is only through structured approaches to assessing outcomes that we can ensure that optimal care is delivered. This article will define quality in healthcare and discuss assessment models with reference to pertinent surgical literature. National initiatives are discussed with a critical appraisal of their role and effectiveness. We discuss the aim of quality improvement initiatives and comment on reporting of outcomes. The difficult question of how to maintain quality during a crisis, such as an infectious disease pandemic, is addressed.