Doppler ultrasound surveillance of recently formed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistula: the SONAR observational cohort study.

Background: Arteriovenous fistulas are considered the best option for haemodialysis provision, but as many as 30% fail to mature or suffer early failure. Objective: To assess the feasibility of performing a randomised controlled trial that examines whether, by informing early and effective salvage intervention of fistulas that would otherwise fail, Doppler ultrasound surveillance of developing arteriovenous fistulas improves longer-term arteriovenous fistula patency. Design: A prospective multicentre observational cohort study (the 'SONAR' study). Setting: Seventeen haemodialysis centres in the UK. Participants: Consenting adults with end-stage renal disease who were scheduled to have an arteriovenous fistula created. Intervention: Participants underwent Doppler ultrasound surveillance of their arteriovenous fistulas at 2, 4, 6 and 10 weeks after creation, with clinical teams blinded to the ultrasound surveillance findings. Main outcome measures: Fistula maturation at week 10 defined according to ultrasound surveillance parameters of representative venous diameter and blood flow (wrist arteriovenous fistulas: ≥ 4 mm and > 400 ml/minute; elbow arteriovenous fistulas: ≥ 5 mm and > 500 ml/minute). Mixed multivariable logistic regression modelling of the early ultrasound scan data was used to predict arteriovenous fistula non-maturation by 10 weeks and fistula failure at 6 months. Results: A total of 333 arteriovenous fistulas were created during the study window (47.7% wrist, 52.3% elbow). By 2 weeks, 37 (11.1%) arteriovenous fistulas had failed (thrombosed), but by 10 weeks, 219 of 333 (65.8%) of created arteriovenous fistulas had reached maturity (60.4% wrist, 67.2% elbow). Persistently lower flow rates and venous diameters were observed in those fistulas that did not mature. Models for arteriovenous fistulas' non-maturation could be optimally constructed using the week 4 scan data, with fistula venous diameter and flow rate the most significant variables in explaining wrist fistula maturity failure (positive predictive value 60.6%, 95% confidence interval 43.9% to 77.3%), whereas resistance index and flow rate were most significant for elbow arteriovenous fistulas (positive predictive value 66.7%, 95% confidence interval 48.9% to 84.4%). In contrast to non-maturation, both models predicted fistula maturation much more reliably [negative predictive values of 95.4% (95% confidence interval 91.0% to 99.8%) and 95.6% (95% confidence interval 91.8% to 99.4%) for wrist and elbow, respectively]. Additional follow-up and modelling on a subset (n = 192) of the original SONAR cohort (the SONAR-12M study) revealed the rates of primary, assisted primary and secondary patency arteriovenous fistulas at 6 months were 76.5, 80.7 and 83.3, respectively. Fistula vein size, flow rate and resistance index could identify primary patency failure at 6 months, with similar predictive power as for 10-week arteriovenous fistula maturity failure, but with wide confidence intervals for wrist (positive predictive value 72.7%, 95% confidence interval 46.4% to 99.0%) and elbow (positive predictive value 57.1%, 95% confidence interval 20.5% to 93.8%). These models, moreover, performed poorly at identifying assisted primary and secondary patency failure, likely because a subset of those arteriovenous fistulas identified on ultrasound surveillance as at risk underwent subsequent successful salvage intervention without recourse to early ultrasound data. Conclusions: Although early ultrasound can predict fistula maturation and longer-term patency very effectively, it was only moderately good at identifying those fistulas likely to remain immature or to fail within 6 months. Allied to the better- than-expected fistula patency rates achieved (that are further improved by successful salvage), we estimate that a randomised controlled trial comparing early ultrasound-guided intervention against standard care would require at least 1300 fistulas and would achieve only minimal patient benefit. Trial Registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN36033877 and ISRCTN17399438. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135572) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 24. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

For people with advanced kidney disease, haemodialysis is best provided by an 'arteriovenous fistula', which is created surgically by joining a vein onto an artery at the wrist or elbow. However, these take about 2 months to develop fully ('mature'), and as many as 3 out of 10 fail to do so. We asked whether we could use early ultrasound scanning of the fistula to identify those that are unlikely to mature. This would allow us to decide whether it would be practical to run a large, randomised trial to find out if using early ultrasound allows us to 'rescue' fistulas that would otherwise fail. We invited adults to undergo serial ultrasound scanning of their fistula in the first few weeks after it was created. We then analysed whether we could use the data from the early scans to identify those fistulas that were not going to mature by week 10. Of the 333 fistulas that were created, about two-thirds reached maturity by week 10. We found that an ultrasound scan 4 weeks after fistula creation could reliably identify those fistulas that were going to mature. However, of those fistulas predicted to fail, about one-third did eventually mature without further intervention, and even without knowing what the early scans showed, another third were successfully rescued by surgery or X-ray-guided treatment at a later stage. Performing an early ultrasound scan on a fistula can provide reassurance that it will mature and deliver trouble-free dialysis. However, because scans are poor at identifying fistulas that are unlikely to mature, we would not recommend their use to justify early surgery or X-ray-guided treatment in the expectation that this will improve outcomes.

Anaesthetic and perioperative considerations for extrapleural pneumonectomy and extended pleurectomy/decortication: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) and extended pleurectomy/decortication (ePD) are surgical cytoreductive techniques aimed at achieving macroscopic resection in malignant pleural tumours such as pleural mesothelioma, non-mesothelioma pleural malignancies such as thymoma and sarcoma, and rarely for pleural tuberculosis, in a more limited fashion. Despite extensive studies on both surgical techniques and consequences, a significant knowledge gap remains regarding how best to approach the perioperative anaesthesia challenges for EPP and ePD.It is unknown if the risk stratification processes for such surgeries are standardised or what types of functional and dynamic cardiac and pulmonary tests are employed preoperatively to assist in the perioperative risk stratification. Further, it is unknown whether the types of anaesthesia and analgesia techniques employed, and the types of haemodynamic monitoring tools used, impact on outcomes. It is also unknown whether individualised haemodynamic protocols are used to guide the rational use of fluids, vasoactive drugs and inotropes.Finally, there is a dearth of evidence regarding how best to monitor these patients postoperatively or what the most effective enhanced recovery protocols are to best mitigate postoperative complications and accelerate hospital discharge. To increase our knowledge of the perioperative and anaesthetic treatment for patients undergoing EPP/ePD, this scoping review attempts to synthesise the literature and identify these knowledge gaps. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Review Protocols methodology. Electronic databases, OVID Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, will be systematically searched for relevant literature corresponding to EPP or ePD and perioperative or anaesthetic management. Data will be analysed and summarised descriptively and organised according to the three perioperative stages: preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative factors in clinical care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was not required. The findings will be disseminated through professional networks, conference presentations and publications in scientific journals.

What are the benefits of preemptive versus non-preemptive kidney transplantation? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Opting for a preemptive kidney transplant (PKT) can help avoid costs and morbidity associated with dialysis. However, while multiple studies have shown clinical benefits of PKT, other studies have not demonstrated this, leading to controversy in the literature regarding the exact benefits of PKT. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the clinical outcomes of PKT versus non-preemptive kidney transplantation (nPKT) in adult patients. Multiple databases were searched up to May 4, 2022. Independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion and extracted relevant data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist. Eighty-seven studies including 859,715 adult kidney transplant patients were included the review. The risk of patient death (relative risk [95% confidence interval] 0.74 [0.60-0.91]) was significantly lower in PKT versus nPKT patients for living donor (LD) transplants, whereas the risk of overall graft loss was significantly lower in PKT compared to nPKT patients for both LD (0.72 [0.62-0.83]) as well as deceased donor (DD) transplants (0.80 [0.69-0.92]). The evidence suggests that LD PKT patients have a lower risk of patient death and graft loss compared to nPKT patients, and DD PKT patients have a lower risk of graft loss than nPKT patients.

The Value of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are generally regarded as sitting atop the hierarchy of clinical evidence. The unbiased summary of current evidence that a systematic review provides, along with the increased statistical power from larger numbers of patients, is invaluable in guiding clinical decision-making and development of practice guidelines. Surgical specialties have historically lagged behind other areas of medicine in the application of evidence-based medicine, perhaps due to the unique challenges faced in the conduct of surgical clinical trials. These challenges extend to the conduct of systematic reviews, due to issues with the quality and heterogeneity of the underlying literature. SUMMARY: Recent years have seen an improvement in the quality of randomized controlled trials in surgical topics and an explosion in the publication of systematic reviews. This review explores recent trends in systematic reviews in surgery and discussed some of the aspects in conducting and interpreting reviews that are unique to surgical topics, including blinding, surgical heterogeneity and learning curves, patient and clinician preference, and industry involvement. Key Messages: Clinical trials, and therefore systematic reviews, of surgical interventions pose unique challenges which are important to consider when conducting them or applying the findings to clinical practice. Despite the challenges, systematic reviews still represent the best level of evidence for development of surgical practice guidelines.