Factors associated with infrainguinal bypass graft patency at 1-year; a retrospective analysis of a single centre experience.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with primary graft patency 1 year following open lower limb revascularisation (LLR) at a tertiary referral vascular service. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing infra-inguinal bypass surgery between January 2016 and May 2017 at a tertiary vascular centre (St Mary's Hospital, London) was performed. Data regarding patient demographics, comorbidities, type of operation and post-operative anti-thrombotic strategy were collected. Quality of run-off score was assessed from pre-operative imaging. RESULTS: Seventy-seven cases were included in the analysis. Overall, the primary patency rate at 1-year was 63.6% (n = 49/77) and the secondary patency rate was 67.5% (n = 52/77). Independent variables with statistically significant inferior patency rates at 1-year were (1) bypasses with below knee targets (p = 0.0096), (2) chronic limb threatening ischaemia indication (p = 0.038), (3) previous ipsilateral revascularisation (p < 0.001) and (4) absence of hypertension history (p = 0.041). There was also a trend towards significance for American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade (p = 0.06). Independent variables with log-rank test p values of <0.1 were included in a Cox proportional hazards model. The only variable with a statistically significant impact on primary patency rates was previous open or endovascular ipsilateral revascularisation (HR 2.44 (1.04-5.7), p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: At 1-year follow-up, previous ipsilateral revascularisation was the most significant factor in affecting patency rates. Patients in this subgroup should therefore be deemed high-risk, which should be reflected in the informed consent and peri-operative management.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care tests used to establish the presence of peripheral arterial disease in people with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: No agreement has been reached regarding which bedside test is the most useful for the diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in patients with diabetes. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the performance of bedside tests for the detection of PAD in individuals with diabetes. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for studies providing data on the diagnostic performance of bedside tests used for the detection of PAD in those with diabetes. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of PAD. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies, reporting on a total of 3016 limbs of diabetic patients, were included in our qualitative review. Of these, 11 studies (1543 limbs) were included in the meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy: ankle-brachial pressure index (9 studies and 1368 limbs; sensitivity, 63.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 51.7%-73.9%]; specificity, 89.3% [95% CI, 81.1%-94.2%]); toe-brachial pressure index (3 studies and 221 limbs; sensitivity, 83.0% [95% CI, 59.1-94.3%]; specificity, 66.3% [95% CI, 41.3%-84.6%]); and tibial waveform assessment (4 studies and 397 limbs; sensitivity, 82.8% [95% CI, 73.3%-89.4%], specificity, 86.8% [95% CI, 75.5%-93.3%]). Overall, we found a high risk of bias across the studies, most frequently relating to patient selection and the lack of blinding. CONCLUSIONS: The toe-brachial pressure index, pulse oximetry, and tibial arterial waveform assessment demonstrated some promise, warranting further investigation.

Management of peripheral arterial disease in diabetes: a national survey of podiatry practice in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate podiatry practice in diagnosing peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in diabetes, decision making once PAD is suspected and limitations of referral pathways. METHODS: A survey, comprising 26 questions was distributed to podiatrists across the UK via mailing lists of collaborating organizations including the College of Podiatry (UK). Response rates were estimated based on NHS workforce data. Analysis of responses from the open-ended questions was performed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Data from 283 respondents were analyzed. Response rate for all NHS podiatrists across the UK was estimated to be 6%. For the detection of arterial disease only 18.8% (n = 49/260) of participants reported using a full combination of history, pulse palpation, Doppler and ABPI assessment. Self-reported confidence in detecting arterial disease was highest amongst podiatrists who felt they had received adequate training compared to podiatrists who felt they had not (median 85 (IQR 75-90) vs 67 (50-77), respectively; p < 0.001) as well as those who see > 20 diabetic patients per week compared to those who see < 20 (median 80 (IQR 70-90) vs 72 (60-82.8), respectively; p < 0.001). Over one third of respondents (35.8%, n = 93/260) were aware of missed cases of PAD in the past year and 17.5% (n = 38/217) believed that this resulted in an amputation in some cases.The survey highlighted a lack of clarity amongst podiatrists regarding referral guidelines. Additionally, 69% (n = 169/242) reported that their patients had to wait longer than 2-weeks for specialist vascular assessment and 67.6% (n = 54/80) reported similar waits for a Duplex Ultrasound scan. There was a statistically significant variation in DUS waiting time across the UK (X2 (10, N = 80) = 21.59, p = 0.017). Inability to make a direct referral to vascular services and long delays were reported as major limitations of the referral pathway. CONCLUSION: We have identified important targets for further investigation and quality improvement.