Editor's Choice - Bypass versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) Prospective Cohort Study and the Generalisability of the BASIL-2 Randomised Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg-2 (BASIL-2) randomised controlled trial has shown that, for patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI) who require an infrapopliteal (IP) revascularisation a vein bypass (VB) first revascularisation strategy led to a 35% increased risk of major amputation or death when compared with a best endovascular treatment (BET) first revascularisation strategy. The study aims are to place the BASIL-2 trial within the context of the CLTI patient population as a whole and to investigate the generalisability of the BASIL-2 outcome data. METHODS: This was an observational, single centre prospective cohort study. Between 24 June 2014 and 31 July 2018, the BASIL Prospective Cohort Study (PCS) was performed which used BASIL-2 trial case record forms to document the characteristics, initial and subsequent management, and outcomes of 471 consecutive CLTI patients admitted to an academic vascular centre. Ethical approval was obtained, and all patients provided fully informed written consent. Follow up data were censored on 14 December 2022. RESULTS: Of the 238 patients who required an infrainguinal revascularisation, 75 (32%) had either IP bypass (39 patients) or IP BET (36 patients) outside BASIL-2. Seventeen patients were initially randomised to BASIL-2. A further three patients who did not have an IP revascularisation as their initial management were later randomised in BASIL-2. Therefore, 95/471 (20%) of patients had IP revascularisation (16% outside, 4% inside BASIL-2). Differences in amputation free survival, overall survival, and limb salvage between IP bypass and IP BET performed outside BASIL-2 were not subject to hypothesis testing due to the small sample size. Reasons for non-randomisation into the trial were numerous, but often due to anatomical and technical considerations. CONCLUSION: CLTI patients who required an IP revascularisation procedure and were subsequently randomised into BASIL-2 accounted for a small subset of the CLTI population as a whole. For a wide range of patient, limb, anatomical and operational reasons, most patients in this cohort were deemed unsuitable for randomisation in BASIL-2. The results of BASIL-2 should be interpreted in this context.

A vascular multi-arm multi-stage trial to prevent groin wound surgical site infection: A feasibility survey.

Surgical site infection (SSI) is common following arterial surgery involving a groin incision. There is a lack of evidence regarding interventions to prevent groin wound SSI, therefore, a survey of vascular clinicians was undertaken to assess current opinion and practice, equipoise and feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Participants at the Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2021 Annual Scientific Meeting were surveyed regarding three separate interventions designed to prevent SSI in the groin; impregnated incise drapes, diakylcarbomoyl chloride dressings and antibiotic impregnated collagen sponges. Results were collated via an online survey using the Research Electronic Data Capture platform. Seventy-five participants completed the questionnaire, most were consultant vascular surgeons (50/75, 66.7%). The majority agree that groin wound SSI is a major problem (73/75, 97.3%), and would be content using either of the three interventions (51/61, 83.6%) and had clinical equipoise to randomise patients to any of the three interventions versus standard of care (70/75, 93.3%). There was some reluctance to not use impregnated incise drapes as may be considered "standard of care". Groin wound SSI is perceived as major problem in vascular surgery, and a multicentre RCT of three preventative interventions appears acceptable to vascular surgeons.

A vein bypass first versus a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy for patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia who required an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion (BASIL-2): an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic limb-threatening ischaemia is the severest manifestation of peripheral arterial disease and presents with ischaemic pain at rest or tissue loss (ulceration, gangrene, or both), or both. We compared the effectiveness of a vein bypass first with a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy in terms of preventing major amputation and death in patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia who required an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion. METHODS: Bypass versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-2 was an open-label, pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3, randomised trial done at 41 vascular surgery units in the UK (n=39), Sweden (n=1), and Denmark (n=1). Eligible patients were those who presented to hospital-based vascular surgery units with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia due to atherosclerotic disease and who required an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either vein bypass (vein bypass group) or best endovascular treatment (best endovascular treatment group) as their first revascularisation procedure through a secure online randomisation system. Participants were excluded if they had ischaemic pain or tissue loss considered not to be primarily due to atherosclerotic peripheral artery disease. Most vein bypasses used the great saphenous vein and originated from the common or superficial femoral arteries. Most endovascular interventions comprised plain balloon angioplasty with selective use of plain or drug eluting stents. Participants were followed up for a minimum of 2 years. Data were collected locally at participating centres. In England, Wales, and Sweden, centralised databases were used to collect information on amputations and deaths. Data were analysed centrally at the Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit. The primary outcome was amputation-free survival defined as time to first major (above the ankle) amputation or death from any cause measured in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed by monitoring serious adverse events up to 30-days after first revascularisation. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN27728689. FINDINGS: Between July 22, 2014, and Nov 30, 2020, 345 participants (65 [19%] women and 280 [81%] men; median age 72·5 years [62·7-79·3]) with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia were enrolled in the trial and randomly assigned: 172 (50%) to the vein bypass group and 173 (50%) to the best endovascular treatment group. Major amputation or death occurred in 108 (63%) of 172 patients in the vein bypass group and 92 (53%) of 173 patients in the best endovascular treatment group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·35 [95% CI 1·02-1·80]; p=0·037). 91 (53%) of 172 patients in the vein bypass group and 77 (45%) of 173 patients in the best endovascular treatment group died (adjusted HR 1·37 [95% CI 1·00-1·87]). In both groups the most common causes of morbidity and death, including that occurring within 30 days of their first revascularisation, were cardiovascular (61 deaths in the vein bypass group and 49 in the best endovascular treatment group) and respiratory events (25 deaths in the vein bypass group and 23 in the best endovascular treatment group; number of cardiovascular and respiratory deaths were not mutually exclusive). INTERPRETATION: In the BASIL-2 trial, a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy was associated with a better amputation-free survival, which was largely driven by fewer deaths in the best endovascular treatment group. These data suggest that more patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia who required an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion should be considered for a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy. FUNDING: UK National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Programme.

Procedural and 12-month in-hospital costs of primary infra-popliteal bypass surgery, infrapopliteal best endovascular treatment, and major lower limb amputation for chronic limb threatening ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is a growing global problem due to the widespread use of tobacco and increasing prevalence of diabetes. Although the financial consequences are considerable, few studies have compared the relative cost-effectiveness of different CLTI management strategies. The Bypass vs Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-2 trial is randomizing patients with CLTI to primary infrapopliteal (IP) vein bypass surgery (BS) or best endovascular treatment (BET) and includes a comprehensive within-trial cost-utility analysis. The aim of this study is to compare over a 12-month time horizon, the costs of primary IP BS, IP best endovascular treatment (BET), and major limb major amputation (MLLA) to inform the BASIL-2 cost-utility analysis. METHODS: We compared procedural human resource (HR) costs and total in-hospital costs for the index admission, and over the following 12-months, in 60 consecutive patients undergoing primary IP BS (n = 20), IP BET (n = 20), or MLLA (10 transfemoral and 10 transtibial) for CLTI within the BASIL prospective cohort study. RESULTS: Procedural HR costs were greatest for BS (BS £2551; 95% confidence interval [CI], £1934-£2807 vs MLLA £1130; 95% CI, £1046-£1297 vs BET £329; 95% CI, £242-£390; P < .001, Kruskal-Wallis) due to longer procedure duration and greater staff requirement. With regard to the index admission, MLLA was the most expensive due to longer hospital stay (MLLA £13,320; 95% CI, £8986-£18,616 vs BS £8714; 95% CI, £6097-£11,973 vs BET £4813; 95% CI, £3529-£6097; P < .001, Kruskal-Wallis). The total cost of the index admission and in-hospital care over the following 12 months remained least for BET (MLLA £26,327; 95% CI, £17,653-£30,458 vs BS £20,401; 95% CI, £12,071-£23,926 vs BET £12,298; 95% CI, £6961-£15,439; P < .001, Kruskal-Wallis). CONCLUSIONS: Over a 12-month time horizon, MLLA and IP BS are more expensive than IP BET in terms of procedural HR costs and total in-hospital costs. These economic data, together with quality of life data from BASIL-2, will inform the calculation of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for different CLTI management strategies within the BASIL-2 cost-utility analysis.

A Review of UK-based National and International Scientific Meeting Published Abstracts in Response to the Draft NICE Aortic Aneurysm Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) draft clinical guidelines (CG) (2018) regarding aortic aneurysm repair were disputed internationally. We aim to appraise the academic response to the draft CG in terms of quantity and scientific quality by reviewing published conference abstracts from three major national and international, UK meetings. METHODS: Abstracts related to aortic practice from The Vascular Societies Annual Scientific Meeting, British Society for Endovascular Therapy (BSET) & Charing Cross (CX) meetings from 2019 were reviewed for methodology, sample size, data collection period, scientific quality and conclusions that supported or conflicted the draft guideline. RESULTS: A total of 549 abstracts were identified from VSGBI, BSET and CX abstract books of which, 226 (41.2%) were related to aortic practices. Of these, 115 (50.9%) were related to EVAR. Twenty-two of these abstracts (19.1%) were identified as having findings relevant to the draft guidelines. Eighteen (15.7%) were identified as findings that potentially conflict the draft CG and 4 (3.5%) that could support the initial recommendations. Six abstracts (5.2%) made direct reference to or challenged the draft CG. The median data collection period was 4 years. The median sample size was 102 patients. In general, scientific quality was poor, with 82% of selected abstracts were graded at level 2b. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated a concerted response to the draft NICE clinical guidelines relating to the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms at three large scientific meetings. As a result of which and other factors, significant changes were made to the finalized NG156. There is still paucity in evidence regarding the long-term safety and cost-effectiveness of EVAR.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes in Patients Selected for Infra-Popliteal Bypass or Plain Balloon Angioplasty for Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia Between 2009 and 2013.

INTRODUCTION: A published subgroup analysis of the Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-1 trial suggests that, in patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) due to infra-popliteal (IP) disease, clinical outcomes are better following vein bypass surgery (BS) than after plain balloon angioplasty (PBA). The aim of the present study is to determine if clinical outcomes following IP revascularization in our unit are concordant with those found in BASIL-1. METHODS: We analyzed prospectively gathered data pertaining to 137 consecutive CLTI patients undergoing IP PBA or BS between 2009 and 2013. We compared 30-day morbidity and mortality, days in hospital (index admission and out to 12-months), amputation free survival (AFS), overall survival (OS), limb salvage (LS), and freedom from arterial re-intervention (FFR). Patient outcomes were censored on 1 February 2017, providing a minimum 3 years follow-up. RESULTS: Patients undergoing BS (73/137, 47%) tended to be younger, have less comorbidity, and were more likely to be on best medical therapy (BMT). BS patients spent more days in hospital during the index admission (median 9 vs 5, p = .003), but not out to 12 months (median 15 vs 13, NS). BS patients suffered more 30-day morbidity (36% vs 10%, p < .001), mainly due to infective complications, but not mortality (3.1% vs 6.8%, NS). AFS (p = .001) and OS (p < .001), but not LS or FFR, were better after BS. CONCLUSIONS: CLTI patients selected for revascularization by means of IP BS had better long-term outcomes in terms of AFS and OS, but not FFR or LS. Although we await the results of the BASIL-2 trial, current data support the BASIL-1 sub-group analysis which suggests that patients requiring revascularization for IP disease should have BS where possible and that PBA should usually be reserved for patients who are not suitable for BS.

Editor's Choice - Relationship Between Global Limb Anatomic Staging System (GLASS) and Clinical Outcomes Following Revascularisation for Chronic Limb Threatening Ischaemia in the Bypass Versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-1 Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The Global Vascular Guideline on chronic limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI) has introduced the Global Limb Anatomic Staging System (GLASS) as a new angiographic scoring system. However, the relationship between GLASS and outcomes following revascularisation has not previously been studied. METHODS: Using pre-intervention angiograms the relationship between GLASS and immediate technical failure (ITF), amputation free survival (AFS), limb salvage (LS), overall survival (OS), and freedom from major adverse limb events (FF-MALE) was examined in 377 patients undergoing endovascular therapy (EVT, n = 213) or bypass surgery (BS, n = 164) in the Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-1 trial (randomised 1999-2004). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in GLASS between cohorts. There was a significant relationship between ITF and GLASS in EVT (I 14%, II 15%, III 28%, p = .049). GLASS was significantly related to AFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.37; 95% CI 1.01-1.85; p = .042), LS (HR 1.96; 95 % CI 1.12-3.43; p = .018), and FF-MALE (HR 1.49; 95% CI 1.04-1.87; p = .028) in the EVT cohort. In BS patients, there was no relationship between GLASS and these outcomes. FF-MALE was significantly worse after EVT than BS in GLASS II (p = .038) and III (p = .001). Among the subgroup of patients with femoropopliteal (FP) disease (BS, n = 109 or EVT, n = 159), FF-MALE was significantly higher after BS than EVT (p < .001). The superiority of BS over EVT with increasing GLASS FP grade was greater in the analysis of patients using vein grafts. CONCLUSION: In the BASIL-1 cohort, GLASS is associated with outcomes following EVT but not BS. Although further validation in contemporary CLTI cohorts is required, GLASS seems likely be useful in shared decision making and for stratifying patients in future trials.

Reducing the risk of venous thromboembolism following superficial endovenous treatment: A UK and Republic of Ireland consensus study.

OBJECTIVES: Venous thromboembolism is a potentially fatal complication of superficial endovenous treatment. Proper risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis could mitigate this hazard; however, there are currently no evidence-based or consensus guidelines. This study surveyed UK and Republic of Ireland vascular consultants to determine areas of consensus. METHODS: A 32-item survey was sent to vascular consultants via the Vascular and Endovascular Research Network (phase 1). These results generated 10 consensus statements which were redistributed (phase 2). 'Good' and 'very good' consensus were defined as endorsement/rejection of statements by >67% and >85% of respondents, respectively. RESULTS: Forty-two consultants completed phase 1. This generated seven statements regarding risk factors mandating peri-procedural pharmacoprophylaxis and three statements regarding specific pharmacoprophylaxis regimes. Forty-seven consultants completed phase 2. Regarding venous thromboembolism risk factors mandating pharmacoprophylaxis, 'good' and 'very good' consensus was achieved for 5/7 and 2/7 statements, respectively. Regarding specific regimens, 'very good' consensus was achieved for 3/3 statements. CONCLUSIONS: The main findings from this study were that there was 'good' or 'very good' consensus that patients with any of the seven surveyed risk factors should be given pharmacoprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin. High-risk patients should receive one to two weeks of pharmacoprophylaxis rather than a single dose.

Comparison of Outcomes Following Infrapopliteal Plain Balloon Angioplasty in the BASIL Trial (1999-2004) and in a Contemporary Series (2009-2013).

OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes in patients randomized to infrapopliteal (IP) plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) for chronic limb-threatening ischemia within the Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischemia of the Leg (BASIL)-1 trial between 1999 and 2004 with outcomes in consecutive patients undergoing IP PBA at an academic vascular unit a decade later (2009-2013, Contemporary series [CS]). METHODS: Individual patient data were obtained from prospective BASIL-1 (48 patients) and CS databases (73 patients). All had a minimum of 3-years of follow-up. Outcomes studied were amputation-free survival (AFS), overall survival (OS), major (above ankle) limb amputation, arterial reintervention, immediate technical success, and length of hospital stay for the index procedure and during the following 12-month period. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS version 9.4. RESULTS: The BASIL and CS cohorts were well matched for gender, age, diabetes, previous stroke, myocardial infarction and arterial intervention, and presence of tissue loss. More patients in BASIL-1 underwent concomitant treatment of the superficial femoral (60% vs 37%, P = .01) and above knee popliteal (60% vs 34%, P = .005) arteries. Immediate technical success increased from 73% in BASIL-1 to 90% in the CS (P = .01). Between the two cohorts, there were no differences in AFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-1.54, P = 1.0), OS (HR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.66-1.62, P = .9), major amputation (HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.37-1.97, P = .7), or reintervention (HR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.29-1.27, P = .2). Contemporary series patients spent significantly fewer days in hospital following the index procedure (P = .02) and also over the following 12 months (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Despite improvements in the immediate technical angiographic success of IP PBA between BASIL and the CS, there were no significant improvements in survival outcomes. Results from BASIL-2 and BEST-CLI are required in order to properly define the clinical and cost-effectiveness of endovascular treatment in such patients.

Contemporary (2009-2014) clinical outcomes after femoropopliteal bypass surgery for chronic limb threatening ischemia are inferior to those reported in the UK Bypass versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) trial (1999-2004).

BACKGROUND: Bypass surgery (BS) remains the gold standard revascularization strategy in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) owing to infrainguinal disease. The Bypass versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-1 trial showed that, in patients with CLTI who survived for 2 years or more, BS resulted in better clinical outcomes. Despite this finding, there has been an increasing trend toward an endovascular-first approach to infrainguinal CLTI. Our aim was to investigate whether changes in practice have impacted the clinical outcomes of BS in our unit 10 years after BASIL-1. METHODS: Data for patients who underwent femoropopliteal (FP) BS in BASIL-1 (1999-2004) were retrieved from trial case record forms. The comparator contemporary series (CS) comprised all patients undergoing FP BS for CLTI in our unit between 2009 and 2014. Demographic and clinical outcome data on patients in the CS were collected from the prospectively collected hospital electronic notes. Anatomic patterns of disease in the BASIL-1 and CS cohorts were scored using the Bollinger and GLASS criteria. Statistical analysis was performed in SAS v9.4. RESULTS: There were 128 patients from BASIL-1 and 50 patients in the CS. Baseline age, gender, affected limb, and diabetes prevalence were similar, as were days spent in hospital out to 12 months and length of follow-up. BASIL-1 patients were more likely to be current smokers (P = .000) and had a higher creatinine (P = .04). The 30-day morbidity and mortality were higher in BASIL-1 (45.3% vs 22%; P = .004). There was no significant difference between BASIL-1 and CS with regard to run-off Bollinger (37.7 vs 32.1; P = .167) and IP GLASS (0 vs 0; P = .390) scores, with both groups having a median of two runoff vessels. Amputation-free survival (62% vs 28%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-2.93; P = .007), limb salvage (85% vs 69%; HR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.14-4.68; P = .02), overall survival (69% vs 35%; HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.00-2.74; P = .05) and major adverse limb events (67% vs 47%; HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.15-3.22; P = .01) were all significantly better in BASIL-1. CONCLUSIONS: Although 30-day mortality and morbidity were significantly lower, all of the examined longer term clinical outcomes after FP BS were significantly worse in the CS group a decade on from BASIL-1. Further research in the form of prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials is urgently required to determine if the CS data reported herein are generalizable to current vascular surgical practice and, if so, to determine the reasons for these unexpected outcomes.

Publication of UK NICE Clinical Guidelines 168 has not significantly changed the management of leg ulcers in primary care: An analysis of The Health Improvement Network database.

BACKGROUND: NICE Clinical Guidelines (CG) 168, published in July 2013, recommend specialist vascular referral for all leg ulcers, defined as a break in the skin below the knee that has not healed within two weeks. AIM: To examine the impact of CG168 on the primary care management of leg ulcers using The Health Improvement Network database. METHODS: An eligible population of approximately two million adult patients was analysed over two 18-month periods before and after publication of CG168. Those with a new diagnosis of leg ulcers in each time period were analysed in terms of demographics, specialist referral and superficial venous ablation. RESULTS: We identified 7532 and 7462 new diagnoses of leg ulcers in the pre- and post-CG168 cohorts, respectively. Patients with a new diagnosis of leg ulcers were elderly (median age: 77 years both cohorts) and less likely to be male (47% both cohorts). There were 2259 (30.0%) and 2329 (31.2%) vascular service referrals in the pre- and post-CG168 cohorts, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.11, p = 0.096). The median interval between general practitioner diagnosis and referral was 1.5 days in both cohorts. Patients from both cohorts who were referred for a new diagnosis of leg ulcers were equally likely to receive superficial venous ablation. CONCLUSIONS: Disappointingly, we have been unable to demonstrate that publication of NICE CG168 has been associated with a meaningful change in leg ulcer management in primary care in line with guideline recommendations.

Analysis of Effect of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Clinical Guideline CG168 on Management of Varicose Veins in Primary Care Using the Health Improvement Network Database.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: In July 2013, new UK guidelines recommended that all patients with symptomatic varicose veins (VV) be referred to a specialist vascular service for consideration of superficial venous intervention (SVI). In the UK, general practitioners (GPs) in primary care control access to publicly funded vascular services provided through the National Health Service. GP awareness and concordance with Clinical Guideline (CG)168 recommendations is vital if patients with VV are to receive evidence-based treatment in line with national recommendations. The aim was to assess the UK-wide impact of new guidelines on GP management of VV using a large database of electronic GP records. METHODS: An eligible population of patients aged ≥ 18 years was analysed over two 18-month periods, before and after guideline publication. Those with a new diagnosis of VV in each time period were analysed in terms of demographics, specialist referral, compression hosiery prescriptions, and recorded SVI. RESULTS: Analysis included approximately two million patients from 285 GP practices. Before and after CG168 cohorts were well matched. Study populations included 13,014 patients before and 12,466 patients after guideline publication. There was an increase in specialist referrals from 24% (n = 3173) to 28% (n = 3457) (Cox hazard ratio [HR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.20; p < .001). Median time to referral was 1.5 days. Prescribed compression hosiery declined from 20% (n = 2558) before the new guidelines to 18% (n = 2292) after the new guidelines (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.98; p = .008). There were similar increases in proportions recorded as having SVI, from 3.6% (n = 469) before the new guidelines to 4.2% (n = 526) after the new guidelines (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.31; p = .023). There was a statistically significant increase in endothermal ablation after CG168. In Cox models, age, sex, Townsend quintile, and body mass index were significantly related to the chance of referral and SVI. CONCLUSION: Encouragingly, following publication of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence CG168, there has been a statistically significant improvement in the management of VV in primary care in line with the CG recommendations.

Impact of UK NICE clinical guidelines 168 on referrals to a specialist academic leg ulcer service.

Background Leg ulcers are a common cause of morbidity and disability and result in significant health and social care expenditure. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Clinical Guideline (CG)168, published in July 2013, sought to improve care of patients with leg ulcers, recommending that patients with a break in the skin below the knee that had not healed within two weeks be referred to a specialist vascular service for diagnosis and management. Aim Determine the impact of CG168 on referrals to a leg ulcer service. Methods Patients referred with leg ulceration during an 18-month period prior to CG168 (January 2012-June 2013) and an 18-month period commencing six months after (January 2014-June 2015) publication of CG168 were compared. Results There was a two-fold increase in referrals (181 patients, 220 legs vs. 385 patients, 453 legs) but no change in mean age, gender or median-duration of ulcer at referral (16.6 vs. 16.2 weeks). Mean-time from referral to specialist appointment increased (4.8 vs. 6 weeks, p = 0.0001), as did legs with superficial venous insufficiency (SVI) (36% vs. 44%, p = 0.05). There was a trend towards more SVI endovenous interventions (32% vs. 39%, p = 0.271) with an increase in endothermal (2 vs. 32 legs, p = 0.001) but no change in sclerotherapy (24 vs. 51 legs) treatments. In both groups, 62% legs had compression. There was a reduction in legs treated conservatively with simple dressings (26% vs. 15%, p = 0.0006). Conclusions Since CG168, there has been a considerable increase in leg ulcer referrals. However, patients are still not referred until ulceration has been present for many months. Although many ulcers are multi-factorial and the mainstay of treatment remains compression, there has been an increase in SVI endovenous intervention. Further efforts are required to persuade community practitioners to refer patients earlier, to educate patients and encourage further investment in chronically underfunded leg ulcer services.

BAlloon versus Stenting in severe Ischaemia of the Leg-3 (BASIL-3): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe limb ischaemia (SLI) is defined as the presence of rest pain and/or tissue loss secondary to lower extremity atherosclerotic peripheral arterial disease. The superficial femoral and popliteal arteries are the most commonly diseased vessels in such patients and are being increasingly treated using endovascular revascularisation techniques. However, it is currently unknown whether drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloons confer additional clinical benefits over more established techniques using plain balloons and bare metal stents, or whether they represent a cost-effective use of NHS resources. METHODS: The BASIL-3 trial is a UK National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme-funded, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of plain balloon angioplasty with or without bail-out bare metal stenting, drug-coated balloon angioplasty with or without bail-out bare metal stenting, and primary stenting with drug-eluting stents for SLI secondary to femoro-popliteal disease. Patients with 'multilevel' disease may receive aorto-iliac and/or infrapopliteal treatments concurrently with their randomised femoro-popliteal intervention. The primary clinical outcome is amputation-free survival defined as the time to major (above the ankle) amputation of the index limb or death from any cause. The primary outcome for the economic analysis is cost per quality-adjusted life year. Secondary outcome measures include overall survival, major adverse limb events, major adverse cardiac events, relief of ischaemic pain, healing of tissue loss, and quality of life. The required sample size has been calculated at 861 participants (287 on each arm). These patients will be recruited over 3 years and followed-up for between 2 and 5 years. DISCUSSION: BASIL-3 is a pragmatic RCT designed to reflect current UK clinical practice. The results will inform decision-making regarding the appropriateness of funding the use of drug-coated balloons and drug-eluting stents, by the NHS, for the management of SLI due to femoro-popliteal disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, identifier: ISRCTN14469736 . Registered on 22 October 2015.

Impact of UK NICE Clinical Guidelines 168 and social deprivation on access to interventional treatment for symptomatic varicose vein and specialist referral for leg ulceration.

Background UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines (CG) 168, published in July 2013, aimed to improve the management of lower limb venous disease by newly recommending interventional treatment for all people affected by symptomatic varicose veins (VV) and specialist vascular referral for all people suffering from a leg ulcer (LU) that had been present for ≥2 weeks. This study aims to determine if CG168 has increased access to vascular services, particularly for the socially deprived, who might be expected to have greater need for such services. Methods The study was performed in a highly multi-cultural, socio-economically diverse, mixed urban/suburban population of approximately 1.2 million people living in and around East Birmingham, UK. Index of multiple deprivation quintile (IMD-Q) was used as a measure of social deprivation to compare levels of social deprivation of people undergoing interventions for symptomatic VV or referred with an LU during 18-month periods before and after the publication of CG168. The referring general practitioner practices (GPPs) were also recorded. Results There was no change in overall IMD-Q distribution before and after CG168 in terms of VV interventions. However, there was a non-significant increase in proportions of people classified as IMD-Q5 (the most deprived quintile). After CG168, fewer IMD-Q5 people with LU were referred, with a shift in referrals towards those from less socially deprived areas. More GPP referred people with both VV and LU after CG168, and those that referred patients before and after CG168 tended to refer more after CG168. Conclusions CG168 has increased VV interventions as well as the number referred with LU. However, this improvement in access to treatment and referral may have disproportionately favoured the more socio-economic privileged. Professional and public education is required to ensure that the beneficial impact of the CG168 recommendations are maximised and that those with the greatest health needs have equal access to evidence-based management of their venous disease.

Obesity and lower limb venous disease - The epidemic of phlebesity.

Introduction Lower limb venous disease affects up to one half, and obesity up to one quarter, of the adult population. Many people are therefore affected by, and present to health services for the treatment of both conditions. This article reviews the available evidence of pathophysiological and clinical relationship between obesity and varicose veins, chronic venous insufficiency and ulceration and deep vein thrombosis. Methods A literature search of PubMed and Cochrane libraries was performed in accordance with PRISMA statement from 1946 to 2015, with further article identification from following cited references for articles examining the relationship between obesity and venous disease. Search terms included obesity, overweight, thrombosis, varicose veins, CEAP, chronic venous insufficiency, treatment, endovenous, endothermal, sclerotherapy, bariatric surgery and deep vein thrombosis. Results The proportion of the population suffering from lower limb venous disease and obesity is increasing. Obesity is an important risk factor for all types of lower limb venous disease, and obese patients with lower limb venous disease are more likely to be symptomatic as a result of their lower limb venous disease. The clinical diagnosis, investigation, imaging and treatment of lower limb venous disease in obese people present a number of challenges. The evidence base underpinning medical, surgical and endovenous management of lower limb venous disease in obese people is limited and such treatment may be associated with worse outcomes and increased risks when compared to patients with a normal body mass index. Conclusion Lower limb venous disease and obesity are both increasingly common. As such, phlebologists will be treating ever greater numbers of obese patients with lower limb venous disease, and clinicians in many other specialties are going to be treating a wide range of obesity-related health problems in people with or at risk of lower limb venous disease. Unfortunately, obese people have been specifically excluded from many, if not most, of the pivotal studies. As such, many basic questions remain unanswered and there is an urgent need for research in this challenging and increasingly prevalent patient group.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative oral decontamination in patients undergoing major elective surgery.

BACKGROUND: Oral antiseptics reduce nosocomial infections and ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill medical and surgical patients intubated for prolonged periods. However, the role of oral antiseptics given before and after planned surgery is not clear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the effect of oral antiseptics (chlorhexidine or povidone-iodine) when administered before and after major elective surgery. METHODS: Searches were conducted of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. The analysis was performed using the random-effects method and the risk ratio (RR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Of 1114 unique identified articles, perioperative chlorhexidine was administered to patients undergoing elective surgery in four studies. This identified 2265 patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery, of whom 1093 (48.3 %) received perioperative chlorhexidine. Postoperative pneumonia and nosocomial infections were observed in 5.3 and 20.2 % who received chlorhexidine compared to 10.4 and 31.3 % who received a control preparation, respectively. Oral perioperative chlorhexidine significantly reduced the risk of postoperative pneumonia (RR = 0.52; 95 % CI 0.39-0.71; p < 0.01) and overall nosocomial infections (RR = 0.65; 95 % CI 0.52-0.81; p < 0.01), with no effect on in-hospital mortality (RR = 1.01; 95 % CI 0.49-2.09; p = 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative oral chlorhexidine significantly decreases the incidence of nosocomial infection and postoperative pneumonia in patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. There are no randomised controlled studies of this simple and cheap intervention in patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered with the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). The registration number is CRD42015016063.

Bypass versus angio plasty in severe ischaemia of the leg - 2 (BASIL-2) trial: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe limb ischaemia is defined by ischaemic rest/night pain, tissue loss, or both, secondary to arterial insufficiency and is increasingly caused by infra-popliteal (below the knee) disease, mainly as a result of the increasing worldwide prevalence of diabetes. Currently, it is unknown whether vein bypass surgery or the best endovascular treatment (angioplasty or stenting) represents the optimal revascularisation strategy in terms of amputation-free survival, overall survival, relief of symptoms, quality of life and cost-effective use of health care resources. METHODS/DESIGN: The Bypass vs. Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg - 2 Trial is a UK National Institute of Health Research, Health Technology Assessment funded, multi-centre randomised controlled trial that compares, at the point of clinical equipoise, the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a 'vein bypass first' and a 'best endovascular treatment first' revascularisation strategy for severe limb ischaemia due to infra-popliteal disease. The primary clinical outcome is amputation-free survival defined as the time to major (above the ankle) amputation of the trial limb or death from any cause. The primary outcome for the cost-effectiveness analysis is cost per quality-adjusted life year. Secondary outcomes include overall survival, quality of life, in-hospital mortality and morbidity, repeat and crossover interventions, healing of tissue loss and haemodynamic changes following revascularisation. Sample size is estimated at 600 patients. An economic evaluation will be conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service and comprise a 'within-study' analysis, based on prospectively collected trial data and a 'model-based' analysis, which will extrapolate and compare costs and effects beyond the study follow-up period. DISCUSSION: The BASIL-2 trial is designed to be pragmatic and represent current practice within the United Kingdom. Patients with severe limb ischaemia can only be randomised into the trial where clinical equipose exists. The advent of hybrid operating procedures should not be a barrier to randomisation, should a patient require inflow correction prior to tibial revascularisation. ISRCTN: 27728689 Date of registration: 12 May 2014.

A review of randomised controlled trials comparing ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy with endothermal ablation for the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins.

OBJECTIVE: The last 10 years have seen the introduction into everyday clinical practice of a wide range of novel non-surgical treatments for varicose veins. In July 2013, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended the following treatment hierarchy for varicose veins: endothermal ablation, ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy, surgery and compression hosiery. The aim of this paper is to review the randomised controlled trials that have compared endothermal ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy to determine if the level 1 evidence base still supports an "endothermal ablation first" strategy for the treatment of varicose veins. METHODS: A PubMed and OVID literature search (until 31 January 2015) was performed and randomised controlled trials comparing endothermal ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy were obtained. RESULTS: Although anatomical success appeared higher with endothermal ablation than ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy, clinical success and patient-reported outcomes measures were similar. Morbidity and complication rates were very low and not significantly different between endothermal ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy. Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy was consistently less expensive that endothermal ablation. CONCLUSIONS: All endovenous modalities appear to be successful and have a role in modern day practice. Although further work is required to optimise ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy technique to maximise anatomical success and minimise retreatment, the present level 1 evidence base shows there is no significant difference in clinical important outcomes between ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy and endothermal ablation. As ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy is less expensive, it is likely to be a more cost-effective option in most patients in most healthcare settings. Strict adherence to the treatment hierarchy recommended by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence seems unjustified.