Survey based assessment of the quality of reporting guidelines of carotid artery stenosis.

BACKGROUND: No evaluation of the quality of different carotid guidelines using validated scales has been performed to date. The present study aims to analyze three carotid stenosis guidelines, apprizing their quality and reporting using validated tools. METHODS: A survey-based assessment of the quality of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2023, European Stroke Organisation (ESO) 2021, and the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) 2021 carotid stenosis guidelines, was performed by 43 vascular surgeons, cardiologists, neurologist or interventional radiologists using two validated appraisal tools for quality and reporting guidelines, the AGREE II instrument and the RIGHT statement. RESULTS: Using the AGREE II tool, the ESVS, SVS, and ESO guidelines had overall quality scores of 87.3%, 79.4%, and 82.9%, respectively (p=0.001) The ESVS and ESO had better scores in the scope and purpose domain, and the SVS in the clarity of presentation domain. In the RIGHT statement, the ESVS, SVS, and ESO guidelines had overall quality scores of 84.0.7%, 74.3%, and 79.0%, respectively (p=0.001). All three guidelines stood out for their methodology for search of evidence and formulating evidence-based recommendations. On the contrary, were negatively evaluated mostly in the cost and resource implications in formulating the recommendations. CONCLUSION: The 2023 ESVS carotid stenosis guideline was the best evaluated among the three guidelines, with scores over 5% higher than the other two guidelines. Efforts should be made by guideline writing committees to take the AGREE II and RIGHT statements into account in the development of future guidelines to produce high-quality recommendations.

Effectiveness of bedside investigations to diagnose peripheral artery disease among people with diabetes mellitus: A systematic review.

As a progressive disease process, early diagnosis and ongoing monitoring and treatment of lower limb peripheral artery disease (PAD) is critical to reduce the risk of diabetes-related foot ulcer (DFU) development, non-healing of wounds, infection and amputation, in addition to cardiovascular complications. There are a variety of non-invasive tests available to diagnose PAD at the bedside, but there is no consensus as to the most diagnostically accurate of these bedside investigations or their reliability for use as a method of ongoing monitoring. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to first determine the diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive bedside tests for identifying PAD compared to an imaging reference test and second to determine the intra- and inter-rater reliability of non-invasive bedside tests in adults with diabetes. A database search of Medline and Embase was conducted from 1980 to 30 November 2022. Prospective and retrospective investigations of the diagnostic accuracy of bedside testing in people with diabetes using an imaging reference standard and reliability studies of bedside testing techniques conducted in people with diabetes were eligible. Included studies of diagnostic accuracy were required to report adequate data to calculate the positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) which were the primary endpoints. The quality appraisal was conducted using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies and Quality Appraisal of Reliability quality appraisal tools. From a total of 8517 abstracts retrieved, 40 studies met the inclusion criteria for the diagnostic accuracy component of the review and seven studies met the inclusion criteria for the reliability component of the review. Most studies investigated the diagnostic accuracy of ankle -brachial index (ABI) (N = 38). In people with and without DFU, PLRs ranged from 1.69 to 19.9 and NLRs from 0.29 to 0.84 indicating an ABI <0.9 increases the likelihood of disease (but the extent of the increase ranges from a small to large amount) and an ABI within the normal range (≥0.90 and <1.3) does not exclude PAD. For toe-brachial index (TBI), a threshold of <0.70 has a moderate ability to rule PAD in and out; however, this is based on limited evidence. Similarly, a small number of studies indicate that one or more monophasic Doppler waveforms in the pedal arteries is associated with the presence of PAD, whereas tri- or biphasic waveform suggests that PAD is less likely. Several forms of bedside testing may also be useful as adjunct tests and 7 studies were identified that investigated the reliability of bedside tests including ABI, toe pressure, TBI, transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcPO2 ) and pulse palpation. Inter-rater reliability was poor for pulse palpation and moderate for TcPO2. The ABI, toe pressure and TBI may have good inter- and intra-rater reliability, but margins of error are wide, requiring a large change in the measurement for it to be considered a true change rather than error. There is currently no single bedside test or a combination of bedside tests that has been shown to have superior diagnostic accuracy for PAD in people with diabetes with or without DFU. However, an ABI <0.9 or >1.3, TBI of <0.70, and absent or monophasic pedal Doppler waveforms are useful to identify the presence of disease. The ability of the tests to exclude disease is variable and although reliability may be acceptable, evidence of error in the measurements means test results that are within normal limits should be considered with caution and in the context of other vascular assessment findings (e.g., pedal pulse palpation and clinical signs) and progress of DFU healing.

Effectiveness of revascularisation for the ulcerated foot in patients with diabetes and peripheral artery disease: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with an increased likelihood of delayed or non-healing of a diabetes-related foot ulcer, gangrene, and amputation. The selection of the most effective surgical technique for revascularisation of the lower limb in this population is challenging and there is a lack of conclusive evidence to support the choice of intervention. This systematic review aimed to determine, in people with diabetes and tissue loss, if direct revascularisation is superior to indirect revascularisation and if endovascular revascularisation is superior to open revascularisation for the outcomes of wound healing, minor or major amputation, and adverse events including mortality. METHODS: Title and abstract searches of Medline, Embase, PubMed, and EBSCO were conducted from 1980 to 30th November 2022. Cohort and case-control studies and randomised controlled trials reporting comparative outcomes of direct (angiosome) revascularisation (DR) and indirect revascularisation (IR) or the comparative outcomes of endovascular revascularisation and open or hybrid revascularisation for the outcomes of healing, minor amputation, and major amputation in people with diabetes, PAD and tissue loss (including foot ulcer and/or gangrene) were eligible. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials, the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies, and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational and cohort studies where details regarding the allocation to intervention groups were not provided. RESULTS: From a total 7086 abstracts retrieved, 26 studies met the inclusion criteria for the comparison of direct angiosome revascularisation (DR) and indirect revascularisation (IR), and 11 studies met the inclusion criteria for the comparison of endovascular and open revascularisation. One study was included in both comparisons. Of the included studies, 35 were observational (31 retrospective and 4 prospective cohorts) and 1 was a randomised controlled trial. Cohort study quality was variable and generally low, with common sources of bias related to heterogeneous participant populations and interventions and lack of reporting of or adjusting for confounding factors. The randomised controlled trial had a low risk of bias. For studies of DR and IR, results were variable, and it is uncertain if one technique is superior to the other for healing, prevention of minor or major amputation, or mortality. However, the majority of studies reported that a greater proportion of participants receiving DR healed compared with IR, and that IR with collaterals may have similar outcomes to DR for wound healing. For patients with diabetes, infrainguinal PAD, and an adequate great saphenous vein available for use as a bypass conduit who were deemed suitable for either surgical procedure, an open revascularisation first approach was superior to endovascular therapy to prevent a major adverse limb event or death (Hazard Ratio: 0.72; 95% CI 0.61-0.86). For other studies of open and endovascular approaches, there was generally no difference in outcomes between the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of available evidence for the effectiveness of DR and IR and open and endovascular revascularisation for wound healing and prevention of minor and major amputation and adverse events including mortality in people with diabetes, PAD and tissue loss is inconclusive, and the certainty of evidence is very low. Data from one high quality randomised controlled trial supports the use of open over endovascular revascularisation to prevent a major limb event and death in people with diabetes, infrainguinal disease and tissue loss who have an adequate great saphenous vein available and who are deemed suitable for either approach.

Performance of non-invasive bedside vascular testing in the prediction of wound healing or amputation among people with foot ulcers in diabetes: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) confers a significantly increased risk of failure to heal and major lower limb amputation for people with diabetes-related foot ulcer (DFU). Determining performance of non-invasive bedside tests for predicting likely DFU outcomes is therefore key to effective risk stratification of patients with DFU and PAD to guide management decisions. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the performance of non-invasive bedside tests for PAD to predict DFU healing, healing post-minor amputation, or need for minor or major amputation in people with diabetes and DFU or gangrene. METHODS: A database search of Medline and Embase was conducted from 1980 to 30 November 2022. Prospective studies that evaluated non-invasive bedside tests in patients with diabetes, with and without PAD and foot ulceration or gangrene to predict the outcomes of DFU healing, minor amputation, and major amputation with or without revascularisation, were eligible. Included studies were required to have a minimum 6-month follow-up period and report adequate data to calculate the positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio for the outcomes of DFU healing, and minor and major amputation. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. RESULTS: From 14,820 abstracts screened 28 prognostic studies met the inclusion criteria. The prognostic tests evaluated by the studies included: ankle-brachial index (ABI) in 9 studies; ankle pressures in 10 studies, toe-brachial index in 4 studies, toe pressure in 9 studies, transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcPO2 ) in 7 studies, skin perfusion pressure in 5 studies, continuous wave Doppler (pedal waveforms) in 2 studies, pedal pulses in 3 studies, and ankle peak systolic velocity in 1 study. Study quality was variable. Common reasons for studies having a moderate or high risk of bias were poorly described study participation, attrition rates, and inadequate adjustment for confounders. In people with DFU, toe pressure ≥30 mmHg, TcPO2 ≥25 mmHg, and skin perfusion pressure of ≥40 mmHg were associated with a moderate to large increase in pretest probability of healing in people with DFU. Toe pressure ≥30 mmHg was associated with a moderate increase in healing post-minor amputation. An ABI using a threshold of ≥0.9 did not increase the pretest probability of DFU healing, whereas an ABI <0.5 was associated with a moderate increase in pretest probability of non-healing. Few studies investigated amputation outcomes. An ABI <0.4 demonstrated the largest increase in pretest probability of a major amputation (PLR ≥10). CONCLUSIONS: Prognostic capacity of bedside testing for DFU healing and amputation is variable. A toe pressure ≥30 mmHg, TcPO2 ≥25 mmHg, and skin perfusion pressure of ≥40 mmHg are associated with a moderate to large increase in pretest probability of healing in people with DFU. There are little data available evaluating the prognostic capacity of bedside testing for healing after minor amputation or for major amputation in people with DFU. Current evidence suggests that an ABI <0.4 may be associated with a large increase in risk of major amputation. The findings of this systematic review need to be interpreted in the context of limitations of available evidence, including varying rates of revascularisation, lack of post-revascularisation bedside testing, and heterogenous subpopulations.

The intersocietal IWGDF, ESVS, SVS guidelines on peripheral artery disease in people with diabetes and a foot ulcer.

Diabetes related foot complications have become a major cause of morbidity and are implicated in most major and minor amputations globally. Approximately 50% of people with diabetes and a foot ulcer have peripheral artery disease (PAD) and the presence of PAD significantly increases the risk of adverse limb and cardiovascular events. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes related foot complications since 1999. This guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis, prognosis and management of peripheral artery disease in people with diabetes mellitus and a foot ulcer. For this guideline the IWGDF, the European Society for Vascular Surgery and the Society for Vascular Surgery decided to collaborate to develop a consistent suite of recommendations relevant to clinicians in all countries. This guideline is based on three new systematic reviews. Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework clinically relevant questions were formulated, and the literature was systematically reviewed. After assessing the certainty of the evidence, recommendations were formulated which were weighed against the balance of benefits and harms, patient values, feasibility, acceptability, equity, resources required, and when available, costs. Through this process five recommendations were developed for diagnosing PAD in a person with diabetes, with and without a foot ulcer or gangrene. Five recommendations were developed for prognosis relating to estimating likelihood of healing and amputation outcomes in a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer or gangrene. Fifteen recommendations were developed related to PAD treatment encompassing prioritisation of people for revascularisation, the choice of a procedure and post-surgical care. In addition, the Writing Committee has highlighted key research questions where current evidence is lacking. The Writing Committee believes that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals to provide better care and will reduce the burden of diabetes related foot complications.

The Intersocietal IWGDF, ESVS, SVS Guidelines on Peripheral Artery Disease in People With Diabetes Mellitus and a Foot Ulcer.

Diabetes related foot complications have become a major cause of morbidity and are implicated in most major and minor amputations globally. Approximately 50% of people with diabetes and a foot ulcer have peripheral artery disease (PAD) and the presence of PAD significantly increases the risk of adverse limb and cardiovascular events. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes related foot complications since 1999. This guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of peripheral artery disease in people with diabetes mellitus and a foot ulcer. For this updated guideline, the IWGDF, the European Society for Vascular Surgery, and the Society for Vascular Surgery decided to collaborate to develop a consistent suite of recommendations relevant to clinicians in all countries. This guideline is based on three new systematic reviews. Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework clinically relevant questions were formulated, and the literature was systematically reviewed. After assessing the certainty of the evidence, recommendations were formulated which were weighed against the balance of benefits and harms, patient values, feasibility, acceptability, equity, resources required, and when available, costs. Through this process five recommendations were developed for diagnosing PAD in a person with diabetes, with and without a foot ulcer or gangrene. Five recommendations were developed for prognosis relating to estimating likelihood of healing and amputation outcomes in a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer or gangrene. Fifteen recommendations were developed related to PAD treatment encompassing prioritisation of people for revascularisation, the choice of a procedure and post-surgical care. In addition, the Writing Committee has highlighted key research questions where current evidence is lacking. The Writing Committee believes that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals to provide better care and will reduce the burden of diabetes related foot complications.

The intersocietal IWGDF, ESVS, SVS guidelines on peripheral artery disease in people with diabetes mellitus and a foot ulcer.

Diabetes related foot complications have become a major cause of morbidity and are implicated in most major and minor amputations globally. Approximately 50% of people with diabetes and a foot ulcer have peripheral artery disease (PAD) and the presence of PAD significantly increases the risk of adverse limb and cardiovascular events. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes related foot complications since 1999. This guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of peripheral artery disease in people with diabetes mellitus and a foot ulcer. For this updated guideline, the IWGDF, the European Society for Vascular Surgery, and the Society for Vascular Surgery decided to collaborate to develop a consistent suite of recommendations relevant to clinicians in all countries. This guideline is based on three new systematic reviews. Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework clinically relevant questions were formulated, and the literature was systematically reviewed. After assessing the certainty of the evidence, recommendations were formulated which were weighed against the balance of benefits and harms, patient values, feasibility, acceptability, equity, resources required, and when available, costs. Through this process five recommendations were developed for diagnosing PAD in a person with diabetes, with and without a foot ulcer or gangrene. Five recommendations were developed for prognosis relating to estimating likelihood of healing and amputation outcomes in a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer or gangrene. Fifteen recommendations were developed related to PAD treatment encompassing prioritisation of people for revascularisation, the choice of a procedure and post-surgical care. In addition, the Writing Committee has highlighted key research questions where current evidence is lacking. The Writing Committee believes that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals to provide better care and will reduce the burden of diabetes related foot complications.

A Systematic Review of Endovascular Repair Outcomes in Atherosclerotic Chronic Mesenteric Ischaemia.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic mesenteric ischaemia (CMI) treatment focuses on symptom relief and prevention of disease progression. Endovascular repair represents the main treatment modality, while data on the associated antiplatelet regimen are scarce. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the early and midterm outcomes of endovascular repair in patients with CMI. DATA SOURCES: Randomised controlled trials and observational studies (1990 - 2022) reporting on early and midterm endovascular repair outcomes in patients with atherosclerotic CMI. REVIEW METHODS: The PRISMA guidelines and PICO model were followed. The protocol was registered to PROSPERO (CRD42023401685). Medline, Embase (via Ovid), and Cochrane databases were searched (end date 21 February 2023). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for risk of bias assessment, and GRADE for evidence quality assessment. Primary outcomes were technical success, 30 day mortality, and symptom relief, assessed using prevalence meta-analysis. The role of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) was investigated using meta-regression analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen retrospective studies (1 224 patients; mean age 69.8 ± 10.6 years; 60.3% female) reporting on 1 368 target vessels (57.8% superior mesenteric arteries) were included. Technical success was 95.0% (95% CI 93 - 97%, p = .28, I2 19%, low certainty), the 30 day mortality rate was 2.0% (95% CI 2 - 4%, p = .93, I2 36%, low certainty), and immediate symptom relief was 87.0% (95% CI 80 - 92%, p < .010, I2 85%, very low certainty). At mean follow up of 28 months, the mortality rate was 15.0% (95% CI 9 - 25%, p = .010, I2 86%, very low certainty), symptom recurrence 25.0% (95% CI 21 - 31%, p < .010, I2 68%, very low certainty) and re-intervention rate 26.0% (95% CI 17 - 37%, p < .010, I2 92%, very low certainty). Single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) and DAPT performed similarly in the investigated outcomes. CONCLUSION: Endovascular repair for CMI appears to be safe as first line treatment, with a low peri-operative mortality rate and acceptable immediate symptom relief. During midterm follow up, symptom recurrence and need for re-intervention are not uncommon. SAPT appears to be equal to DAPT in post-operative outcomes.

Practice of neuromonitoring in open and endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic repair-an international expert-based modified Delphi consensus study.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord injury is detrimental for patients undergoing open or endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair. The aim of this survey and of the modified Delphi consensus was to gather information on current practices and standards in neuroprotection in patients undergoing open and endovascular TAAA. METHODS: The Aortic Association conducted an international online survey on neuromonitoring in open and endovascular TAAA repair. In a first round an expert panel put together a survey on different aspects of neuromonitoring. Based on the answers from the first round of the survey, 18 Delphi consensus questions were formulated. RESULTS: A total of 56 physicians completed the survey. Of these, 45 perform open and endovascular TAAA repair, 3 do open TAAA repair and 8 do endovascular TAAA repair. At least 1 neuromonitoring or protection modality is utilized during open TAAA surgery. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage was used in 97.9%, near infrared spectroscopy in 70.8% and motor evoked potentials or somatosensory evoked potentials in 60.4%. Three of 53 centres do not utilize any form of neuromonitoring or protection during endovascular TAAA repair: 92.5% use CSF drainage; 35.8%, cerebral or paravertebral near infrared spectroscopy; and 24.5% motor evoked potentials or somatosensory evoked potentials. The utilization of CSF drainage and neuromonitoring varies depending on the extent of the TAAA repair. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey and of the Delphi consensus show that there is broad consensus on the importance of protecting the spinal cord to avoid spinal cord injury in patients undergoing open TAAA repair. Those measures are less frequently utilized in patients undergoing endovascular TAAA repair but should be considered, especially in patients who require extensive coverage of the thoracoabdominal aorta.

Long-Term Outcomes and Risk Factors Analysis for Patients Undergoing Thoracic Endovascular Aorta Repair (TEVAR), According to the Aortic Pathologies.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become a standard treatment for acute and chronic thoracic aorta diseases. We analyzed long-term outcomes and risk factors of TEVAR procedures according to the aortic pathology. METHODS: Demographics, indications, technical details, and outcomes of patients undergoing TEVAR procedures in our institutions were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. Overall survival was determined using Kaplan-Meier methods while log-rank tests were used to compare the survival between groups. Cox regression analysis was used to identify risk factors. RESULTS: Between June 2002 and April 2020, 116 patients underwent TEVAR for different thoracic aorta diseases. Among them, 47 patients (41%) underwent TEVAR for aneurysmatic aortic disease, 26 (22%) for type-B aortic dissection, 23 (20%) for penetrating aortic ulcer, 11 (9%) after previous type-A dissection treatment, and 9 (8%) for traumatic aortic injury. Patients with posttraumatic aortic injury were younger (P < 0.01) with less hypertension (P < 0.01), diabetes (P < 0.01), and prior cardiac surgery (P < 0.01). Survival was different based on indication for TEVAR (log rank 0.024). Patients after previous type-A dissection treatment had the worst survival rate (50% at 5 years) while survival for aneurysmatic aortic disease was 55% at 5 years. No late death occurred in the traumatic group. Cox-regression model identified independent predictors for mortality: age (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.09, P = 0.006), male gender (HR: 3.2, 95% CI: 1.1-9.2, P = 0.028), moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.02-4.55, P = 0.043), previous cardiac surgery (HR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.008-4.5, P = 0.048), and treatment indication for aneurysm (HR: 2.6, 95% CI: 1.2-5.2, P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR is a safe and effective procedure with excellent long-term results in case of traumatic aortic injury. The overall long-term survival is affected by aortic pathology, associated comorbidities, gender, and previous cardiac surgery.

Impact of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings on Decision Making in Vascular Surgery: A Prospective Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: This cohort study aimed to prospectively determine the impact of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) on treatment plans in vascular patients. METHODS: The weekly MDT at the institution consisted of a structured discussion of vascular cases in the presence of at least one representative of each specialty from vascular surgery, angiology, and interventional radiology. Participants were asked to examine the cases entered on the digital MDT platform and to fill in forms with a detailed open text treatment recommendation for each patient. Individual recommendations were compared with the final MDT decision, which was based on a shared decision after discussion of clinical and radiological data. The primary endpoint was the agreement rate. The rate of decision implementation was determined to verify the adherence to MDT recommendations. RESULTS: Four hundred consecutive case discussions in 367 patients between November 2019 and March 2021 were included, excluding patients needing urgent treatment, yielding MDT discussion in 88.5% of carotid artery cases, 83% of aorto-iliac cases, and 51.7% of peripheral arterial cases, which included 56.9% of the chronic limb threatening ischaemia cases. The overall average agreement rate was 71% ± 41%. Analysis according to the specialty of the attending physician showed agreement rates of 82% ± 30% for senior vascular surgeons, 62% ± 44% for junior vascular surgeons, 71% ± 43% for interventional radiologists, 58% ± 50% for angiologists (p < .001), and 75% ± 38% considering only senior practitioners. The inter-rater agreement, resulted in kappa coefficients of 0.60 - 0.68 for senior vascular surgeons, 0.29 - 0.31 for junior vascular surgeons, 0.39 - 0.52 for interventional radiologists, and 0.25 for angiologists. The MDT treatment decision was implemented in 353 (96.2%) cases. CONCLUSION: The impact of MDT discussion on treatment recommendations and the adherence to MDT recommendations were significant and in line with results reported from other specialties.

Editor's Choice - Infective Native Aortic Aneurysms: A Delphi Consensus Document on Terminology, Definition, Classification, Diagnosis, and Reporting Standards.

OBJECTIVE: There is no consensus regarding the terminology, definition, classification, diagnostic criteria, and algorithm, or reporting standards for the disease of infective native aortic aneurysm (INAA), previously known as mycotic aneurysm. The aim of this study was to establish this by performing a consensus study. METHODS: The Delphi methodology was used. Thirty-seven international experts were invited via mail to participate. Four two week Delphi rounds were performed, using an online questionnaire, initially with 22 statements and nine reporting items. The panellists rated the statements on a five point Likert scale. Comments on statements were analysed, statements revised, and results presented in iterative rounds. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% of the panel selecting "strongly agree" or "agree" on the Likert scale, and consensus on the final assessment was defined as Cronbach's alpha coefficient > .80. RESULTS: All 38 panellists completed all four rounds, resulting in 100% participation and agreement that this study was necessary, and the term INAA was agreed to be optimal. Three more statements were added based on the results and comments of the panel, resulting in a final 25 statements and nine reporting items. All 25 statements reached an agreement of ≥ 87%, and all nine reporting items reached an agreement of 100%. The Cronbach's alpha increased for each consecutive round (round 1 = .84, round 2 = .87, round 3 = .90, and round 4 = .92). Thus, consensus was reached for all statements and reporting items. CONCLUSION: This Delphi study established the first consensus document on INAA regarding terminology, definition, classification, diagnostic criteria, and algorithm, as well as reporting standards. The results of this study create essential conditions for scientific research on this disease. The presented consensus will need future amendments in accordance with newly acquired knowledge.

Editor's Choice - Update of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2020 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Acute Limb Ischaemia in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Based on a Scoping Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a scoping review of how patients with COVID-19 are affected by acute limb ischaemia (ALI) and evaluate the recommendations of the 2020 ESVS ALI Guidelines for these patients. METHODS: Research questions were defined, and a systematic literature search was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. Abstracts and unpublished literature were not included. The definition of ALI in this review is in accordance with the ESVS guidelines. RESULTS: Most identified papers were case reports or case series, although population based data and data from randomised controlled trials were also identified. In total, 114 unique and relevant papers were retrieved. Data were conflicting concerning whether the incidence of ALI increased, or remained unchanged, during the pandemic. Case reports and series reported ALI in patients who were younger and healthier than usual, with a greater proportion affecting the upper limb. Whether or not this is coincidental remains uncertain. The proportion of men/women affected seems unchanged. Most reported cases were in hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19. Patients with ALI as their first manifestation of COVID-19 were reported. Patients with ALI have a worse outcome if they have a simultaneous COVID-19 infection. High levels of D-dimer may predict the occurrence of arterial thromboembolic events in patients with COVID-19. Heparin resistance was observed. Anticoagulation should be given to hospitalised COVID-19 patients in prophylactic dosage. Most of the treatment recommendations from the ESVS Guidelines remained relevant, but the following were modified regarding patients with COVID-19 and ALI: 1) CTA imaging before revascularisation should include the entire aorta and iliac arteries; 2) there should be a high index of suspicion, early testing for COVID-19 infection and protective measures are advised; and 3) there should be preferential use of local or locoregional anaesthesia during revascularisation. CONCLUSION: Although the epidemiology of ALI has changed during the pandemic, the recommendations of the ESVS ALI Guidelines remain valid. The above mentioned minor modifications should be considered in patients with COVID-19 and ALI.

SOFA Score as a Reliable Tool to Detect High Risk for Venous Thrombosis in Patients With Critical Stage SARS-CoV-2.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome from coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Different anticoagulation protocols have been applied in several studies in the absence of clear evidence. A reliable deep venous thrombosis (DVT) indicator in critical patients with SARS-CoV-2 could guide the anticoagulation treatment; however, it has not yet been identified, and clinical applicability of the most common markers is debatable. The aim of our study was to determine the actual incidence of DVT in critically ill SARS-CoV-2 patients and to find a reliable tool to identify patients who might benefit from therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation. Methods: From March 1, 2020 to May 31, 2020, all patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for SARS-CoV-2 at Ospedale Regionale di Locarno, Locarno, Switzerland, were prospectively enrolled and screened daily with ultrasound for DVT. Following international consensus, a higher-intensity thromboprophylaxis was administered to all patients who were not at increased risk for bleeding. Sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores were calculated and time-to-DVT event in a COX proportional-hazard regression model was performed. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine sensitivity and specificity and the Youden's Index to establish the best threshold. Results: A total of 96 patients were enrolled. Deep venous thrombosis was detected in 37% of patients. Sepsis-induced coagulopathy and SOFA scores were both correlated to DVT. A SIC score of 1 vs. ≥2 showed a close association with DVT, with sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of 90.0, 48.1, and 49.1, and 89.7%, respectively. Most significantly though, a SOFA score of 1 or 2 points was shown to be the most accurate value in predicting the absence of DVT, indicating no need for therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation. Its sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 87.9, 100, and 100, and 93.7%, respectively. The D-dimer test showed lower sensitivity and specificity whereas platelet count and aPTT were not found to be correlated to DVT. Conclusions: Patients with SOFA scores of 1 or 2 are at low risk of developing DVT and do not require therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation. Conversely, patients with scores ≥3 are at high risk of developing DVT.

Current trends in reduction or elimination of the aortic impulse during stent-graft deployment and balloon moulding during thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVES: A survey was performed to evaluate the methods used for reduction or elimination of the aortic impulse (REAI) to facilitate precise stent graft placement and balloon moulding during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). METHODS: A total of 127 physicians (1 per hospital) were contacted and asked to fill out a short, comprehensive questionnaire on an internet-based platform. RESULTS: Fifty physicians (39.4%) responded and completed the survey. Routine use of REAI for stent graft deployment is most frequently used in the ascending aorta and less frequently in the aortic arch and the descending aorta (86.4% vs 69.4% vs 56%). Some physicians based the decision of whether to use REAI on the type of stent graft in the respective location (13.6% vs 24.5% vs 24.0%). Stent-graft deployment without REAI, irrespective of the type of stent graft used, was never done in the ascending aorta (0.0%), in 3 centres in the aortic arch (6.1%) and in 10 centres in the descending aorta (20%). The REAI method most frequently used was dependent on the aortic segment (ascending aorta vs aortic arch vs descending aorta) rapid right ventricular pacing (90.9% vs 59.2% vs 28.0%), followed by pharmacological blood pressure reduction (13.6% vs 53.1% vs 64.0%) and venous inflow occlusion (13.6% vs 14.3% vs 4.0%), respectively. Tip capture and non-occlusive deployment systems were frequently quoted as reasons for not using REAI. CONCLUSIONS: REAI is the fundament for TEVAR in all thoracic aortic segments, with a decline in usage from proximal (ascending) to distal (descending). Rapid right ventricular pacing is the preferred REAI method used in TEVAR. Most procedures are performed with the patient under general anaesthesia. The types of stent grafts and moulding balloons used have an impact on the use or non-use of REAI.