Adherence to vascular care guidelines for emergency revascularization of chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

Objective: In 2022, the National Health Service Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (CQUIN) indicator for vascular surgery, with its pay-for-performance incentive for timely (5-day) revascularization of chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI), was introduced. We sought to assess its effects in terms of (1) changes in the care pathway process measures relating to timing and patient outcomes; and (2) adherence to the Peripheral Arterial Disease Quality Improvement Framework (PAD-QIF) guidelines for patients admitted with CLTI. Methods: A retrospective before-and-after cohort study was performed from January to June 2022 of nonelective admissions for CLTI who underwent revascularization (open, endovascular, or hybrid) at Cambridge University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, a regional vascular "hub." The diagnostic and treatment pathway timing-related process measures recommended in the PAD-QIF were compared between two 3-month cohorts-before vs after introduction of the CQUIN. Results: For the two cohorts (before vs after CQUIN), 17 of 223 and 17 of 219 total admissions met the inclusion criteria, respectively. After introduction of financial incentives, the percentage of patients meeting the 5-day targets for revascularization increased from 41.2% to 58.8% (P = .049). Improvements were also realized in the attainment of PAD-QIF targets for a referral-to-admission time of ≤2 days (from 82.4% to 88.8%; P = .525) and admission-to-specialist-review time of ≤14 hours (from 58.8% to 76.5%; P = .139). An increase also occurred in the percentage of patients receiving imaging studies within 2 days of referral (from 58.8% to 70.6%; P = .324). The reasons for delay included operating list pressures and unsuitability for intervention (eg, active COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] infection). No statistically significant changes to patient outcomes were observed between the two cohorts in terms of complications (pre-CQUIN, 23.5%; post-CQUIN, 41.2%; P = .086), length of stay (pre-QUIN, 12.0 ± 12.0 days; post-QUIN, 15.0 ± 21.0 days; P = .178), and in-hospital mortality (pre-QUIN, 0%; post-QUIN, 5.9%). Other PAD-QIF targets relating to delivery of care were poorly documented for both cohorts. These included documented staging of limb threat severity with the WIfI (wound, ischemia, foot infection) score (2.9% of patients; target >80%), documented shared decision-making (47.1%; target >80%), documented issuance of written information to patient (5.9%; target 100%), and geriatric assessment (6.3%; target >80%). Conclusions: The pay-for-performance incentive CQUIN indicators appear to have raised the profile for the need for early revascularization to treat CLTI, engaging senior hospital management, and reducing the time to revascularization in our cohort. Further data collection is required to detect any resultant changes in patient outcomes. Documentation of guideline targets for delivery of care was often poor and should be improved.

Mid-term outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair in challenging aortic neck anatomy based on experience from the GREAT C3 registry.

BACKGROUND: The European C3 module of the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT) evaluates the outcome and deployment mechanism of the C3 Gore Excluder stent-graft. We aimed to assess the mid- to long-term durability of the C3 Gore Excluder stent-graft in the management of challenging aortic neck morphology, outside the instruction of use (IFU). METHODS: The prospectively collected data from GREAT were retrospectively analyzed. For each subject demographic, pre/intra- and postoperative variables were collected. The main outcomes measured were serious adverse events (device-related, cerebrovascular, cardiac, pulmonary, pulmonary embolism, limb ischemia, and renal complications) and re-intervention at the 6-year follow-up. In this study, outside IFU was defined as aortic neck length <15 mm and/or aortic neck angle >60°. RESULTS: A total of 399 subjects (86.7% male, mean age 73.9 years) were identified. Sixty-eight subjects (17%) from 11 recruiting sites underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) outside IFU, and 399 devices were implanted. Of these, 47% had neck length <15 mm, 72.3% had neck angulation > 60°, and 21% had both. Mean follow-up duration was 53.5 months (SD=22.3). At the 6-year follow-up, the group with challenging anatomy required significantly more re-interventions (23.5% vs. 13.3%, P<0.05) and reported more serious adverse events (42.6% vs. 30.6%, P<0.005) than those within IFU. CONCLUSIONS: Midterm outcomes of the C3 Gore Excluder stent-graft are safe and effective within IFU. Outside IFU patients required significantly more all or device related re-interventions; however, they did not sustain significantly more serious adverse events.

Management and clinical outcome of concomitant pulmonary embolism and paradoxical saddle aortic arch embolism.

A 65-year-old man presented in a peri-arrest situation after collapse, he was found hypoxic with ischaemic arms. CT imaging showed massive bilateral pulmonary embolisms (PEs) and an aortic arch embolus extending from brachiocephalic trunk to left subclavian artery. Following intravenous thrombolysis, repeat imaging revealed that the aortic embolus had migrated distally into both axillary arteries and had occluded the right carotid from origin to skull base. Bilateral upper limb embolectomies were carried out from the brachial arteries together with forearm fasciotomies. Left hemianopia related to a right middle cerebral artery territory infarct was managed conservatively; forearm fasciotomy wounds were primarily closed and the patient was discharged on lifelong anticoagulation. A transoesophageal echocardiogram revealed a patent foramen ovale. This case demonstrates a very unusual presentation of concomitant PE and paradoxical saddle aortic arch embolism. A multidisciplinary approach has resulted in an excellent clinical outcome for this complex patient.

Thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) versus open surgery for blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury.

BACKGROUND: Blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) is a life-threatening surgical emergency associated with mortality up to 8000 per year, most commonly caused by rapid acceleration/deceleration injury sustained through motor vehicle accident and/or blunt thoracic trauma. BTAI has high pre-hospital mortality following the primary injury, with only 10% to 15% of patients surviving long enough to reach the hospital. Open surgical repair had remained the standard treatment option for BTAI since successfully introduced in 1959. However, with technological advances, thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) offers an alternative treatment option for BTAI. TEVAR is a less invasive surgical approach for management of these already critical patients; many reports have described favourable early outcomes.Thoracic endovascular repair may appear to be superior to open repair for treatment of BTAI. However, its long-term results and efficacy remain unknown. No randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have provided evidence to support the superiority of the endovascular approach versus open repair in the treatment of BTAI. This review aims to address this matter. This is an update of a review first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether use of thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) for treatment of blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) is associated with reduced mortality and morbidity when compared with conventional open surgery. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 20 August 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TEVAR and open surgery for BTAI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed all RCTs identified by the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist. MAIN RESULTS: We found no RCTs that met the inclusion criteria for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no RCTs conducted to determine whether use of TEVAR for the treatment of BTAI is associated with reduced mortality and morbidity when compared to conventional open repair. Hence, we are unable to provide any evidence to guide the treatment option for this life-threatening condition. To perform a randomised controlled trial to clarify the optimal management of BTAI would be highly challenging due to the natural history of the condition. Despite the lack of RCT evidence, clinicians are moving forward with endovascular treatment of BTAI on the basis of meta-analyses of cohort studies and large clinical series.

The prevalence of sarcopaenia in a vascular surgical patient cohort and its impact on outcome.

BACKGROUND: Sarcopaenia, loss of lean muscle mass and quality, has prognostic significance and can be used to guide the management of oncology patients.1 However, there is limited research into the prevalence and effect of sarcopaenia in vascular populations. We aim to investigate the prevalence of this measure of physiological reserve in a vascular patient group. METHODS: All patients admitted to a tertiary vascular unit in a single year were considered for the study. Patients with an abdominal CT scan (available for analysis) within 12 months of admission were included. Patient data were extracted from electronic patient records and hospital case notes. CT scans were analysed at L3 vertebral body to calculate body composition indices, as previously described.1 Sarcopaenia was defined as skeletal muscle index of <41 cm2/m2 in female patients and non-obese males and <53 cm2/m2 in obese males. Outcome at 3-years was ascertained. RESULTS: Of 314 patients, 129 (41.1%) were sarcopaenic. Female patients were more likely to be sarcopaenic (p < 0.0001). The prevalence of sarcopaenia increased with age (p < 0.001). Rates of sarcopaenia didn't differ between occlusive and aneurysmal diagnoses. In a potentially unique finding in vascular literature to date, mortality and non-home discharge were not significantly different between the groups. On multivariate analysis, sarcopaenia was not significantly associated with earlier death (p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: Sarcopaenia is highly prevalent in vascular surgical patients. In our analysis, sarcopaenia was not independently associated with mortality. Potentially the associated cardiovascular risk of patients with end stage vascular disease may negate the additional risk of altered body composition.

Sarcopaenia in surgical populations: A review.

Sarcopaenia, or decreased muscle mass, has been the subject of a large quantity of recent literature in both medical and surgical disciplines. It has been shown, as outlined below, to be of great prognostic importance, and also may be used in certain circumstances to guide treatment. The greatest volume of research into this topic is in oncological surgical populations, in whom the prevalence of sarcopaenia has been shown to be high. However it is being increasingly studied in other patient groups. Interest in using sarcopaenia as an objective and potentially modifiable marker of frailty is increasing, especially with regards to pre-operative risk stratification and amelioration. In this review we consider the current literature regarding the cause and effect of sarcopaenia, the methods by which it may be identified and the potential ways in which it may be treated, in the interest of improving outcomes for surgical patients.

Thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) versus open surgery for blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury.

BACKGROUND: Blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) is a life-threatening surgical emergency associated with mortality up to 8000 per year, most commonly caused by rapid acceleration/deceleration injury sustained through motor vehicle accident and/or blunt thoracic trauma. BTAI has high pre-hospital mortality following the primary injury, with only 10% to 15% of patients surviving long enough to reach the hospital. Open surgical repair had remained the standard treatment option for BTAI since successfully introduced in 1959. However, with technological advances, thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) offers an alternative treatment option for BTAI. TEVAR is a less invasive surgical approach for management of these already critical patients; many reports have described favourable early outcomes.Thoracic endovascular repair may appear to be superior to open repair for treatment of BTAI. However, its long-term results and efficacy remain unknown. No randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have provided evidence to support the superiority of the endovascular approach versus open repair in the treatment of BTAI. This review aims to address this matter. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether use of TEVAR for treatment of BTAI is associated with reduced mortality and morbidity when compared with conventional open surgery. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 7) and clinical trials databases for details of ongoing and unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TEVAR and open surgery for BTAI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed all RCTs identified by the Trials Search Co-ordinator. MAIN RESULTS: We found no RCTs that met the inclusion criteria for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no RCTs conducted to determine whether use of TEVAR for the treatment of BTAI is associated with reduced mortality and morbidity when compared to conventional open repair. Hence, we are unable to provide any evidence to guide the treatment option for this life-threatening condition. To perform a randomised controlled trial to clarify the optimal management of BTAI would be highly challenging due to the natural history of the condition. Despite the lack of RCT evidence, clinicians are moving forward with endovascular treatment of BTAI on the basis of meta-analyses and large clinical series.

Is routine blood cross-matching necessary in elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery?

BACKGROUND: Routine pre-operative cross-matching of two units of packed red cells (PRC) is current practice in most hospitals for patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS). AIMS: To determine the usage of PRC in patients undergoing elective LCS & its cost implications. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 116 consecutive laparoscopic colorectal resections under the care of 2 consultant surgeons. RESULTS: Surgical procedures were anterior resection (31.9%; n = 37), right hemicolectomy (22.4%; n = 26), sigmoid colectomy (22.4%; n-26), subtotal colectomy (7.8%; n = 9), APR (4.3%; n = 5), panproctocolectomy (3.4%; n = 4), completion proctectomy (1.7%, n = 2), left hemicolectomy (0.9%, n = 1), total colectomy (0.9%; n = 1) & resection rectopexy (0.9%; n = 1). The median age was 65 years, 58% female. The median pre-operative haemoglobin was 131 g/L, median blood loss 100 ml and median post-operative haemoglobin 111.5 g/L. Eleven cases were converted. Three patients required perioperative blood transfusion, 2 of whom underwent open conversion. The cost of carrying out a group & save (G&S) in our hospital is £40.60 excluding laboratory staff labour cost. A 2 unit cross-match costs £294.60. There is potential for substantial cost savings with change of practice to G&S only. CONCLUSION: G&S is sufficient to allow safe & cost-effective operative practice in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.