The effect of aortic morphology on peri-operative mortality of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

Aims To investigate whether aneurysm shape and extent, which indicate whether a patient with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) is eligible for endovascular repair (EVAR), influence the outcome of both EVAR and open surgical repair. Methods and results The influence of six morphological parameters (maximum aortic diameter, aneurysm neck diameter, length and conicality, proximal neck angle, and maximum common iliac diameter) on mortality and reinterventions within 30 days was investigated in rAAA patients randomized before morphological assessment in the Immediate Management of the Patient with Rupture: Open Versus Endovascular strategies (IMPROVE) trial. Patients with a proven diagnosis of rAAA, who underwent repair and had their admission computerized tomography scan submitted to the core laboratory, were included. Among 458 patients (364 men, mean age 76 years), who had either EVAR (n = 177) or open repair (n = 281) started, there were 155 deaths and 88 re-interventions within 30 days of randomization analysed according to a pre-specified plan. The mean maximum aortic diameter was 8.6 cm. There were no substantial correlations between the six morphological variables. Aneurysm neck length was shorter in those undergoing open repair (vs. EVAR). Aneurysm neck length (mean 23.3, SD 16.1 mm) was inversely associated with mortality for open repair and overall: adjusted OR 0.72 (95% CI 0.57, 0.92) for each 16 mm (SD) increase in length. There were no convincing associations of morphological parameters with reinterventions. Conclusion Short aneurysm necks adversely influence mortality after open repair of rAAA and preclude conventional EVAR. This may help explain why observational studies, but not randomized trials, have shown an early survival benefit for EVAR. Clinical trial registration: ISRCTN 48334791

The impact of operating surgeon experience, supervised trainee vs. trained surgeon, in vascular surgery procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: The operative caseload of a surgeon has a positive influence on post-operative outcomes. For surgical trainees to progress effectively, maximising operating room exposure is essential, vascular surgery being no exception. Our aim was to ascertain the impact of supervised trainee led vs. expert surgeon led procedures on post-operative outcomes, across three commonly performed vascular operations. Methods: A literature search was undertaken using the MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to 1 January 2018. Studies reporting outcomes following major lower limb amputation, fistula formation, or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) that involved a direct comparison between supervised trainee and experts were included, with odds ratios (ORs) calculated. Primary outcomes varied depending on the specific procedure: amputations—rate of amputation revision within 30 days; fistula formation—primary patency; CEA—stroke rate at 30 days. Meta-analysis with the Mantel-Haenszel method was performed for each outcome. Results: Sixteen studies were included in the final review. Overall, trainees accounted for a third of all procedures analysed (n = 2 421/7 017; 34.5%). Only one study was identified that described rates of amputation revision, precluding any further analysis. Four studies on fistula formation were included, showing no significant difference in outcomes between trainees and experts in primary patency (OR 1.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42–6.75). Nine studies were identified reporting post-CEA stroke rates, also demonstrating no difference between trainees and experts (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59–1.32). Conclusion: In select cases, with appropriate training and suitable experience, supervised trainees can perform surgical procedures without any detriment to patient care. To ensure high standards for patients of the future, supported training programmes are essential for today's surgical trainees

The CLEAR (Considering Leading Experts' Antithrombotic Regimes around peripheral angioplasty) survey: an international perspective on antiplatelet and anticoagulant practice for peripheral arterial endovascular intervention

Background: Antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy are commonly used before, during and after peripheral arterial endovascular intervention. This survey aimed to establish antiplatelet and anticoagulant choice for peripheral arterial endovascular intervention in contemporary clinical practice. Methods: Pilot-tested questionnaire distributed via collaborative research networks. Results: One hundred and sixty-two complete responses were collected from responders in 22 countries, predominantly the UK (48%) and the rest of the European Union (44%). Antiplatelet monotherapy was the most common choice pre-procedurally (62%). In the UK, there was no difference between dual and single antiplatelet therapy use post procedure (50% vs. 37% p = 0.107). However, a significant majority of EU respondents used dual therapy (68% vs. 20% p < 0.001). There was variation in choice of antiplatelet therapy by the device used and the anatomical location of the intervention artery. The majority (82%) of respondents believed there was insufficient evidence to guide antithrombotic therapy after peripheral endovascular intervention and most (92%) would support a randomised trial. Conclusions: There is widespread variation in the use of antiplatelet therapy, especially post peripheral arterial endovascular intervention. Clinicians would support the development of a randomised trial comparing dual antiplatelet therapy with monotherapy

Documenting the Recovery of Vascular Services in European Centres Following the Initial COVID-19 Pandemic Peak: Results from a Multicentre Collaborative Study

ObjectiveTo document the recovery of vascular services in Europe following the first COVID-19 pandemic peak.MethodsAn online structured vascular service survey with repeated data entry between 23 March and 9 August 2020 was carried out. Unit level data were collected using repeated questionnaires addressing modifications to vascular services during the first peak (March - May 2020, "period 1"), and then again between May and June ("period 2") and June and July 2020 ("period 3"). The duration of each period was similar. From 2 June, as reductions in cases began to be reported, centres were first asked if they were in a region still affected by rising cases, or if they had passed the peak of the first wave. These centres were asked additional questions about adaptations made to their standard pathways to permit elective surgery to resume.ResultsThe impact of the pandemic continued to be felt well after countries' first peak was thought to have passed in 2020. Aneurysm screening had not returned to normal in 21.7% of centres. Carotid surgery was still offered on a case by case basis in 33.8% of centres, and only 52.9% of centres had returned to their normal aneurysm threshold for surgery. Half of centres (49.4%) believed their management of lower limb ischaemia continued to be negatively affected by the pandemic. Reduced operating theatre capacity continued in 45.5% of centres. Twenty per cent of responding centres documented a backlog of at least 20 aortic repairs. At least one negative swab and 14 days of isolation were the most common strategies used for permitting safe elective surgery to recommence.ConclusionCentres reported a broad return of services approaching pre-pandemic "normal" by July 2020. Many introduced protocols to manage peri-operative COVID-19 risk. Backlogs in cases were reported for all major vascular surgeries

Documenting the Recovery of Vascular Services in European Centres Following the Initial COVID-19 Pandemic Peak: Results from a Multicentre Collaborative Study

Objective: To document the recovery of vascular services in Europe following the first COVID-19 pandemic peak. Methods: An online structured vascular service survey with repeated data entry between 23 March and 9 August 2020 was carried out. Unit level data were collected using repeated questionnaires addressing modifications to vascular services during the first peak (March - May 2020, "period 1"), and then again between May and June ("period 2") and June and July 2020 ("period 3"). The duration of each period was similar. From 2 June, as reductions in cases began to be reported, centres were first asked if they were in a region still affected by rising cases, or if they had passed the peak of the first wave. These centres were asked additional questions about adaptations made to their standard pathways to permit elective surgery to resume. Results: The impact of the pandemic continued to be felt well after countries' first peak was thought to have passed in 2020. Aneurysm screening had not returned to normal in 21.7% of centres. Carotid surgery was still offered on a case by case basis in 33.8% of centres, and only 52.9% of centres had returned to their normal aneurysm threshold for surgery. Half of centres (49.4%) believed their management of lower limb ischaemia continued to be negatively affected by the pandemic. Reduced operating theatre capacity continued in 45.5% of centres. Twenty per cent of responding centres documented a backlog of at least 20 aortic repairs. At least one negative swab and 14 days of isolation were the most common strategies used for permitting safe elective surgery to recommence. Conclusion: Centres reported a broad return of services approaching pre-pandemic "normal" by July 2020. Many introduced protocols to manage peri-operative COVID-19 risk. Backlogs in cases were reported for all major vascular surgeries