Valvulotomy of the great saphenous vein in ex situ non-reversed and in situ setting: a multicenter post-market study to assess the safety and efficacy of the AndraValvulotome™”

Purpose To evaluate the safety and technical success of the AndraValvulotome™ device (Andramed GmbH, Reutlingen, Germany) in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) requiring bypass surgery using the great saphenous vein (GSV) as graft. Methods This was a multicenter, post-market observational study conducted in 2021 in 11 German centers. Safety and efficacy data were prospectively collected and analyzed. Primary endpoints were the absence of device-related serious adverse events until 30 ± 7 days follow-up, the clinical efficacy of valvulotomy, which was defined as pulsatile blood flow in the bypass and the number of insufficiently destroyed vein valves. Secondary endpoints were the number of valvulotomy passages, the primary patency rate of the venous bypass (determined by a color-duplex sonography showing a normal blood flow through the bypass and absence of stenosis or occlusion), and the primary technical success defined as the absence of product-specific (serious) adverse events and clinical efficacy. Results Fifty-nine patients were enrolled. The mean age of the patients was 71 years (46–91), and 74.6% were males. The vein material used for bypass grafting had a median length of 47.5 cm (range 20–70 cm) with a median diameter of 5.0 mm (range 3–6 mm) and 4.0 mm (range 2–6 mm) in the proximal and distal segments, respectively. The technical success rate was 96.6%. The primary patency rate was 89.9% at 30 days follow-up. The clinical efficacy was rated as very good in 81% of patients, fair in 17%, and poor in 2%. Between 1 and 5 (average 2.9) valvulotome passages were performed. One product-related serious adverse event was recorded (bypass vein dissection). Conclusion The AndraValvulotome™ can be considered a safe and effective device to disrupt venous valves during in situ non-reversed bypass surgeries using GSV grafts in patients with PAD

Report on the Marine Imaging Workshop 2017

Marine optical imaging has become a major assessment tool in science, policy and public understanding of our seas and oceans. Methodology in this field is developing rapidly, including hardware, software and the ways of their application. The aim of the Marine Imaging Workshop (MIW) is to bring together academics, research scientists and engineers, as well as industrial partners to discuss these developments, along with applications, challenges and future directions. The first MIW was held in Southampton, UK in April 2014. The second MIW, held in Kiel, Germany, in 2017 involved more than 100 attendees, who shared the latest developments in marine imaging through a combination of traditional oral and poster presentations, interactive sessions and focused discussion sessions. This article summarises the topics addressed during the workshop, particularly the outcomes of these discussion sessions for future reference and to make the workshop results available to the open public

Status Update and Interim Results from the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2)

Objectives: ACST-2 is currently the largest trial ever conducted to compare carotid artery stenting (CAS) with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis requiring revascularization. Methods: Patients are entered into ACST-2 when revascularization is felt to be clearly indicated, when CEA and CAS are both possible, but where there is substantial uncertainty as to which is most appropriate. Trial surgeons and interventionalists are expected to use their usual techniques and CE-approved devices. We report baseline characteristics and blinded combined interim results for 30-day mortality and major morbidity for 986 patients in the ongoing trial up to September 2012. Results: A total of 986 patients (687 men, 299 women), mean age 68.7 years (SD ± 8.1) were randomized equally to CEA or CAS. Most (96%) had ipsilateral stenosis of 70-99% (median 80%) with contralateral stenoses of 50-99% in 30% and contralateral occlusion in 8%. Patients were on appropriate medical treatment. For 691 patients undergoing intervention with at least 1-month follow-up and Rankin scoring at 6 months for any stroke, the overall serious cardiovascular event rate of periprocedural (within 30 days) disabling stroke, fatal myocardial infarction, and death at 30 days was 1.0%. Conclusions: Early ACST-2 results suggest contemporary carotid intervention for asymptomatic stenosis has a low risk of serious morbidity and mortality, on par with other recent trials. The trial continues to recruit, to monitor periprocedural events and all types of stroke, aiming to randomize up to 5,000 patients to determine any differential outcomes between interventions. Clinical trial: ISRCTN21144362. © 2013 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2): a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86–1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91–1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Virtual environment and sensori-motor activities: visualization

The levels of immersion and presence felt by users in a Virtual Environment (VE) are very important factors that dictate the quality of the Virtual Reality (VR) experience. Sensori-motor systems, both hardware and software, are the components of a VR system that contribute to generate the VEs and to create the feeling of being there. This paper reviews the different visu-alization hardware/software components that are at the heart of a VR system and provides means for assessing their perform-ance in the context of various applications. Because of its historical and functional importance in the field of VR, visualiza-tion hardware is reviewed first (HMDs, VRDs, stereo glasses, CRT, LCD monitors and Plasma displays...). Then, a list of the most important insights, which should be addressed when designing and assembling a VR system, are discussed. Finally, visualization software is covered in the context of the available hardware components