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

Groin wound infection after vascular exposure ( GIVE ) multicentre cohort study

Surgical site infections (SSIs) of groin wounds are a common and potentially preventable cause of morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs in vascular surgery. Our aim was to define the contemporaneous rate of groin SSIs, determine clinical sequelae, and identify risk factors for SSI. An international multicentre prospective observational cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing groin incision for femoral vessel access in vascular surgery was undertaken over 3 months, follow‐up was 90 days. The primary outcome was the incidence of groin wound SSI. 1337 groin incisions (1039 patients) from 37 centres were included. 115 groin incisions (8.6%) developed SSI, of which 62 (4.6%) were superficial. Patients who developed an SSI had a significantly longer length of hospital stay (6 versus 5 days, P = .005), a significantly higher rate of post‐operative acute kidney injury (19.6% versus 11.7%, P = .018), with no significant difference in 90‐day mortality. Female sex, Body mass index≥30 kg/m2, ischaemic heart disease, aqueous betadine skin preparation, bypass/patch use (vein, xenograft, or prosthetic), and increased operative time were independent predictors of SSI. Groin infections, which are clinically apparent to the treating vascular unit, are frequent and their development carries significant clinical sequelae. Risk factors include modifiable and non‐modifiable variables

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

Cardiovascular risk reduction in referrals to outpatient vascular clinics

Introduction Patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD), aneurysmal disease (AD) or carotid atherosclerosis are at high cardiovascular risk, necessitating secondary cardiovascular protection. The aim of this study was to determine compliance with cardiovascular risk reduction guidelines in new patients referred to vascular clinics. Methods A multicentre collaborative national observational audit of new patients referred to eight tertiary general vascular clinics over a three-month period in England and Wales was conducted by the Vascular and Endovascular Research Network (VERN). Referral letters, case notes and investigations were reviewed by local investigators, and data analysed by VERN. Results A total of 656 patients were included in the study: 73.2% had PAD, 23.2% had AD and 3.7% had carotid atherosclerosis. A third (37.5%) were current smokers, two-thirds (61.7%) were on antiplatelet therapy and two-thirds (61.5%) were on statin therapy. Smoking was more prevalent in the PAD cohort (PAD 41.4%, AD 27.5%, p=0.003). However, more PAD patients were on antiplatelet therapy (PAD 63.9%, AD 53.3%, p=0.024). Both antiplatelet and statin prescription significantly increased with the number of cardiovascular risk factors. Patients with a previous cardiac or cerebrovascular history were more likely to have stopped smoking, and to be on antiplatelet and statin therapy (p<0.0001 for each). Overall, 47.3% of patients were on both antiplatelet and statin therapy, and 28.9% were on antiplatelet and statin therapy and not smoking. Conclusions This study highlights deficiencies in cardiovascular risk minimisation in patients with established vascular disease. Patients with concomitant cardiac or cerebrovascular disease were more likely to be on best medical therapy