Implementation of the National Health Service Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Program in England

The National Health Service Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Program (NAAASP) has been introduced after research and analysis of data from a number of randomized trials and existing local screening programs in England that showed a reduction in aneurysm-related mortality when men aged ≥65 years were offered ultrasound screening. The evidence was assessed by the United Kingdom National Screening Committee against a set of internationally recognized criteria that confirmed that screening all men aged ≥65 years saves lives. The introduction of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening to men aged 65 years is estimated to reduce premature death from ruptured AAAs by up to 50% over the next 10 years. This article describes the AAA screening program in England, its ongoing implementation and current challenges, and outcomes in the first 150,000 men

Editor's Choice - European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2020 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Acute Limb Ischaemia

Peer reviewe

Protocol for an independent patient data meta-analysis of prophylactic mesh placement for incisional hernia prevention after abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery:a collaborative European Hernia Society project (I-PREVENT-AAA)

Introduction Incisional hernia (IH) is a prevalent and potentially dangerous complication of abdominal surgery, especially in high-risk groups. Mesh reinforcement of the abdominal wall has been studied as a potential intervention to prevent IHs. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that prophylactic mesh reinforcement after abdominal surgery, in general, is effective and safe. In patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), prophylactic mesh reinforcement after open repair has not yet been recommended in official guidelines, because of relatively small sample sizes in individual trials. Furthermore, the identification of subgroups that benefit most from prophylactic mesh placement requires larger patient numbers. Our primary aim is to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of the use of a prophylactic mesh after open AAA surgery to prevent IH by performing an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA). Secondary aims include the evaluation of postoperative complications, pain and quality of life, and the identification of potential subgroups that benefit most from prophylactic mesh reinforcement. Methods and analysis We will conduct a systematic review to identify RCTs that study prophylactic mesh placement after open AAA surgery. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection and Google Scholar will be searched from the date of inception onwards. RCTs must directly compare primary sutured closure with mesh closure in adult patients who undergo open AAA surgery. Lead authors of eligible studies will be asked to share individual participant data (IPD). The risk of bias (ROB) for each included study will be assessed using the Cochrane ROB tool. An IPDMA will be performed to evaluate the efficacy, with the IH rate as the primary outcome.</p

Protocol for an independent patient data meta-analysis of prophylactic mesh placement for incisional hernia prevention after abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery:a collaborative European Hernia Society project (I-PREVENT-AAA)

Introduction Incisional hernia (IH) is a prevalent and potentially dangerous complication of abdominal surgery, especially in high-risk groups. Mesh reinforcement of the abdominal wall has been studied as a potential intervention to prevent IHs. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that prophylactic mesh reinforcement after abdominal surgery, in general, is effective and safe. In patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), prophylactic mesh reinforcement after open repair has not yet been recommended in official guidelines, because of relatively small sample sizes in individual trials. Furthermore, the identification of subgroups that benefit most from prophylactic mesh placement requires larger patient numbers. Our primary aim is to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of the use of a prophylactic mesh after open AAA surgery to prevent IH by performing an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA). Secondary aims include the evaluation of postoperative complications, pain and quality of life, and the identification of potential subgroups that benefit most from prophylactic mesh reinforcement. Methods and analysis We will conduct a systematic review to identify RCTs that study prophylactic mesh placement after open AAA surgery. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection and Google Scholar will be searched from the date of inception onwards. RCTs must directly compare primary sutured closure with mesh closure in adult patients who undergo open AAA surgery. Lead authors of eligible studies will be asked to share individual participant data (IPD). The risk of bias (ROB) for each included study will be assessed using the Cochrane ROB tool. An IPDMA will be performed to evaluate the efficacy, with the IH rate as the primary outcome.</p

Editor's choice : European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2020 clinical practice guidelines on the management of acute limb ischaemia

A

A randomized trial comparing treatments for varicose veins

Supported by a grant from the Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute for Health Research (06/45/02). The Health Services Research Unit is funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorate. We thank Janice Cruden for her secretarial support and data management; Gladys McPherson and the programming team at the Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials; Tracey Davidson, Lynda Constable, Jackie Ellington, Laura Elliott, and Yvonne Fernie for help with scoring the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire; Luke Vale and Laura Ternent, our original economists in the group; members of the Project Management Group for their ongoing advice and support of the trial; members of the study team (Graeme MacLennan, Maria Prior, and Denise Bolsover) who contributed to the behavioral recovery component of the trial; the independent members of the trial steering committee (Alun Davies [chair], Ian Loftus, and Jane Nixon) and the data and safety monitoring committee (Gerry Stansby [chair], Winston Banya, and Marcus Flather); and the staff members at recruitment sites (see the Supplementary Appendix) who facilitated recruitment, treatment, and follow-up of trial participants.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Five-Year Outcomes of a Randomized Trial of Treatments for Varicose Veins

BACKGROUND Endovenous laser ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy are recommended alternatives to surgery for the treatment of primary varicose veins, but their long-term comparative effectiveness remains uncertain. METHODS In a randomized, controlled trial involving 798 participants with primary varicose veins at 11 centers in the United Kingdom, we compared the outcomes of laser ablation, foam sclerotherapy, and surgery. Primary outcomes at 5 years were disease-specific quality of life and generic quality of life, as well as cost-effectiveness based on models of expected costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained that used data on participants’ treatment costs and scores on the EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire. RESULTS Quality-of-life questionnaires were completed by 595 (75%) of the 798 trial participants. After adjustment for baseline scores and other covariates, scores on the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (on which scores range from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating a better quality of life) were lower among patients who underwent laser ablation or surgery than among those who underwent foam sclerotherapy (effect size [adjusted differences between groups] for laser ablation vs. foam sclerotherapy, −2.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], −4.49 to −1.22; P<0.001; and for surgery vs. foam sclerotherapy, −2.60; 95% CI, −3.99 to −1.22; P<0.001). Generic quality-of-life measures did not differ among treatment groups. At a threshold willingness-to-pay ratio of £20,000 ($28,433 in U.S. dollars) per QALY, 77.2 CONCLUSIONS In a randomized trial of treatments for varicose veins, disease-specific quality of life 5 years after treatment was better after laser ablation or surgery than after foam sclerotherapy. The majority of the probabilistic cost-effectiveness model iterations favored laser ablation at a willingness-to-pay ratio of £20,000 ($28,433) per QALY. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; CLASS Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN51995477.

Venous ulcer review

Paul Bevis, Jonothan Earnshaw Department of Vascular Surgery, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Great Western Road, Gloucester, UKDate of preparation: 3 February 2011Conflict of interest: None declared.Clinical question: What is the best treatment for venous ulcers?Results: Compression aids ulcer healing. Pentoxifylline can aid ulcer healing. Artificial skin grafts are more effective than other skin grafts in helping ulcer healing. Correction of underlying venous incompetence reduces ulcer recurrence.Implementation: Potential pitfalls to avoid are:&amp;bull; Failure to exclude underlying arterial disease before application of compression.&amp;bull; Unusual-looking ulcers or those slow to heal should be biopsied to exclude malignant transformation.Keywords: venous ulceration, ulcer healin