Availability of Supervised Exercise Programs and the Role of Structured Home-based Exercise in Peripheral Arterial Disease

AbstractObjectivesThe effectiveness of supervised exercise programs (SEPs) for the management of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) can be hampered by low accessibility and poor compliance. The current international availability and use of SEPs was evaluated and the evidence on alternative approaches such as structured, home-based exercise programs (HEPs) was reviewed.Methods-materialsInternational survey on SEP availability among vascular surgeons using an online questionnaire. A systematic review on structured-HEPs effectiveness was also performed.ResultsA total of 378 responses were collected from 43 countries, with the majority (95%) from Europe. Only 30.4% of the participants had access to SEPs and within this group there was significant heterogeneity on the way SEPs were implemented. This systematic review identified 12 studies on the effectiveness of HEPs. In 3 studies SEPs were superior to HEPs in improving functional capacity or equivalent in improving quality of life (QoL). HEPs significantly improved most of the functional capacity and QoL markers when compared to the “go home and walk” advice and baseline measurements.ConclusionsSEPs remain an underutilized tool despite recommendations. Structured HEPs may be effective and can be useful alternatives when SEPs are not available. Further research is warranted to establish cost-effectiveness

Evaluation of the digital diabetes prevention programme pilot: Uncontrolled mixed-methods study protocol

This is the final version. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.Introduction The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is rising steeply. National Health Service England (NHSE) is exploring the potential of a digital diabetes prevention programme (DDPP) and has commissioned a pilot with embedded evaluation. Methods and analysis This study aims to determine whether, and if so, how, should NHSE implement a national DDPP, using a mixed-methods pretest and post-test design, underpinned by two theoretical frameworks: the Coventry, Aberdeen and London - Refined (CALO-RE) taxonomy of behavioural change techniques for the digital interventions and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) for implementation processes. In eight pilot areas across England, adults with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia (NDH) (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 42-47 mmol/mol or fasting plasma glucose 5.5-6.9 mmol/L) and adults without NDH who are overweight (body mass index (BMI) >25 kg/m 2) or obese (BMI >30 kg/m 2) will be referred to one of five digitally delivered diabetes prevention interventions. The primary outcomes are reduction in HbA1c and weight (for people with NDH) and reduction in weight (for people who are overweight or obese) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include use of the intervention, satisfaction, physical activity, patient activation and resources needed for successful implementation. Quantitative data will be collected at baseline, 6 months and 12 months by the digital intervention providers. Qualitative data will be collected through semistructured interviews with commissioners, providers, healthcare professionals and patients. Quantitative data will be analysed descriptively and using generalised linear models to determine whether changes in outcomes are associated with demographic and intervention factors. Qualitative data will be analysed using framework analysis, with data pertaining to implementation mapped onto the CFIR. Ethics and dissemination The study has received ethical approval from the Public Health England Ethics and Research Governance Group (reference R&D 324). Dissemination will include a report to NHSE to inform future policy and publication in peer-reviewed journals.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR

Evaluation of the digital diabetes prevention programme pilot: uncontrolled mixed-methods study protocol

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is rising steeply. National Health Service England (NHSE) is exploring the potential of a digital diabetes prevention programme (DDPP) and has commissioned a pilot with embedded evaluation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study aims to determine whether, and if so, how, should NHSE implement a national DDPP, using a mixed-methods pretest and post-test design, underpinned by two theoretical frameworks: the Coventry, Aberdeen and London - Refined (CALO-RE) taxonomy of behavioural change techniques for the digital interventions and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) for implementation processes. In eight pilot areas across England, adults with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia (NDH) (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 42-47 mmol/mol or fasting plasma glucose 5.5-6.9 mmol/L) and adults without NDH who are overweight (body mass index (BMI) >25 kg/m2) or obese (BMI >30 kg/m2) will be referred to one of five digitally delivered diabetes prevention interventions. The primary outcomes are reduction in HbA1c and weight (for people with NDH) and reduction in weight (for people who are overweight or obese) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include use of the intervention, satisfaction, physical activity, patient activation and resources needed for successful implementation. Quantitative data will be collected at baseline, 6 months and 12 months by the digital intervention providers. Qualitative data will be collected through semistructured interviews with commissioners, providers, healthcare professionals and patients. Quantitative data will be analysed descriptively and using generalised linear models to determine whether changes in outcomes are associated with demographic and intervention factors. Qualitative data will be analysed using framework analysis, with data pertaining to implementation mapped onto the CFIR. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval from the Public Health England Ethics and Research Governance Group (reference R&D 324). Dissemination will include a report to NHSE to inform future policy and publication in peer-reviewed journals

Open repair, endovascular repair, and conservative management of true splenic artery aneurysms

Objective: True splenic artery aneurysms (SAAs) are a rare but potentially fatal pathology. For many years, open repair (OPEN) and conservative management (CONS) were the treatments of choice, but throughout the last decade endovascular repair (EV) has become increasingly used. The purpose of the present study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the outcomes of the three major treatment modalities (OPEN, EV, and CONS) for the management of SAAs. Methods: A systematic review of all studies describing the outcomes of SAAs treated with OPEN, EV, or CONS was performed using seven large medical databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to ensure a high-quality review. All articles were subject to critical appraisal for relevance, validity, and availability of data regarding characteristics and outcomes. All data were systematically pooled, and meta-analyses were performed on several outcomes, including early and late mortality, complications, and number of reinterventions. Results: Original data of 1321 patients with true SAAs were identified in 47 articles. OPEN contained 511 patients (38.7%) in 31 articles, followed by 425 patients (32.2%) in CONS in 16 articles and 385 patients (29.1%) in EV in 33 articles. The CONS group had fewer symptomatic patients (9.5% vs 28.7% in OPEN and 28.8% in EV; P < .001) and fewer ruptured aneurysms (0.2% vs 18.4% in OPEN and 8.8% in EV; P < .001), but no significant differences were found in existing comorbidities. CONS patients were usually older and had smaller-sized aneurysms than patients in the OPEN and EV groups. The only identified difference in baseline characteristics between OPEN and EV was the number of ruptured aneurysms (18.4% vs 8.8%; P < .001). OPEN had a higher 30-day mortality than EV (5.1% vs 0.6%; P < .001), whereas minor complications occurred in a larger number of the EV patients. EV required more reinterventions per year (3.2%) compared with OPEN (0.5%) and CONS (1.2%; P < .001). The late mortality rate was higher in patients treated with CONS (4.9% vs 2.1% in OPEN and 1.4% in EV; P = .04). Conclusions: EV of SAA has better short-term results compared with OPEN, including significantly lower perioperative mortality. OPEN is associated with fewer late complications and fewer reinterventions during follow-up. Patients treated with CONS showed a higher late mortality rate. Ruptured SAAs are predictors of a significantly higher perioperative mortality compared with nonruptured SAAs in the OPEN and EV groups