Lower Extremity Amputation Rates in People With Diabetes Mellitus:A Retrospective Population Based Cohort Study in Zwolle Region, The Netherlands

OBJECTIVE: Lower extremity amputations are a major complication of diabetes mellitus (DM). In a previous Dutch study, the incident rate of major amputations was 89.2 per 100 000 person years. The primary aim of this study was to describe the lower extremity amputation rates in people with DM in the Zwolle region, where preventive and curative footcare is organised according to the guidelines of the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF). The secondary aim was to evaluate outcomes and underlying characteristics of these people.METHODS: This was a retrospective regional population based cohort study. Data from all people with DM treated in primary and secondary care, living in the region Zwolle were collected. All amputations in the period 2017 to 2019 were analysed. Comparisons were made between those with and without an amputation.RESULTS: In the analysis 5 915 people with DM were included, with a mean age of 67.8 (IQR 57.9, 75.9) years. Of those people, 47% were women and the median HbA1c was 53 (IQR 47, 62) mmol/mol. Over the three year study period, a total of 68 amputations were performed in 59 people: 46 minor, 22 major. This translated into an average annual crude amputation incidence rate of non-traumatic major and minor amputations of 41.5 and 86.9 per 100 000 person years among people with diabetes. Compared with those not undergoing amputations, those who underwent an amputation were more often men, older, mainly had T2DM, were treated in secondary care, had higher diastolic blood pressure, worse diabetic footcare profile, longer DM duration and higher HbA1c. At the end of the follow up, 111 people died: 96 (1.6%) without and 15 (25.4%) with amputations (p &lt; .001).CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study provides detailed insight into the rate of amputations in Dutch people with diabetes in the region Zwolle. Compared with previous Dutch estimates, these data suggest a considerable decrease in major amputation incidence rate.</p

A comparison of Percutaneous femoral access in Endovascular Repair versus Open femoral access (PiERO):study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Access for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR) is obtained through surgical cutdown or percutaneously. The only devices suitable for percutaneous closure of the 20 French arteriotomies of the common femoral artery (CFA) are the Prostar (TM) and Proglide (TM) devices (Abbott Vascular). Positive effects of these devices seem to consist of a lower infection rate, and shorter operation time and hospital stay. This conclusion was published in previous reports comparing techniques in patients in two different groups (cohort or randomized). Access techniques were never compared in one and the same patient; this research simplifies comparison because patient characteristics will be similar in both groups. Methods/Design: Percutaneous access of the CFA is compared to surgical cutdown in a single patient; in EVAR surgery, access is necessary in both groins in each patient. Randomization is performed on the introduction site of the larger main device of the endoprosthesis. The contralateral device of the endoprosthesis is smaller. When we use this type of randomization, both groups will contain a similar number of main and contralateral devices. Preoperative nose cultures and perineal cultures are obtained, to compare colonization with postoperative wound cultures (in case of a surgical site infection). Furthermore, patient comfort will be considered, using VAS-scores (Visual analog scale). Punch biopsies of the groin will be harvested to retrospectively compare skin of patients who suffered a surgical site infection (SSI) to patients who did not have an SSI. Discussion: The PiERO trial is a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial designed to show the consequences of using percutaneous access in EVAR surgery and focuses on the occurrence of surgical site infections

The schedule of enrolment, interventions, and assessments in the Dutch chronic lower limb-threating ischemia registry (THRILLER).

The schedule of enrolment, interventions, and assessments in the Dutch chronic lower limb-threating ischemia registry (THRILLER).</p

S1 File -

IntroductionChronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is the end stage of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and is associated with high amputation rates, mortality and disease-related health care costs. In infrapopliteal arterial disease (IPAD), endovascular revascularization should be considered for the majority of anatomical and clinical subgroups of CLTI. However, a gap of high-quality evidence exists in this field. The aim of the Dutch Chronic Lower Limb-Threatening Ischemia Registry (THRILLER) is to collect real world data on popliteal and infrapopliteal endovascular interventions.MethodsTHRILLER is a clinician-driven, prospective, multicenter, observational registry including all consecutive patients that undergo a popliteal or infrapopliteal endovascular intervention in seven Dutch hospitals. We estimate that THRILLER will include 400–500 interventions annually. Standardized follow-up visits with wound monitoring, toe pressure measurement and duplex ultrasonography will be scheduled at 6–8 weeks and 12 months after the intervention. The independent primary endpoints are primary patency, limb salvage and amputation free survival. Patients must give informed consent before participation and will be included according to predefined reporting standards. A data log of patients who meet the inclusion criteria but are not included in the registry will be maintained. We intend to conduct the first interim analysis two years after the start of inclusion. The results will be published in a scientific journal.DiscussionDespite innovations in medical therapy and revascularization techniques, patients with CLTI undergoing endovascular revascularization still have a moderate prognosis. Previous prospective cohort studies were hampered by small sample sizes or heterogeneous reporting. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have high costs, potential conflicts of interest and give a limited reflection of daily practice. THRILLER aims to provide the largest prospective well phenotyped up-to-date dataset on treatment outcomes in CLTI patients to answer multiple underexplored research questions regarding diagnostics, medication, patient selection, treatment strategies and post intervention follow-up.</div

Study objectives of THRILLER.

IntroductionChronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is the end stage of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and is associated with high amputation rates, mortality and disease-related health care costs. In infrapopliteal arterial disease (IPAD), endovascular revascularization should be considered for the majority of anatomical and clinical subgroups of CLTI. However, a gap of high-quality evidence exists in this field. The aim of the Dutch Chronic Lower Limb-Threatening Ischemia Registry (THRILLER) is to collect real world data on popliteal and infrapopliteal endovascular interventions.MethodsTHRILLER is a clinician-driven, prospective, multicenter, observational registry including all consecutive patients that undergo a popliteal or infrapopliteal endovascular intervention in seven Dutch hospitals. We estimate that THRILLER will include 400–500 interventions annually. Standardized follow-up visits with wound monitoring, toe pressure measurement and duplex ultrasonography will be scheduled at 6–8 weeks and 12 months after the intervention. The independent primary endpoints are primary patency, limb salvage and amputation free survival. Patients must give informed consent before participation and will be included according to predefined reporting standards. A data log of patients who meet the inclusion criteria but are not included in the registry will be maintained. We intend to conduct the first interim analysis two years after the start of inclusion. The results will be published in a scientific journal.DiscussionDespite innovations in medical therapy and revascularization techniques, patients with CLTI undergoing endovascular revascularization still have a moderate prognosis. Previous prospective cohort studies were hampered by small sample sizes or heterogeneous reporting. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have high costs, potential conflicts of interest and give a limited reflection of daily practice. THRILLER aims to provide the largest prospective well phenotyped up-to-date dataset on treatment outcomes in CLTI patients to answer multiple underexplored research questions regarding diagnostics, medication, patient selection, treatment strategies and post intervention follow-up.</div

All endpoints of THRILLER.

IntroductionChronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is the end stage of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and is associated with high amputation rates, mortality and disease-related health care costs. In infrapopliteal arterial disease (IPAD), endovascular revascularization should be considered for the majority of anatomical and clinical subgroups of CLTI. However, a gap of high-quality evidence exists in this field. The aim of the Dutch Chronic Lower Limb-Threatening Ischemia Registry (THRILLER) is to collect real world data on popliteal and infrapopliteal endovascular interventions.MethodsTHRILLER is a clinician-driven, prospective, multicenter, observational registry including all consecutive patients that undergo a popliteal or infrapopliteal endovascular intervention in seven Dutch hospitals. We estimate that THRILLER will include 400–500 interventions annually. Standardized follow-up visits with wound monitoring, toe pressure measurement and duplex ultrasonography will be scheduled at 6–8 weeks and 12 months after the intervention. The independent primary endpoints are primary patency, limb salvage and amputation free survival. Patients must give informed consent before participation and will be included according to predefined reporting standards. A data log of patients who meet the inclusion criteria but are not included in the registry will be maintained. We intend to conduct the first interim analysis two years after the start of inclusion. The results will be published in a scientific journal.DiscussionDespite innovations in medical therapy and revascularization techniques, patients with CLTI undergoing endovascular revascularization still have a moderate prognosis. Previous prospective cohort studies were hampered by small sample sizes or heterogeneous reporting. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have high costs, potential conflicts of interest and give a limited reflection of daily practice. THRILLER aims to provide the largest prospective well phenotyped up-to-date dataset on treatment outcomes in CLTI patients to answer multiple underexplored research questions regarding diagnostics, medication, patient selection, treatment strategies and post intervention follow-up.</div

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus active surveillance for oesophageal cancer: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery is a standard treatment for locally advanced oesophageal cancer. With this treatment, 29% of patients have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen. This provides the rationale for investigating an active surveillance approach. The aim of this study is to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of active surveillance vs. standard oesophagectomy after nCRT for oesophageal cancer. This is a phase-III multi-centre, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. A total of 300 patients with clinically complete response (cCR, i.e. no local or disseminated disease proven by histology) after nCRT will be randomised to show non-inferiority of active surveillance to standard oesophagectomy (non-inferiority margin 15%, intra-correlation coefficient 0.02, power 80%, 2-sided α 0.05, 12% drop-out). Patients will undergo a first clinical response evaluation (CRE-I) 4-6 weeks after nCRT, consisting of endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies of the primary tumour site and other suspected lesions. Clinically complete responders will undergo a second CRE (CRE-II), 6-8 weeks after CRE-I. CRE-II will include 18F-FDG-PET-CT, followed by endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies and ultra-endosonography plus fine needle aspiration of suspected lymph nodes and/or PET- positive lesions. Patients with cCR at CRE-II will be assigned to oesophagectomy (first phase) or active surveillance (second phase of the study). The duration of the first phase is determined randomly over the 12 centres, i.e., stepped-wedge cluster design. Patients in the active surveillance arm will undergo diagnostic evaluations similar to CRE-II at 6/9/12/16/20/24/30/36/48 and 60 months after nCRT. In this arm, oesophagectomy will be offered only to patients in whom locoregional regrowth is highly suspected or proven, without distant dissemination. The main study parameter is overall survival; secondary endpoints include percentage of patients who do not undergo surgery, quality of life, clinical irresectability (cT4b) rate, radical resection rate, postoperative complications, progression-free survival, distant dissemination rate, and cost-effectiveness. We hypothesise that active surveillance leads to non-inferior survival, improved quality of life and a reduction in costs, compared to standard oesophagectomy. If active surveillance and surgery as needed after nCRT leads to non-inferior survival compared to standard oesophagectomy, this organ-sparing approach can be implemented as a standard of car

Midterm results of the fenestrated Anaconda endograft for short-neck infrarenal and juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Objective The fenestrated Anaconda endograft (Vascutek, Renfrewshire, Scotland) was introduced in 2010 and showed promising short-term results with high technical success and low morbidity rates. The aim of this study was to present the midterm results, with a minimum of 12 months follow-up, for all patients treated with the fenestrated Anaconda endograft in The Netherlands. Methods Patients treated with the fenestrated Anaconda endograft between May 2011 and February 2015 were included. Follow-up consisted of computed tomography angiography at 1 month and 1 year, and duplex ultrasound yearly thereafter with additional computed tomography angiography if indicated using a standard protocol. Results A total of 60 patients were included; 48 patients (80.0%) were treated for juxtarenal aneurysms, and 12 (20.0%) were short-neck infrarenal aneurysms. Mean aneurysm size was 64 ± 9 mm. A total of 140 fenestrations were incorporated. Median follow-up was 16.4 months (interquartile range, 11.9-27.4). The 30-day mortality was 3.4% (n = 2). Kaplan-Meier estimates for 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year survival were 91.4%, 89.5%, and 86.3%, respectively, without aneurysm-related mortality during follow-up. Main body primary and secondary endograft patencies were 98.3% and 100%, respectively. Target vessel primary and secondary patencies were 95.0% and 98.6%, respectively. Early type IA endoleaks occurred in seven patients (11.7%) and spontaneously resolved in all patients. At 1-year follow-up 4 (6.7%) type II endoleaks persisted. One patient experienced aneurysm rupture because of a late type III endoleak attributable to a dislodged renal stent and subsequently underwent successful conversion to open surgery. Conclusions The fenestrated Anaconda is a viable treatment option for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms. Acceptable mortality and morbidity and low reintervention rates contribute to good midterm results. Occurrence of early type I endoleak was relatively common, but these resolved spontaneously in all patients

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus active surveillance for oesophageal cancer:A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery is a standard treatment for locally advanced oesophageal cancer. With this treatment, 29% of patients have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen. This provides the rationale for investigating an active surveillance approach. The aim of this study is to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of active surveillance vs. standard oesophagectomy after nCRT for oesophageal cancer. Methods: This is a phase-III multi-centre, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. A total of 300 patients with clinically complete response (cCR, i.e. no local or disseminated disease proven by histology) after nCRT will be randomised to show non-inferiority of active surveillance to standard oesophagectomy (non-inferiority margin 15%, intra-correlation coefficient 0.02, power 80%, 2-sided a 0.05, 12% drop-out). Patients will undergo a first clinical response evaluation (CRE-I) 4-6 weeks after nCRT, consisting of endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies of the primary tumour site and other suspected lesions. Clinically complete responders will undergo a second CRE (CRE-II), 6-8 weeks after CRE-I. CRE-II will include 18F-FDG-PET-CT, followed by endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies and ultra-endosonography plus fine needle aspiration of suspected lymph nodes and/or PET- positive lesions. Patients with cCR at CRE-II will be assigned to oesophagectomy (first phase) or active surveillance (second phase of the study). The duration of the first phase is determined randomly over the 12 centres, i.e., stepped-wedge cluster design. Patients in the active surveillance arm will undergo diagnostic evaluations similar to CRE-II at 6/9/12/16/20/24/30/36/48 and 60 months after nCRT. In this arm, oesophagectomy will be offered only to patients in whom locoregional regrowth is highly suspected or proven, without distant dissemination. The main study parameter is overall survival; secondary endpoints include percentage of patients who do not undergo surgery, quality of life, clinical irresectability (cT4b) rate, radical resection rate, postoperative complications, progression-free survival, distant dissemination rate, and cost-effectiveness. We hypothesise that active surveillance leads to non-inferior survival, improved quality of life and a reduction in costs, compared to standard oesophagectomy. Discussion: If active surveillance and surgery as needed after nCRT leads to non-inferior survival compared to standard oesophagectomy, this organ-sparing approach can be implemented as a standard of care