Outcomes of Visceral Arterial Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Aims: The study aimed to review the use of synthetic grafts (SGs) and autologous vein grafts (AVGs) in visceral arterial reconstruction (VAR) in chronic visceral ischaemia. Methods: Systematic review methodology was employed. Results: Six studies were included (218 patients and 281 vessels). Two studies had data about AVG only, 3 had data about SG only and 1 had both AVG and SG data. Three studies reported outcomes for AVG (117 patients and 132 vessels revascularized). One-year primary patency was 87% (95% CI 71%, 97%). Graft thrombosis rate was 6% (95% CI 0%, 16%). Pooled stenosis rate at one-year was 11% (95% CI 1%, 28%). The 30-day (n = 96), one-year (n = 72) and 5-year mortality (n = 30) were 0%, 0% and 12%, respectively. Four studies reported outcomes for SGs (106 patients and 147 vessels). The pooled primary patency at one year was 100% (95% CI 99%, 100%). Pooled primary 5-year patency rate was 88% (95% CI 69%, 100%). There was no graft infection in 2 of the 3 studies. Overall pooled percentage of graft thrombosis and stenosis at one year was 0%. Jimenez et al. (2002) reported one graft thrombosis at 20 months and graft stenosis in 2 patients at 46 and 49 months. Illuminati et al (2017) reported graft thrombosis in 2/24 patients at 22 and 52 months. Thirty days, one-year and 5-year mortality was 1% (95% CI 0%, 6), 7% (95% CI 0%, 20%) and 39% (95% CI 11%), respectively. Conclusion: Patency was better with SG compared with AVG. Mortality was higher in the SG group. Graft dilatation does occur with vein grafts, but in this review no intervention was found necessary. Poorly designed studies, incomplete reporting and absence of morbidity and mortality indices preclude emphatic conclusions

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

Background: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. Methods: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. Findings: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96–1·28). Interpretation: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. METHODS: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. FINDINGS: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96-1·28). INTERPRETATION: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme