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

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

Type II endoleak: conservative management is a safe strategy

OBJECTIVE: Type II endoleak is the most common complication after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR); however, its natural history is unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the incidence and outcomes of type II endoleak, at a single institution after EVAR. METHODS: A total of 904 consecutive patients who underwent EVAR between September 1995 and July 2013 at a single centre were entered onto a prospective database. All patients were followed up by duplex ultrasound (DUSS). Patients who developed type II endoleak were compared for preoperative demographics, mortality, and sac expansion. RESULTS: A total of 175(19%) patients developed type II endoleak over a median follow-up of 3.6 years (1.5-5.9 years); 54% of type II endoleaks spontaneously resolved within 6 months (0.25-1.2 years). No difference was found in preoperative demographics or choice of endograft between the two groups. Survival was significantly higher in the group with type II endoleak (94.1% vs. 85.6%; p = .01) and this effect was most pronounced in those with late type II endoleaks (97.7% vs. 85.6% p = .004). No difference was seen in aneurysm-related mortality or rate of type I endoleak between the two groups. Freedom from sac expansion (>5 mm from preoperative diameter) was significantly lower in the group of patients with type II endoleak (82.5% vs. 93.2%, p = .0001); however, at a threshold of >10 mm from preoperative diameter no difference was seen. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with isolated type II endoleak demonstrate equivalent aneurysm-related mortality and an improved survival

A multicentre observational study of the outcomes of screening detected sub-aneurysmal aortic dilatation

AbstractObjectivesCurrently most abdominal aortic aneurysm screening programmes discharge patients with aortic diameter of less than 30 mm. However, sub-aneurysmal aortic dilatation (25 mm–29 mm) does not represent a normal aortic diameter. This observational study aimed to determine the outcomes of patients with screening detected sub aneurysmal aortic dilatation.Design and methodsIndividual patient data was obtained from 8 screening programmes that had performed long term follow up of patients with sub aneurysmal aortic dilatation. Outcome measures recorded were the progression to true aneurysmal dilatation (aortic diameter 30 mm or greater), progression to size threshold for surgical intervention (55 mm) and aneurysm rupture.ResultsAortic measurements for 1696 men and women (median age 66 years at initial scan) with sub-aneurysmal aortae were obtained, median period of follow up was 4.0 years (range 0.1–19.0 years). Following Kaplan Meier and life table analysis 67.7% of patients with 5 complete years of surveillance reached an aortic diameter of 30 mm or greater however 0.9% had an aortic diameter of 54 mm. A total of 26.2% of patients with 10 complete years of follow up had an AAA of greater that 54 mm.ConclusionPatients with sub-aneurysmal aortic dilatation are likely to progress and develop an AAA, although few will rupture or require surgical intervention