Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training versus Continuous Training on Physical Fitness, Cardiovascular Function and Quality of Life in Heart Failure Patients

Introduction Physical fitness is an important prognostic factor in heart failure (HF). To improve fitness, different types of exercise have been explored, with recent focus on high-intensity interval training (HIT). We comprehensively compared effects of HIT versus continuous training (CT) in HF patients NYHA II-III on physical fitness, cardiovascular function and structure, and quality of life, and hypothesize that HIT leads to superior improvements compared to CT. Methods Twenty HF patients (male:female 19:1, 64±8 yrs, ejection fraction 38±6%) were allocated to 12-weeks of HIT (10*1-minute at 90% maximal workload—alternated by 2.5 minutes at 30% maximal workload) or CT (30 minutes at 60–75% of maximal workload). Before and after intervention, we examined physical fitness (incremental cycling test), cardiac function and structure (echocardiography), vascular function and structure (ultrasound) and quality of life (SF-36, Minnesota living with HF questionnaire (MLHFQ)). Results Training improved maximal workload, peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) related to the predicted VO2peak, oxygen uptake at the anaerobic threshold, and maximal oxygen pulse (all P<0.05), whilst no differences were present between HIT and CT (N.S.). We found no major changes in resting cardiovascular function and structure. SF-36 physical function score improved after training (P<0.05), whilst SF-36 total score and MLHFQ did not change after training (N.S.). Conclusion Training induced significant improvements in parameters of physical fitness, although no evidence for superiority of HIT over CT was demonstrated. No major effect of training was found on cardiovascular structure and function or quality of life in HF patients NYHA II-III

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

Great saphenous vein versus expanded polytetrafluoroethylene graft in patients undergoing elective treatment of popliteal artery aneurysm with posterior approach

Background: Aim of this study is to compare 30-day and 5-year outcomes of great saphenous vein (GSV) vs. expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) graft in patients undergoing elective treatment of popliteal artery aneurysm (PAA) using a posterior approach. Methods: Between January 2010 and December 2023, a retrospectively maintained dataset of all consecutive asymptomatic PAAs who underwent open repair with posterior approach or endovascular repair in 40 centers was investigated. Out of of 971 cases, 525 patients were included in the present analysis. These were further divided into: posterior approach with GSV graft (252, GSV Group), and posterior approach with ePTFE graft (273, ePTFE Group). Thirty-day outcomes were assessed and compared. During follow-up, survival, primary patency, secondary patency, freedom from reintervention(s), and amputation-free survival were compared between the two groups using log-rank tests. Uni- and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed in ePTFE Group to find predictive factors of poor outcomes. Results: Two groups were homogeneous in terms of preoperative risk factors and morphological data. Median follow-up duration was similar [24 months (IQR 10 - 36) GSV Group vs. 21 months (IQR 7-47) ePTFE Group; p = .123]. At 5 years, there were no differences between the two groups in terms of survival (84.7% GSV Group vs. 86.1% ePTFE Group; p = .097, log-rank = 2.756), secondary patency (94.9% GSV Group vs. 89.4% ePTFE Group; p = .068, log-rank = 3.336), and amputation-free survival (99.1% GSV Group vs. 99.6% ePTFE Group; p = .567, log-rank = .328). Five-year primary patency (89.5% GSV Group vs. 76.2% ePTFE Group; p = .007, log-rank = 7.239), and freedom from reintervention(s) (92.8% GSV Group vs. 80.6% ePTFE Group; p = .011, log-rank = 6.449) were significantly higher in GSV Group. Using multivariate analysis in ePTFE Group, factors compromising primary patency were patients on dialysis (p = .054, OR = 3.641), and patients that were not on any preoperative antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulation (p = .019, OR = 5.532), whilst none of the perioperative factors affected freedom from reintervention(s). Conclusion: GSV as graft guaranteed better primary patency with less reinterventions rates at mid-term follow-up after treatment of PAAs via a posterior approach. Patients on dialysis and who were not on any preoperative antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulation had lower patency rates

Long-term risk prediction after major lower limb amputation: 1-year results of the PERCEIVE study

Background: Decision-making when considering major lower limb amputation is complex and requires individualized outcome estimation. It is unknown how accurate healthcare professionals or relevant outcome prediction tools are at predicting outcomes at 1-year after major lower limb amputation. Methods: An international, multicentre prospective observational study evaluating healthcare professional accuracy in predicting outcomes 1 year after major lower limb amputation and evaluation of relevant outcome prediction tools identified in a systematic search of the literature was undertaken. Observed outcomes at 1 year were compared with: healthcare professionals' preoperative predictions of death (surgeons and anaesthetists), major lower limb amputation revision (surgeons) and ambulation (surgeons, specialist physiotherapists and vascular nurse practitioners); and probabilities calculated from relevant outcome prediction tools. Results: A total of 537 patients and 2244 healthcare professional predictions of outcomes were included. Surgeons and anaesthetists had acceptable discrimination (C-statistic = 0.715), calibration and overall performance (Brier score = 0.200) when predicting 1-year death, but performed worse when predicting major lower limb amputation revision and ambulation (C-statistics = 0.627 and 0.662 respectively). Healthcare professionals overestimated the death and major lower limb amputation revision risks. Consultants outperformed trainees, especially when predicting ambulation. Allied healthcare professionals marginally outperformed surgeons in predicting ambulation. Two outcome prediction tools (C-statistics = 0.755 and 0.717, Brier scores = 0.158 and 0.178) outperformed healthcare professionals' discrimination, calibration and overall performance in predicting death. Two outcome prediction tools for ambulation (C-statistics = 0.688 and 0.667) marginally outperformed healthcare professionals. Conclusion: There is uncertainty in predicting 1-year outcomes following major lower limb amputation. Different professional groups performed comparably in this study. Two outcome prediction tools for death and two for ambulation outperformed healthcare professionals and may support shared decision-making

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