Tourniquet use for people with peripheral arterial disease undergoing major lower limb amputations.

BACKGROUND: At least 7000 major lower limb amputations (MLLAs) are performed in the UK each year, 80% of which are due to peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Intraoperative blood loss can have a deleterious effect on patient outcomes, and its replacement with transfused blood is not without risk. Tourniquets can be used in lower limb surgical procedures to provide a bloodless surgical field, minimise intraoperative blood loss, and reduce perioperative blood transfusion requirements. Although their safety has been demonstrated in certain orthopaedic operations, their use among people with PAD undergoing MLLA remains controversial. Many clinicians are concerned about tourniquets potentially compromising perfusion of the stump and thereby impacting wound healing through direct tissue injury, damage to the arterial supply of the wound, or both. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and effectiveness of tourniquet use in people undergoing MLLA for complications of PAD, specifically with regard to intraoperative blood loss, change in haemoglobin levels, transfusion rates, wound healing, need for revision surgery, and postoperative complications including mortality. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers from inception to 17 May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tourniquet use to no tourniquet use among people with PAD undergoing MLLA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were intraoperative blood loss, fall in haemoglobin levels, and perioperative blood transfusion requirement. Secondary outcomes were primary wound-healing rates, stump revision rates, other postoperative complications defined as per Clavien-Dindo classification, and postoperative mortality at 30 days and at maximal follow-up. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: One RCT met our inclusion criteria, which was a prospective randomised blinded controlled trial conducted in Sheffield, UK in 2006. In total 64 participants undergoing transtibial amputation for non-reconstructable PAD were randomised to either tourniquet or no tourniquet to assess for intraoperative blood loss, fall in haemoglobin, transfusion requirement, wound healing, stump breakdown and revision. Ten participants were excluded postrandomisation (five from the tourniquet group and five from the no tourniquet group). The reported median volume of intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in the tourniquet group (255 mL (interquartile range (IQR) 150 to 572.5 mL))) compared to the control group (550 mL (IQR 255 to 1050 mL)) (P = 0.014). There was a significantly lower median drop in haemoglobin concentration in the tourniquet group (1.0 g/dL (IQR 0.6 to 2.4 g/dL)) compared to the control group (1.8 g/dL (IRQ 0 to 1.2 g/dL)) (P = 0.035). There was a significantly lower perioperative blood transfusion requirement in the tourniquet group (8 participants, 32%) compared to the control group (14 participants, 48%) (P = 0.047). There were no clear differences in wound breakdown, stump revision, primary wound healing at six weeks, postoperative complications (myocardial infarction, cardiac arrhythmias, pulmonary oedema), and death between groups. We assessed the one included study as at low risk of bias for sequence generation and blinding of outcome assessors; high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting; and unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, and other sources of bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low or very low due to risk of bias, small sample size, and the study being insufficiently powered for most outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identified only one small historical RCT evaluating tourniquet use in MLLA. Tourniquets appeared to reduce intraoperative blood loss, drop in haemoglobin, and blood transfusion requirements following transtibial amputations for people with PAD. However, it is unclear whether tourniquets affect wound healing, stump revision rates, postoperative complications, or mortality. High-certainty evidence is required to inform clinical decision-making for the use of tourniquets in these patients.

Correction to: The CLEAR (Considering Leading Experts' Antithrombotic Regimes around peripheral angioplasty) survey: an international perspective on antiplatelet and anticoagulant practice for peripheral arterial endovascular intervention.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Single versus dual antiplatelet therapy following peripheral arterial endovascular intervention for chronic limb threatening ischaemia: Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Antiplatelet therapy following peripheral arterial endovascular intervention lacks high quality evidence to guide practice. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of three months of dual antiplatelet therapy on amputation-free survival following peripheral arterial endovascular intervention in patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia. METHODS: A retrospective review of symptomatic patients undergoing primary peripheral arterial endovascular intervention over a seven-year period was performed. The primary outcome measure was amputation-free survival. A sample size calculation based on previous cohort studies suggested that 629 limbs would be required to show a difference between single and dual therapy. Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariate logistic regression analysis of recorded baseline characteristics was performed to determine predictors of amputation-free survival. Dual antiplatelet therapy was routinely given for 3 months. RESULTS: 754 limbs were treated with primary angioplasty and/or stenting over a 7-year period, 508 of these for chronic limb threatening ischemia. There was no difference in unadjusted amputation-free survival between patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia taking single vs. dual antiplatelet therapy (69% vs. 74% respectively Log rank Chi2 = 0.1, p = .72). After adjusting for confounders, at 1 year there was also no significant difference in amputation-free survival between patients taking single vs. dual antiplatelet therapy [OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.2, p = .3]. There was no difference in rates of major bleeding between single and dual antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS: There was no clear evidence of reduced amputation-free survival in patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia undergoing peripheral arterial endovascular intervention being treated with dual antiplatelet therapy for 3 months. This is at odds with other retrospective case series and highlights the limitations in basing clinical practice on such data. There is a need for an adequately powered, independent randomised trial to definitively answer the question.

The CLEAR (Considering Leading Experts' Antithrombotic Regimes around peripheral angioplasty) survey: an international perspective on antiplatelet and anticoagulant practice for peripheral arterial endovascular intervention.

BACKGROUND: Antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy are commonly used before, during and after peripheral arterial endovascular intervention. This survey aimed to establish antiplatelet and anticoagulant choice for peripheral arterial endovascular intervention in contemporary clinical practice. METHODS: Pilot-tested questionnaire distributed via collaborative research networks. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-two complete responses were collected from responders in 22 countries, predominantly the UK (48%) and the rest of the European Union (44%). Antiplatelet monotherapy was the most common choice pre-procedurally (62%). In the UK, there was no difference between dual and single antiplatelet therapy use post procedure (50% vs. 37% p = 0.107). However, a significant majority of EU respondents used dual therapy (68% vs. 20% p < 0.001). There was variation in choice of antiplatelet therapy by the device used and the anatomical location of the intervention artery. The majority (82%) of respondents believed there was insufficient evidence to guide antithrombotic therapy after peripheral endovascular intervention and most (92%) would support a randomised trial. CONCLUSIONS: There is widespread variation in the use of antiplatelet therapy, especially post peripheral arterial endovascular intervention. Clinicians would support the development of a randomised trial comparing dual antiplatelet therapy with monotherapy.

Carotid body tumours.

Carotid body tumours are a rare class of paraganglionoma arising from the upper neck, but should be considered in the differential diagnosis of neck lumps. A wrong diagnosis of cervical lymphadenopathy followed by excision biopsy may have serious consequences. The only way to minimize such risk is to be aware of their existence.