Protocol for a prospective, longitudinal cohort study on the effect of arterial disease level on the outcomes of supervised exercise in intermittent claudication: the ELECT Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Despite guideline recommendations advocating conservative management before invasive treatment in intermittent claudication, early revascularisation remains widespread in patients with favourable anatomy. The aim of the Effect of Disease Level on Outcomes of Supervised Exercise in Intermittent Claudication Registry is to determine the effect of the location of stenosis on the outcomes of supervised exercise in patients with intermittent claudication due to peripheral arterial disease. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentre prospective cohort study aims to enrol 320 patients in 10 vascular centres across the Netherlands. All patients diagnosed with intermittent claudication (peripheral arterial disease: Fontaine II/Rutherford 1-3), who are considered candidates for supervised exercise therapy by their own physicians are appropriate to participate. Participants will receive standard care, meaning supervised exercise therapy first, with endovascular or open revascularisation in case of insufficient effect (at the discretion of patient and vascular surgeon). For the primary objectives, patients are grouped according to anatomical characteristics of disease (aortoiliac, femoropopliteal or multilevel disease) as apparent on the preferred imaging modality in the participating centre (either duplex, CT angiography or magnetic resonance angiography). Changes in walking performance (treadmill tests, 6 min walk test) and quality of life (QoL; Vascular QoL Questionnaire-6, WHO QoL Questionnaire-Bref) will be compared between groups, after multivariate adjustment for possible confounders. Freedom from revascularisation and major adverse cardiovascular disease events, and attainment of the treatment goal between anatomical groups will be compared using Kaplan-Meier survival curves. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been exempted from formal medical ethical approval by the Medical Research Ethics Committees United 'MEC-U' (W17.071). Results are intended for publication in peer-reviewed journals and for presentation to stakeholders nationally and internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR7332; Pre-results.

Economic outcomes in clinical studies assessing hyperbaric oxygen in the treatment of acute and chronic wounds.

INTRODUCTION: Hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) is used to treat acute and chronic wounds. This systematic review was conducted to summarise and evaluate existing evidence on the costs associated with HBOT in the treatment of wounds. METHODS: We searched multiple electronic databases in March 2015 for cohort studies and randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that reported on the clinical effectiveness and treatment costs of HBOT in the treatment of acute or chronic wounds. RESULTS: One RCT and three cohort studies reported on economic as well as clinical outcomes. These studies comprised different disorders (ischaemic diabetic foot ulcers, thermal burns, Fournier's gangrene and necrotising soft tissue infections) and employed different clinical and economic outcome measures. Only the RCT had a good methodological quality. Three of the included studies reported that their primary clinical outcomes (wound healing, hospital stay, complications) improved in the HBOT group. The effects of HBOT on costs were variable. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is little direct evidence on the cost-effectiveness of HBOT in the treatment of acute and chronic wounds. Although there is some evidence suggesting effectiveness of HBOT, further studies should include economic outcomes in order to make recommendations on the cost-effectiveness of applying HBOT in wound care.

Is additional hyperbaric oxygen therapy cost-effective for treating ischemic diabetic ulcers? Study protocol for the Dutch DAMOCLES multicenter randomized clinical trial?

BACKGROUND: The value of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in the treatment of diabetic ulcers is still under debate. Available evidence suggests that HBOT may improve the healing of diabetic ulcers, but it comes from small trials with heterogeneous populations and interventions. The DAMOCLES-trial will assess the (cost-)effectiveness of HBOT for ischemic diabetic ulcers in addition to standard of care. METHODS: In a multicenter randomized clinical trial, including 30 hospitals and all 10 HBOT centers in the Netherlands, we plan to enroll 275 patients with Types 1 or 2 diabetes, a Wagner 2, 3 or 4 ulcer of the leg present for at least 4 weeks, and concomitant leg ischemia, defined as an ankle systolic blood pressure of <70 mmHg, a toe systolic blood pressure of <50 mmHg or a forefoot transcutaneous oxygen tension (TcpO2) of <40 mmHg. Eligible patients may be candidates for revascularization. Patients will be randomly assigned to standard care with or without 40 HBOT-sessions. RESULTS: Primary outcome measures are freedom from major amputation after 12 months and achievement of, and time to, complete wound healing. Secondary endpoints include freedom from minor amputations, ulcer recurrence, TcpO2 , quality of life, and safety. In addition, we will assess the cost-effectiveness of HBOT for this indication. CONCLUSION: The DAMOCLES trial will be the largest trial ever performed in the realm of HBOT for chronic ulcers, and it is unique for addressing patients with ischemic diabetic foot ulcers who may also receive vascular reconstructions. This matches the treatment dilemma in current clinical practice.