The persistent challenges faced by vascular surgery services during the UK coronavirus pandemic: a snapshot qualitative survey.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic continues to affect the NHS. The Vascular and Endovascular Research Network (VERN) COvid Vascular sERvice (COVER) study has prospectively shown the significant global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on vascular surgery. The aim of this study is to investigate the way in which this second wave has affected surgeons' ability to treat patients with urgent vascular conditions, using contemporaneous snapshot data from 30 UK vascular centres. METHODS: This is a contemporary (18-28 January 2021) re-run of the Tier 1 COVER survey. This used closed and open questions, related to centres' provision of common vascular services, threshold for treatment, imaging, screening, staff and theatre availability, multidisciplinary team input, clinics, personal protective equipment, vaccination policies and case-backlogs. The survey was disseminated to clinicians via email. A service reduction score was calculated. RESULTS: Forty-two complete responses were received from 30 vascular centres (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales). Overall, 56.7% of units are performing only urgent procedures. The threshold for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair has increased in the majority of UK centres (60%). One in six AAA screening programmes have stopped all screening activity: 30% having a significantly reduced programme and only half running as normal. Waiting lists are increasing for AAA, lower limb revascularisation and venous disease. CONCLUSION: Overall, these data suggest that vascular care in the NHS is facing unprecedented pressures due to COVID-19. Vascular stakeholders will have to urgently address these issues in the coming months. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 80453162 (registered prospectively).

Preoperative anaemia management in patients undergoing vascular surgery.

CAVIAR is a multicentre prospective stepped observational study encompassing 160 patients undergoing vascular intervention. The aim was to identify whether it was feasible to establish a preoperative anaemia pathway and, if so, the efficacy of intravenous iron for treatment of preoperative anaemia. Large barriers prevented implementation of an intravenous iron pathway, with only ten patients receiving intravenous iron and a small increase in haemoglobin level (mean 5·7 (95 per cent c.i. 4·5 to 6·9) g/l). Preoperative anaemia was associated with a longer hospital stay and greater transfusion requirement. Anaemia common and dedicated pathway difficult to instigate.

Long-term outcomes of endovenous laser ablation and conventional surgery for great saphenous varicose veins.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) over surgery based on short-term evidence, yet there are few studies reporting mid- to long-term outcomes. The aim of this study was to report the 5-year outcomes from an RCT of surgery versus EVLA for treatment of symptomatic great saphenous varicose veins. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic varicose veins due to great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence were followed up 5 years after enrolment in a randomized trial of either surgery (saphenofemoral junction ligation, GSV strip to the knee and multiple avulsions of varicosities) or EVLA plus multiple avulsions. Outcomes included: clinical recurrence, defined as new varicose veins greater than 3 mm in diameter; Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS); quality of life measured by means of Short Form 36, EuroQol Five Dimensions (EQ-5D™) and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ); patient satisfaction; and duplex ultrasound examination (DUS) findings. RESULTS: Some 218 of the 276 patients enrolled in the trial (79·0 per cent) were available for follow-up. Clinical recurrence was more frequent following surgery than EVLA at 5 years (34·3 versus 20·9 per cent; P = 0·010). Both groups demonstrated sustained significant improvements at 5 years over baseline in VCSS (surgery: median (i.q.r.) 1 (0-2) from 4 (3-5), P < 0·001; EVLA: 0 (0-1) from 4 (3-5), P < 0·001), AVVQ (surgery: 4·59 (0·56-9·78) from 13·69 (9·81-18·11), P < 0·001; EVLA: 3·35 (0·17 to 6·55) from 12·73 (9·41-17·32), P < 0·001) and EQ-5D™ (surgery: 1·000 (0·796-1·000) from 0·859 (0·796-1·000), P = 0·002; EVLA: 1·000 (0·796-1·000) from 0·808 (0·796-1·000), P = 0·002). VCSS was better for EVLA than surgery at 5 years (P = 0·031). Technical success assessed by DUS remained high at 5 years (85·4 per cent for surgery and 93·2 per cent for EVLA; P = 0·074). DUS-detected anatomical patterns of recurrence differed between the groups. CONCLUSION: EVLA was more effective than surgery in preventing clinical recurrence 5 years after treatment of great saphenous varicose veins. Patient-reported outcome measures were similar. Registration number: NCT00759434 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Compression regimes after endovenous ablation for superficial venous insufficiency--A survey of members of the Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal compression regime following ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) for varicose veins is not known. The aim of this study was to document current practice. METHODS: Postal questionnaire sent to 348 consultant members of the Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland. RESULTS: Valid replies were received from 41% (n = 141) surgeons representing at least 68 (61%) vascular units. UGFS was used by 74% surgeons, RFA by 70% and EVLA by 32%, but fewer patients received UGFS (median 30) annually, than endothermal treatment (median 50)--P = 0.019. All surgeons prescribed compression: following UGFS for median seven days (range two days to three months) and after endothermal ablation for 10 days (range two days to six weeks)--P = 0.298. Seven different combinations of bandages, pads and compression stockings were reported following UGFS and four after endothermal ablation. Some surgeons advised changing from bandages to stockings from five days (range 1­14) after UGFS. Following endothermal ablation, 71% used bandages only, followed by compression stockings after two days (range 1­14). The majority of surgeons (87%) also treated varicose tributaries: 65% used phlebectomy, the majority (65%) synchronously with endothermal ablation. Concordance of compression regimes between surgeons within vascular units was uncommon. Only seven units using UGFS and six units using endothermal ablation had consistent compression regimes. CONCLUSION: Compression regimes after treatments for varicose veins vary significantly: more evidence is needed to guide practice.

Systematic review of compression following treatment for varicose veins.

BACKGROUND: Consensus regarding compression following treatment of varicose veins has yet to be reached. This systematic review aims to establish the optimal compression regimen after venous treatment. METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL was performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating different compression strategies following treatment for superficial venous insufficiency. RESULTS: Seven RCTs comparing different durations and methods of compression fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The treatment modality was open surgery in three trials, foam sclerotherapy in two and endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) in two trials. The quality of the studies was variable, and significant sources of potential bias were present. Both the studies and compression regimens used were heterogeneous. Ten products were used in six general regimens for a duration of 0-42 days. One study suggested that 7 days rather than 2 days of stockings following EVLA was associated with superior quality of life and less pain at 1 week. Another study reported that, following surgery, application of a compression stocking after 3 days of bandaging was associated with a slightly longer recovery than no compression after 3 days. One study recorded compliance clearly, finding it to be only 40 per cent. The quality and heterogeneity of the studies precluded meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: There is currently little quality evidence upon which to base any recommendations concerning compression following treatment for varicose veins.

Clinical outcomes and quality of life 5 years after a randomized trial of concomitant or sequential phlebectomy following endovenous laser ablation for varicose veins.

BACKGROUND: Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) is a popular treatment for superficial venous insufficiency. Debate continues regarding the optimal management of symptomatic varicose tributaries following ablation of the main saphenous trunk. This randomized trial compared the 5-year outcomes of endovenous laser therapy with ambulatory phlebectomy (EVLTAP) with concomitant ambulatory phlebectomy, and EVLA alone with sequential treatment if required following a delay of at least 6 weeks. METHODS: Patients undergoing EVLA for great saphenous vein insufficiency were randomized to receive EVLTAP or EVLA alone with sequential phlebectomy, if required. Outcomes included disease-specific quality of life (QoL) (Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire; AVVQ), requirement for secondary procedures, clinical severity (Venous Clinical Severity Score; VCSS), residual and recurrent varicose tributaries, and generic QoL. Patients were followed up for 5 years. RESULTS: Fifty patients were randomized equally into two parallel groups. The EVLTAP group had lower VCSS scores at 12 weeks (median 0 (i.q.r. 0-1) versus 2 (0-2); P <0·001), and lower AVVQ scores at 6 weeks (median 7·9 (i.q.r. 4·1-10·7) versus 13·5 (10·9-18·1); P < 0·001) and 12 weeks (2·0 (0·4-7·7) versus 9·6 (2·2-13·8); P = 0·015). VCSS and AVVQ scores were equivalent by 1 year, but only after 16 of 24 patients in the EVLA group, compared with one of 25 in the EVLTAP group (P < 0·001), had received a secondary intervention. From 1 to 5 years both groups had equivalent outcomes. CONCLUSION: EVLA with either concomitant or sequential management of tributaries is acceptable treatment for symptomatic varicose veins, with both treatments achieving excellent results at 5 years. Concomitant treatment of varicosities is associated with optimal improvement in both clinical disease severity and QoL.