Clinical results and cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency and cyanoacrylate ablation compared with traditional surgical stripping for treating varicose veins.

BACKGROUND: Disease of the venous system is an underappreciated public health problem. Minimally invasive treatments such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or cyanoacrylate adhesive ablation (CAA) have almost entirely replaced surgical stripping (SS) of the great and small saphenous veins. The purpose of the present study was to compare the outcomes at 3 years after SS, RFA, and CAA by assessing the incidence of complications and reinterventions and performing a cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: From February 2016 to February 2019, all consecutive patients with symptomatic varicose veins treated at vascular department of two hospitals using SS, RFA, or CAA were included in the present study. The clinical outcomes were measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), complications, and reintervention. A comparison with conservative treatment was also performed. A detailed resource use was recorded for each procedure. All costs were normalized to May 2020 U.S. dollars and euros. Analysis of the data was by the treatment received. All statistical tests were two-sided, and the significance level was set at 5%. Two perspectives of the analysis were considered: the social perspective and that of the Spanish Public Health System. The study period was 3 years. No discount rate was applied. RESULTS: A total of 233 patients were enrolled in the present study: SS, n = 90 (38.6%); RFA, 93 (39.9%); and CAA, n = 50 (21.5%). The number of complications was 11 (12.2%), 3 (3.3%), and 3 (6%) in the SS, RFA, and CAA groups, respectively (P = .06). No patient had required reintervention. The median loss of workdays for the SS, RFA, and CAA group was 15 days (interquartile range [IQR], 10-30 days), 0 days (IQR, 0-6 days), and 0 days (IQR, 0-1 days), respectively (P < .001). The median level of satisfaction for the SS, RFA, and CAA group was 9 (IQR, 8-10), 10 (IQR, 9-10), and 10 (IQR, 9-10), respectively (P < .001). The QALYs was 2.6 years for all three procedures. The median overall cost was €852 (US$926) for SS, €1002 (US$1089) for RFA, and €1228.3 (US$1335) for CAA. The total cost per QALY was €323/QALY (US$351/QALY) for SS, €380/QALY (US$413/QALY) for RFA, and €467/QALY (US$508/QALY) for CAA. The indirect costs were measured by the cost of the workdays lost for each patient and were €1527 (US$1660; IQR, €1018-3054); €0 (IQR, €0-611) for RFA, and €0 (IQR, €0-102) for CAA (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: All three techniques were cost-effective (procedures with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <€30,000/QALY can be recommended). From the Spanish Public Health System perspective, when considering only the health care costs, the most cost-effective technique was SS. From the social perspective, including the opportunity costs of medical leave, CAA was the most cost-effective technique, saving €1600 per patient, a cost that more than compensated for the savings realized from using SS in direct health care costs.

Antibiotic prophylaxis adequacy assessment and its influence on surgical site infection in peripheral vascular bypass surgery.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the degree of antibiotic prophylaxis adequacy to our surgical antibiotic prophylaxis protocol among patients who underwent peripheral vascular bypass surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort study. Adequacy to protocol was studied by comparing the different aspects of prophylaxis received by patients to those stipulated in the protocol in force at our hospital. Incidence of surgical wound infection was calculated and the effect of prophylaxis inadequacy on the incidence of surgical wound infection was estimated using the relative risk. RESULTS: The study covered 266 patients. Incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) after the follow-up period was 5.3% (95% Confidence interval [CI]: 3.0-9.4). Overall adequacy to the protocol of antibiotic prophylaxis was 91.0% (95% CI: 87.6-94.4). The most frequent cause of inadequacy to the protocol was time of initiation of antibiotic prophylaxis (94.1%). No relationship was found between SSI and antibiotic prophylaxis inadequacy (relative risk: 2.4; 95% CI: 0.49-12.5; p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Global adequacy to protocol of antibiotic prophylaxis was high. The most frequent cause of inadequacy to the protocol was time of initiation of antibiotic prophylaxis.

OBJETIVO: Buscamos evaluar el grado de adecuación de la profilaxis antibiótica a nuestro protocolo de profilaxis antibiótica quirúrgica entre los pacientes sometidos a cirugía de bypass vascular periférico. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudio de cohortes prospectivo. La adecuación al protocolo se estudió comparando los diferentes aspectos de la profilaxis recibida por los pacientes con los estipulados en el protocolo vigente en nuestro hospital. Se calculó la incidencia de infección de herida quirúrgica y se estimó el efecto de la inadecuación de la profilaxis sobre la incidencia de infección de herida quirúrgica mediante el riesgo relativo. RESULTADOS: El estudio abarcó 266 pacientes. La incidencia de infección del sitio quirúrgico (ISQ) tras el periodo de seguimiento fue del 5,3% (intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 3,0-9,4). La adecuación global al protocolo de profilaxis antibiótica fue del 91,0% (IC 95%: 87,6-94,4). La causa más frecuente de inadecuación al protocolo fue el momento de inicio de la profilaxis antibiótica (94,1%). No se encontró relación entre ISQ e inadecuación de la profilaxis antibiótica (riesgo relativo: 2,4; IC 95%: 0,49-12,5; p > 0,05). CONCLUSIONES: La adecuación global al protocolo de la profilaxis antibiótica fue alta. La causa más frecuente de inadecuación al protocolo fue el momento de inicio de la profilaxis antibiótica.

Symptomatic Common Carotid Free-Floating Thrombus in a COVID-19 Patient, Case Report and Literature Review.

Carotid free-floating thrombus is an uncommon entity that usually presents with neurologic symptoms. Crescendo transient ischemic attack is an accepted indication for urgent carotid endarterectomy. COVID-19 is associated with severe thromboembolic complications. We report the case of a 61-year-old man who developed, 2 weeks after the diagnosis of COVID-19, crescendo transient ischemic attack, complicating a large intraluminal floating thrombus within the right common carotid artery. A carotid thromboendarterectomy under local anesthesia, with patch closure was immediately performed without complications. We conducted a literature review to identify cases of common carotid artery thrombus related to COVID-19. Carotid free-floating thrombus in the common carotid artery is exceptional. However, since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, 15 cases have been published.

Cost-effectiveness of Carotid Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to determinate the cost-effectiveness of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus transfemoral stenting (TFS) and transcervical stenting (TCS) in a short- and long-term basis in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. METHODS: From January 2003 to December 2014, patients from the vascular department, with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis, who were clinically and anatomically suitable for TFS, TCS, or CEA, were included. Prospective cost data for each individual procedure and complication during follow-up were obtained from the diagnosis-related group. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. Analysis of data was by treatment received. All statistical tests were two-sided. The significance level was 5%. RESULTS: A total of 349 patients were enrolled: 61 for CEA (17.5%), 159 for TFS (45.5%), and 129 for TCS (37%). A total of 220 (63%) patients were symptomatic and 129 (37%) were asymptomatic. The median procedural cost and overall cost were lower on CEA (5499€ and 5595€, respectively). However, QALYs, for symptomatic patients, were better on TCS (7.3), whereas for asymptomatic patients, QALYs were better on CEA (9.6). Cost-effectiveness for symptomatic patients was better with TCS (803€/QALY), and for asymptomatic patients, it was with CEA (654€/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: TFS and TCS were associated with clinical outcomes equivalent to CEA on both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Cost-effectiveness ratios for symptomatic patients were better on TCS, whereas the CEA showed the best results in asymptomatic patients.