National Diagnostic Reference Levels for Standard Descending Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair and Optimisation Strategies.

OBJECTIVE: The International Commission on Radiological Protection has highlighted the large number of medical specialties that use fluoroscopy outside diagnostic imaging departments without radiation protection programmes for patients and staff. Vascular surgery is one of these specialties. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a complicated procedure requiring radiation protection guidance and optimisation. The recent EU Basic Safety Standards Directive requires the use and periodic updating of diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for interventional procedures. The aim of this study was to determine doses for patients undergoing TEVAR with mobile Xray systems and hybrid rooms (fixed Xray systems) to obtain national DRLs and to suggest optimisation actions. METHODS: This was a retrospective cross sectional study. The Spanish Chapter of Endovascular Surgery conducted a national survey in 11 autonomous communities representing around 77.6% of the Spanish population (47.33 million inhabitants). A total of 266 TEVAR procedures from 17 Spanish centres were analysed, of which 53.0% were performed in hybrid operating rooms. National DRLs were obtained and defined as the third quartile of the median values from the different participating centres. RESULTS: The proposed national DRLs are: for kerma area product (KAP), 113.81 Gy·cm2 for mobile Xray systems and 282.59 Gy·cm2 for hybrid rooms; and for cumulative air kerma (CAK) at the patient entry reference point, 228.38 mGy for mobile systems and 910.64 mGy for hybrid rooms. CONCLUSION: Based on the requirement to know radiation doses for standard endovascular procedures, this study of TEVARs demonstrated that there is an increased factor of 2.48 in DRLs for KAP when the procedure is performed in a hybrid room compared with mobile C-arm systems, and an increased factor of 3.98 in DRLs for CAK when the procedure is performed with hybrid equipment. These results will help to optimise strategies to reduce radiation doses during TEVAR procedures.

Vascular Registries Contributing to VASCUNET Collaborative Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Outcome Projects: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: Vascular surgery registries report on procedures and outcomes to promote patient safety and drive quality improvement. International registries have contributed significantly to the VASCUNET collaborative abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) outcome projects. This scoping review aimed to outline the national registries in vascular surgery that currently participate in the VASCUNET collaborative AAA projects. METHODS: A scoping review of all published VASCUNET AAA studies and validation reports between 1997 and 2024 was undertaken. A survey was conducted among representatives of the international vascular registries contributing to VASCUNET collaborative AAA projects. RESULTS: Currently, vascular registries from 10 countries (Australia, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK) contribute to the current VASCUNET collaborative AAA project, of which eight have national coverage. In the past, three countries (Germany, Malta, and Italy) have participated in previous VASCUNET AAA projects, and a further three countries (Serbia, Greece, and Portugal) have planned participation in future projects. External validity is high for all current registries, with most reporting rates of > 90%. The majority have internal validation processes to assess data accuracy. VASCUNET mediated validation has also been performed by the consortium for five countries to date (Hungary, Sweden, Denmark, Malta, and Switzerland), for which a high degree of external and internal validity was identified. Most registries have established mechanisms for data linkage with national administrative datasets or insurance claims datasets and contribute to quality improvement through regular reporting to participating centres. CONCLUSION: National vascular registries from nations participating in the VASCUNET collaborative AAA projects are largely comprehensive, with high case ascertainment rates and good quality data with internal quality assurance. This provides a template for new registries wishing to join the VASCUNET collaboration and a benchmark for future research.

Multicenter Comparative Analysis of Late Open Conversion in Patients With Adherence and Nonadherence to Instructions for Use Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

PURPOSE: The widespread adoption of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) as preferred treatment modality for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has enlarged the number of patients needing open surgical conversion (OSC). The relationship between adherence to Instructions For Use (IFU) and EVAR long-term outcomes remains controversial. The aim of this study is to compare preoperative differences and postoperative outcomes between EVAR patients not adjusted to IFU and adjusted to IFU who underwent OSC. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study reviewed 33 explanted EVARs between January 2003 and December 2019 at 14 Vascular Units. Patients were included if OSC occurred >30 days after implantation and excluded if explantation was performed to treat an endograft infection, aortic dissection, or traumatic transections. Variables analyzed included baseline characteristics, adherence to IFU, implant and explant procedural details, secondary reinterventions, and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Fifteen explanted patients (15/33, 45.5%) were identified not accomplished to IFU (out-IFU) at initial EVAR vs 18 explanted patients adjusted (in-IFU). During follow-up, a mean of 1.73±1.2 secondary reinterventions were performed, with more type I endoleaks treated in the subgroup out-IFU: 16.7% vs 6.3% in-IFU patients and more type III endoleaks (8.3% vs 0%). Patients out-IFU had shorter mean interval from implant to explant: 47.60±28.8 months vs 71.17±48. Type II endoleak was the most frequent indication for explantation. Low-flow endoleaks (types II, IV, V) account for 44% of indications for OSC in subgroup of patients in-IFU, compared with 13.3% in patients out-IFU and high-flow endoleaks (types I and III) were the main indication for patients out-IFU (33.3% vs 16.7% in-IFU). Total endograft explantation was performed in 57.5% of cases (19/33) and more suprarenal clamping was required in the subgroup out-IFU. Overall, 30-day mortality rate was 12.1% (4/33): 20% for patients out-IFU and 5.6% in-IFU. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, type II endoleak is the most common indication for conversion and differences have been found between patients treated outside IFU with explantation taking place earlier during follow-up, mainly due to high-flow endoleaks and with higher mortality in comparison with patients adjusted to IFU. Ongoing research is required to delve into these differences.

Editor's Choice - The VASCUNExplanT Project: An International Study Assessing Open Surgical Conversion of Failed Non-Infected Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: The need for open surgical conversion (OSC) after failed endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) persists, despite expanding endovascular options for secondary intervention. The VASCUNExplanT project collected international data to identify risk factors for failed EVAR, as well as OSC outcomes. This retrospective cross sectional study analysed data after OSC for failed EVAR from the VASCUNET international collaboration. METHODS: VASCUNET queried registries from its 28 member countries, and 17 collaborated with data from patients who underwent OSC (2005 - 2020). Any OSC for infection was excluded. Data included demographics, EVAR, and OSC procedural details, as well as post-operative mortality and complication rates. RESULTS: There were 348 OSC patients from 17 centres, of whom 33 (9.4%) were women. There were 130 (37.4%) devices originally deployed outside of instructions for use. The most common indication for OSC was endoleak (n = 143, 41.1%); ruptures accounted for 17.2% of cases. The median time from EVAR to OSC was 48.6 months [IQR 29.7, 71.6]; median abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter at OSC was 70.5 mm [IQR 61, 82]. A total of 160 (45.6%) patients underwent one or more re-interventions prior to OSC, while 63 patients (18.1%) underwent more than one re-intervention (range 1 - 5). Overall, the 30 day mortality rate post-OSC was 11.8% (n = 41), 11.1% for men and 18.2% for women (p = .23). The 30 day mortality rate was 6.1% for elective cases, and 28.3% for ruptures (p < .0001). The predicted 90 day survival for the entire cohort was 88.3% (95% CI 84.3 - 91.3). Multivariable analysis revealed rupture (OR 4.23; 95% CI 2.05 - 8.75; p < .0001) and total graft explantation (OR 2.10; 95% CI 1.02 - 4.34; p = .04) as the only statistically significant predictive factors for 30 day death. CONCLUSION: This multicentre analysis of patients who underwent OSC shows that, despite varying case mix and operative techniques, OSC is feasible but associated with significant morbidity and mortality rates, particularly when performed for rupture.

Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Practice in 13 Countries: A Report From VASCUNET and the International Consortium of Vascular Registries.

OBJECTIVE: To assess practice patterns and short-term outcome after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), based on an international vascular registry collaboration. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: TEVAR has become the primary surgical treatment modality for descending aortic pathologies, and has expanded to new patient cohorts, including the elderly. METHODS: Data on thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAA), type B aortic dissections (TBAD), and traumatic aortic injuries (TAI) treated with TEVAR from 2012 to 2016 were retrieved from registries and centers in 13 countries. RESULTS: Nine-thousand five-hundred eighteen TEVAR for TAA ( n = 4436), TBAD ( n = 3976) and TAI ( n = 1106) were included. The distribution of TEVAR procedures per pathology varied, with TAA repair constituting from 40% of TEVARs in the US to 72% in the UK ( P < 0.001).Mean intact TAA (iTAA) diameter varied from 59 (US) to 69 mm (Nancy, France) ( P < 0.001), 25.3% of patients having a diameter of <60 mm. Perioperative mortality after iTAA repair was 4.9%; combined mortality, stroke, paraplegia, and renal replacement therapy outcome was 12.8%. 18.6% of iTAA patients were ≥80 years old. Mortality was higher in this group (7.2%) than in patients <80 (3.8%) ( P < 0.001). After rTAA repair, perioperative mortality was 26.8%.Mortality was 9.7% after acute (within 14 days from onset of dissection) and 3.0% after chronic TBAD repair ( P < 0.001). Mortality after TAI was 7.8%, and depended on injury severity (grade IV (free rupture) 20.9%). CONCLUSIONS: This registry collaboration provides a unique platform to evaluate cross-border patterns of use and outcomes of TEVAR. A common core dataset is proposed, to achieve harmonization of registry-based quality outcome measures for TEVAR.

Migration and Surgical Retrieval of an Amplatzer Septal Occluder into Abdominal Aorta.

BACKGROUND: Structural heart defects, secondary to congenital malformations, have been commonly repaired by open cardiac surgery. Endovascular technology enables these repairs to be performed with fewer complications and better recovery. However, endovascular therapy can be associated with major complications as device dislocation or embolization. We present the case of migration of an Amplatzer occluder device into the abdominal aorta and its surgical retrieval. CLINICAL CASE: A 10-year-old child with ostium secundum-type interatrial communication underwent endovascular repair in our center. Cardiologists sorted out the atrial communication by endovascular deployment of an Amplatzer device. The 24-h ultrasound control study showed the loss of the occluder. An angio-CT scan showed the migration of the Amplatzer into the juxtarenal abdominal aorta. Initially, an endovascular rescue was attempted but was not effective. Our vascular team performed a median laparotomy, control of the abdominal aorta proximal to the renal arteries, and control of the renal arteries and the infrarenal aorta. We performed a transverse arteriotomy, and the material was removed. Subsequently, the arteriotomy was closed directly without any patch. Postoperative evolution was uneventful. COMMENTS: Most of the migrations and embolizations of the devices to close interatrial communications remain intracardiac. Although embolization of the abdominal aorta is only reported sporadically, it could cause a major vascular complication. Percutaneous retrieval of the device is currently recommended, with conventional surgery being the efficient treatment in case of endovascular failure or severe damage to the aorta.

Endovascular Treatment of Descending Thoracic Aortic Pathology: Results of the Regis-TEVAR Study.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular techniques have become an essential tool for treatment of thoracic aortic pathology. The objective of this study was to analyze indications and results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in vascular surgery units, through a retrospective and multicentric national registry called Regis-TEVAR. METHODS: From 2012 to 2016, a total of 287 patients from 11 vascular surgery units, treated urgently and electively, were recruited consecutively. The primary variables analyzed are mortality, survival, and reintervention rate. The following indications for TEVAR were also analyzed: aortic dissections, thoracic aneurysms, traumatisms, and intramural hematomas or penetrating ulcers, as well as results and postoperative complications in accordance with each indication. RESULTS: Of the 287 TEVAR performed (239 men, mean age 64.1 ± 14.1 years), 155 were because of aortic aneurysm (54%), 90 because of type B aortic dissection (31.4%), 36 because of traumatic aortic rupture (12.5%), and 6 because of penetrating ulcers or intramural hematomas (2.1%). Overall mortality at 30 days was 11.5% (18.5% in urgent and 5.3% in elective), being higher in dissections (13.3%). The median actuarial survival was 73% at 4 years. The stroke rate was 3.1%, and the rate of spinal cord ischemia was 4.9%. Aortic reoperations were necessary in 23 patients (8.1%). CONCLUSIONS: This registry provides complete and reliable information on real clinical practice of TEVAR in Spain, with results similar to international series of open surgery. In accordance with these data, TEVAR can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality and with low rates of postoperative complications.

Clinical results of a new strategy (modified CHIVA) for surgical treatment of anterior accessory great saphenous varicose veins.

INTRODUCTION: Traditionally, anterior accessory great saphenous vein insufficiency was managed by crossectomy and resection of varicose veins. The aim of this paper is to show the safety and efficacy of a new therapeutic strategy for anterior accessory great saphenous varicose veins. METHODS: This non-randomised prospective study included 65 patients with varicose veins from the anterior accessory great saphenous vein. The novelty of the technique is to avoid the great saphenous vein crossectomy and perform just flebectomy of the visible veins. Venous duplex studies were performed preoperatively, a month and a year postoperatively. The clinical assessment was done by the Fligelstone scale. RESULTS: The baseline CEAP clinical classification was: 58% C2, 26% C3 and 15% C4-6. The new strategy was applied to all cases. COMPLICATIONS: 3 haematomas, 7 cases of asymptomatic partial anterior saphenous thrombosis. Reduction of the initial average diameter was from 6.4 mm anterior saphenous to 3.4 mm by one year (p <0.001). At twelve months a forward flow is maintained in 82% of cases. Recurrence of varicose veins was 8%. All patients improved their clinical status based on the Fligelstone scale. Cases with saphenous diameter bigger than 7.5 mm and obesity were identified as predictors of worse clinical and hemodynamic outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This modified surgical strategy for anterior saphenous varicose veins results in better clinical outcomes at one year postoperatively.

Popliteal venous aneurysms: results of surgical treatment.

BACKGROUND: Popliteal venous aneurysms are an uncommon clinical entity although they have been the subject of a number of published clinical cases. Herein we have conducted an updated review of reports of these aneurysms while also describing our own experience with 4 such cases over the last 10 years. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on MEDLINE and Embase concerning popliteal venous aneurysms. We collected all information mentioned associated with their clinical morphology, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. The patients included consisted of all those from the literature reports for whom the presence of an aneurysm in the popliteal region was described, plus the 4 cases in our own series. RESULTS: The most significant contribution was made by Sessa et al. in 2000, who recommended that this disorder be actively searched for in conventional echo-Doppler studies and, once detected, surgical repair should be undertaken by tangential aneurysmectomy with lateral venorrhaphy to prevent repeat pulmonary embolisms. In conjunction with their series, we reviewed other publications over the last 10 years to determine whether these recommendations have undergone any changes based on the new findings. We found 91 cases in addition to the 117 cases described by Sessa and colleagues as well as the 4 contributed by our group. Most of these cases do not present any specific symptomatology and are discovered by chance via echo Doppler. They are sometimes detected as a palpable mass in the popliteal fossa, with a tendency toward growth, venous thrombosis, and repeat pulmonary embolisms. Phlebography is usually left to preoperative study, and NMR and CAT are rarely used. The objective of surgical treatment is to eliminate the aneurysm while maintaining venous drainage to the limb, with the technique employed most often being tangential aneurysmectomy with lateral venorrhaphy. There are very few postoperative complications and relapses are rare. CONCLUSIONS: The most recent publications confirm the recommendations made by Sessa et al. more than 10 years ago. Thus, no further changes should be made to the current approach to treatment of venous aneurysms.

Timing and characteristics of venous thromboembolism after noncancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality postoperatively. The use of pharmacologic prophylaxis is effective in reducing the incidence of VTE. However, the prophylaxis is often discontinued at hospital discharge, especially for those with benign disease. The implications of this practice are not known. We assessed the data from a large, ongoing registry regarding the time course of VTE and outcomes after noncancer surgery. METHODS: We analyzed the RIETE (Computerized Registry on Venous Thromboembolism) registry, which includes data from consecutive patients with symptomatic confirmed VTE. In the present study, we focused on general surgical patients who had developed symptomatic postoperative VTE in the first 8 weeks after noncancer surgery. The main objective was to assess the interval between surgery and the occurrence of VTE. Additional variables included the clinical presentation associated with the event, the use of thrombosis prophylaxis, and unfavorable outcomes. RESULTS: The data from 3296 patients were analyzed. The median time from surgery to the detection of VTE was 16 days (interquartile range, 8-30 days). Of the VTE events, 77% were detected after the first postoperative week and 27% after 4 weeks. Overall, 43.9% of the patients with VTE had received pharmacologic prophylaxis after surgery for a median of 8 days (interquartile range, 5-14 days), and three quarters of the VTE events were detected after pharmacologic prophylaxis had been discontinued. Overall, 54% of the patients with VTE had presented with pulmonary embolism. For 15% of the patients, the clinical outcome was unfavorable, including 4% who had died within 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of VTE after noncancer general surgery remains high for ≤2 months. More than one half of the patients had presented with symptomatic PE as the VTE event, and 15% had had unfavorable outcomes. Only 44% of these patients had received pharmacologic prophylaxis for around 1 week.

Prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in general surgery in Spain. Analysis of a national survey. / Profilaxis del tromboembolismo venoso en cirugía general en España. Análisis de una encuesta nacional.

INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) represents a serious postoperative complication that can be prevented by adequate thromboprophylaxis. Surveys provide relevant information about clinician's attitudes and preferences regarding VTE prophylaxis. METHODS: Transversal, descriptive study based on a survey sent to general surgeons members of the Spanish Association of Surgeons (AEC), that included 31 questions regarding postoperative VTE and its prevention, as well as three clinical scenarios. RESULTS: 530 surgeons, 21.8% of the 2,429 invited by electronic mail to participate, completed the survey. Most of the answering clinicians work on in big teaching hospitals, and 28.5% are residents. VTE represents a serious problem for 28% of participants. Although 81% consider that their knowledge on the prevention of postoperative VTE is adequate, a similar percentage recognizes the need for further education. The vast majority (98.7%) use low molecular weight heparins, which are considered the most effective and safe modality, followed by mechanical methods. The Caprini risk assessment score is used by 81% of surgeons, who usually start pharmacological prophylaxis preoperatively. However, there are remarkable differences in the dosing of heparins, timing of initiation, and duration, especially in non-oncologic surgical patients. CONCLUSIONS: Most Spanish surgeons are interested in the prevention of postoperative VTE. Overall, the level of knowledge on thromboprophylaxis is adequate. However, our results indicate that there is a need for better education on relevant practical aspects of prophylaxis that could be achieved by incorporating recommendations from recent guidelines to local hospital-based protocols.

Spanish Clinical Guidelines on Vascular Access for Haemodialysis. / Guía Clínica Española del Acceso Vascular para Hemodiálisis.

Vascular access for haemodialysis is key in renal patients both due to its associated morbidity and mortality and due to its impact on quality of life. The process, from the creation and maintenance of vascular access to the treatment of its complications, represents a challenge when it comes to decision-making, due to the complexity of the existing disease and the diversity of the specialities involved. With a view to finding a common approach, the Spanish Multidisciplinary Group on Vascular Access (GEMAV), which includes experts from the five scientific societies involved (nephrology [S.E.N.], vascular surgery [SEACV], vascular and interventional radiology [SERAM-SERVEI], infectious diseases [SEIMC] and nephrology nursing [SEDEN]), along with the methodological support of the Cochrane Center, has updated the Guidelines on Vascular Access for Haemodialysis, published in 2005. These guidelines maintain a similar structure, in that they review the evidence without compromising the educational aspects. However, on one hand, they provide an update to methodology development following the guidelines of the GRADE system in order to translate this systematic review of evidence into recommendations that facilitate decision-making in routine clinical practice, and, on the other hand, the guidelines establish quality indicators which make it possible to monitor the quality of healthcare.

Avanzando en la toma de decisiones compartida: estenosis carotídea asintomática / Advancing in shared decision making: asymptomatic carotid stenosis

En las últimas décadas ha venido produciéndose un cambio de paradigma en la relación médico-enfermo, que ha pasado de una visión paternalista a una medicina más centrada en el paciente. La toma de decisiones compartidas (TDC) es un proceso que incluye el intercambio de información (personal y médica) entre el paciente y el sanitario respecto a la enfermedad, la deliberación sobre las distintas opciones y, finalmente, la toma de una decisión consensuada. Para facilitar este proceso se han desarrollado distintas herramientas mediante diversos medios y formatos (folletos, texto escrito, vídeos, aplicaciones informáticas...), utilizando en muchas ocasiones ayudas visuales tales como caras sonrientes u otros pictogramas. Desde nuestro grupo de trabajo nos unimos a este proceso evolutivo de la práctica médica y presentamos una herramienta de ayuda visual a la TDC en el caso de pacientes con estenosis carotídea asintomática mayor del 70%. Para su realización nos hemos basado en los cates plots, que ayudan a cuantificar riesgos y beneficios de una intervención de forma estandarizada

In the last decades there has been a paradigm change in the doctor-patient relationship, from a paternalistic model to a patient centered medicine. Shared decision making (SDM) is a process that involves bidirectional communication between physicians and patients about the illness, different treatment options, and, through the deliberation process, reaching an agreement in the ultimate decision made. Various different tools have been developed to promote shared decision making, through different types of support methods (leaflets, books, videos, websites or other interactive media), frequently using visual aids like smiley faces plots or other pictograms. Our Working Group would like to join this evolutionary process. Thus, we have developed a visual aid tool to help in the decision-making process in the case of asymptomatic carotid stenosis > 70%. We have based on Cates plots that help to quantify risks and benefits of specific interventions in a standardized manner

Guía Clínica Española del Acceso Vascular para Hemodiálisis / Spanish Clinical Guidelines on Vascular Access for Haemodialysis

El acceso vascular para hemodiálisis es esencial para el enfermo renal tanto por su morbimortalidad asociada como por su repercusión en la calidad de vida. El proceso que va desde la creación y mantenimiento del acceso vascular hasta el tratamiento de sus complicaciones constituye un reto para la toma de decisiones debido a la complejidad de la patología existente y a la diversidad de especialidades involucradas. Con el fin de conseguir un abordaje consensuado, el Grupo Español Multidisciplinar del Acceso Vascular (GEMAV), que incluye expertos de las cinco sociedades científicas implicadas (nefrología [S.E.N.], cirugía vascular [SEACV], radiología vascular e intervencionista [SERAM-SERVEI], enfermedades infecciosas [SEIMC] y enfermería nefrológica [SEDEN]), con el soporte metodológico del Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano, ha realizado una actualización de la Guía del Acceso Vascular para Hemodiálisis publicada en 2005. Esta guía mantiene una estructura similar, revisando la evidencia sin renunciar a la vertiente docente, pero se aportan como novedades, por un lado, la metodología en su elaboración, siguiendo las directrices del sistema GRADE con el objetivo de traducir esta revisión sistemática de la evidencia en recomendaciones que faciliten la toma de decisiones en la práctica clínica habitual y, por otro, el establecimiento de indicadores de calidad que permitan monitorizar la calidad asistencial (AU)

Vascular access for haemodialysis is key in renal patients both due to its associated morbidity and mortality and due to its impact on quality of life. The process, from the creation and maintenance of vascular access to the treatment of its complications, represents a challenge when it comes to decision-making, due to the complexity of the existing disease and the diversity of the specialities involved. With a view to finding a common approach, the Spanish Multidisciplinary Group on Vascular Access (GEMAV), which includes experts from the five scientific societies involved (nephrology [S.E.N.], vascular surgery [SEACV], vascular and interventional radiology [SERAM-SERVEI], infectious diseases [SEIMC] and nephrology nursing [SEDEN]), along with the methodological support of the Cochrane Center, has updated the Guidelines on Vascular Access for Haemodialysis, published in 2005. These guidelines maintain a similar structure, in that they review the evidence without compromising the educational aspects. However, on one hand, they provide an update to methodology development following the guidelines of the GRADE system in order to translate this systematic review of evidence into recommendations that facilitate decision-making in routine clinical practice, and, on the other hand, the guidelines establish quality indicators which make it possible to monitor the quality of healthcare (AU)