Effect of high-pain versus low-pain structured exercise on walking ability in people with intermittent claudication: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to determine the comparative benefits of structured high-pain exercise, structured low-pain exercise, and usual-care control, to identify which has the largest effect on walking ability in people with intermittent claudication (IC). METHODS: A network meta-analysis was undertaken to assess two outcomes: pain-free walking ability (PFWA) and maximal walking ability (MWA). Nine electronic databases were searched. Trials were included if they were: RCTS; involved adults with IC; had at least two of the following arms-structured low-pain exercise, structured high--pain exercise or usual-care control; and a maximal or pain-free treadmill walking outcome. RESULTS: Some 14 trials were included; results were pooled using the standardized mean difference (MD). Structured low-pain exercise had a significant large positive effect on MWA (MD 2.23, 95 percent c.i. 1.11 to 3.35) and PFWA (MD 2.26, 1.26 to 3.26) compared with usual-care control. Structured high-pain exercise had a significant large positive effect on MWA (MD 0.95, 0.20 to 1.70) and a moderate positive effect on PFWA (0.77, 0.01 to 1.53) compared with usual-care control. In an analysis of structured low- versus high pain exercise, there was a large positive effect in favour of low-pain exercise on MWA (MD 1.28, -0.07 to 2.62) and PFWA (1.50, 0.24 to 2.75); however, this was significant only for PFWA. CONCLUSION: There is strong evidence in support of use of structured high-pain exercise, and some evidence in support of structured low-pain exercise, to improve walking ability in people with IC compared with usual-care control (unstructured exercise advice).

Selecting Portable Ankle/Toe Brachial Pressure Index Systems for a Peripheral Arterial Disease Population Screening Programme: a Systematic Review, Clinical Evaluation Exercise, and Consensus Process.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of systems available for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) screening, together with respective accuracies and a clinical evaluation to identify a system suitable for use in a community screening programme. METHODS: A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of six ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI) and toe brachial pressure index (TBPI) devices deemed to be portable, which were Conformité Européenne (CE) marked, and were automated or semi-automated was carried out compared with gold standard handheld Doppler and duplex ultrasound. The devices were MESI-ABPI-MD, Huntleigh Dopplex Ability, Huntleigh ABPI and TBPI systems, Systoe TBPI system, and BlueDop. Seven databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)) were searched, and 11 studies were identified as eligible for review. This was followed by hands on clinical evaluation by abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening staff (n = 39). During this, devices were demonstrated to staff which they then tested on volunteers and gave feedback using pre-designed questionnaires on their suitability for use in a screening programme. Finally, accuracy data and staff preferences were combined during a consensus conference that was held between study and screening staff to determine the most appropriate device to use in a community screening programme. RESULTS: Generally, the evaluated systems have a moderate level of sensitivity and a high level of specificity: Dopplex ability sensitivity 20% - 70%, specificity 86% - 96%; MESI sensitivity 57% - 74%, specificity 85% - 99%; BlueDop sensitivity 95%, specificity 89%; and Systoe sensitivity 71%, specificity 77%. Clinical evaluation by screening staff identified a preference for the MESI system. The consensus conference concluded that the MESI device was a good candidate for use in a community PAD screening programme. CONCLUSION: The MESI system is a good candidate to consider for community PAD screening.

Prevalence of Cognitive Impairment in Individuals with Vascular Surgical Pathology: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: A significant proportion of vascular surgery patients may have undiagnosed cognitive impairment; however, its true prevalence and impact on outcomes are unknown. The aim of this review was to estimate the prevalence of cognitive impairment among individuals with clinically significant vascular surgical pathology and investigate its associations with post-operative outcomes in those undergoing vascular surgery. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCare, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus were searched for relevant studies. Included studies assessed cognitive function among individuals with either symptomatic vascular surgical pathology, or disease above threshold for intervention, using a validated cognitive assessment tool. The primary outcome measure was prevalence of cognitive impairment. Secondary outcomes included incidence of post-operative delirium (POD). Two reviewers independently extracted relevant study data and assessed risk of bias (ROBINS-E or RoB 2 tool). Prevalence (%) of cognitive impairment was calculated for individual studies and presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Prevalence data from comparable studies were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method (random effects model) for separate vascular disease types. Certainty of effect estimates was assessed using the GRADE criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies (2 564 participants) were included in the systematic review, and nine studies (1 310 participants) were included in the meta-analyses. The prevalence of cognitive impairment was 61% (95% CI 48 - 74; 391 participants; low certainty) in studies including multiple vascular surgical pathologies, 38% (95% CI 32 - 44; 278 participants; very low certainty) in carotid artery disease, and 19% (95% CI 10 - 33; 641 participants; low certainty) in those with intermittent claudication. Lower cognitive assessment scores were associated with POD (five studies; 841 participants), but data were not suitable for pooling. CONCLUSION: Screening elective vascular surgery patients for cognitive impairment may be appropriate given its high prevalence, and the association of worse cognition with POD, among individuals with clinically significant vascular surgical pathology.

Frailty Factors and Outcomes in Vascular Surgery Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and critique tools used to assess frailty in vascular surgery patients, and investigate its associations with patient factors and outcomes. BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence shows negative impacts of frailty on outcomes in surgical patients, but little investigation of its associations with patient factors has been undertaken. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting frailty in vascular surgery patients (PROSPERO registration: CRD42018116253) searching Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus. Quality of studies was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa scores (NOS) and quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. Associations of frailty with patient factors were investigated by difference in means (MD) or expressed as risk ratios (RRs), and associations with outcomes expressed as odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs). Data were pooled using random-effects models. RESULTS: Fifty-three studies were included in the review and only 8 (15%) were both good quality (NOS ≥ 7) and used a well-validated frailty measure. Eighteen studies (62,976 patients) provided data for the meta-analysis. Frailty was associated with increased age [MD 4.05 years; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.35, 4.75], female sex (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.14, 1.54), and lower body mass index (MD -1.81; 95% CI -2.94, -0.68). Frailty was associated with 30-day mortality [adjusted OR (AOR) 2.77; 95% CI 2.01-3.81), postoperative complications (AOR 2.16; 95% CI 1.55, 3.02), and long-term mortality (HR 1.85; 95% CI 1.31, 2.62). Sarcopenia was not associated with any outcomes. CONCLUSION: Frailty, but not sarcopenia, is associated with worse outcomes in vascular surgery patients. Well-validated frailty assessment tools should be preferred clinically, and in future research.

Knowledge of peripheral artery disease: What do the public, healthcare practitioners, and trainees know?

This systematic review evaluated the knowledge and awareness of peripheral artery disease (PAD) within the general public (including patients with peripheral vascular disease), nonspecialist healthcare professionals (nsHCP), and trainees (medical students and trainee doctors). Relevant articles were identified from electronic databases using key search terms: 'peripheral artery disease'; 'limb ischaemia'; 'intermittent claudication'; 'knowledge'; 'understanding'; 'public'; 'medical professional'. The heterogeneous results were described narratively. A lack of knowledge and understanding of PAD (disease awareness) were identified in all groups. Among nsHCPs, factors which affect knowledge include the level of training, early clinical exposure and the presence of family members with cardiovascular/vascular disease. Within the general public, knowledge and awareness was improved if a family member/friend had a diagnosis, or following a patient-centred consultation with any HCP. Public campaigns are proven effective in improving disease knowledge/awareness in conditions such as stroke alongside sustained patient education. These may provide future avenues to improve PAD knowledge and awareness, in order to effectively manage risk factors and minimise delayed or missed diagnosis of PAD. (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018117304).

Understanding variations in reported epidemiology of major lower extremity amputation in the UK: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Estimate the prevalence/incidence/number of major lower extremity amputations (MLEAs) in the UK; identify sources of routinely collected electronic health data used; assess time trends and regional variation; and identify reasons for variation in reported incidence/prevalence of MLEA. DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, EMcare, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, AMED, Scopus and grey literature sources searched from 1 January 2009 to 1 August 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Reports that provided population-based statistics, used routinely collected electronic health data, gave a measure of MLEA in adults in the general population or those with diabetes in the UK or constituent countries were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction and quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Instruments were performed by two reviewers independently. Due to considerable differences in study populations and methodology, data pooling was not possible; data were tabulated and narratively synthesised, and study differences were discussed. RESULTS: Twenty-seven reports were included. Incidence proportion for the general population ranged from 8.2 to 51.1 per 100 000 and from 70 to 291 per 100 000 for the population with diabetes. Evidence for trends over time was mixed, but there was no evidence of increasing incidence. Reports consistently found regional variation in England with incidence higher in the north. No studies reported prevalence. Differences in database use, MLEA definition, calculation methods and multiple procedure inclusion which, together with identified inaccuracies, may account for the variation in incidence. CONCLUSIONS: UK incidence and trends in MLEA remain unclear; estimates vary widely due to differences in methodology and inaccuracies. Reasons for regional variation also remain unexplained and prevalence uninvestigated. International consensus on the definition of MLEA and medical code list is needed. Future research should recommend standards for the reporting of such outcomes and investigate further the potential to use primary care data in MLEA epidemiology. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020165592.

Epidemiology of major lower limb amputation using routinely collected electronic health data in the UK: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: It is estimated that peripheral arterial disease occurs in one in five people aged over 60 years in the UK. Major lower limb amputation is a debilitating and life-changing potential outcome of peripheral arterial disease. A number of risk factors are involved in the development of the disease including smoking and diabetes. There is debate over the prevalence of major lower limb amputation in the UK with regional variations unexplained. The choice of data source can affect the epidemiological calculations and sources can also differ in the ability to explain variation. This study will aim to estimate the prevalence/incidence/number of major lower limb amputation in the UK. It will also identify sources of routinely collected electronic health data which report the epidemiology of major lower limb amputation in the UK. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search of peer-reviewed journals will be conducted in Medline, Excerpta Medica database, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, The Cochrane Library and Scopus. A grey literature search for government and parliament publications, conference abstracts, theses and unpublished articles will be performed. Articles will be screened against the inclusion/exclusion criteria and data extracted using a pretested extraction form by two independent reviewers. Prevalence, incidence or number of cases (depending on data reported) will be extracted. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion. Data synthesis will be performed either as a narrative summary or by meta-analysis. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I2 statistic. If heterogeneity is low-moderate, pooled estimates will be calculated using random-effects models. If possible, meta-regression for time trends in the incidence of major lower limb amputation will be performed along with subgroup analysis, primarily in regional variation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this study as study data are anonymised and available in the public domain. Dissemination will be by publication in a peer reviewed journal and by appropriate conference presentation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020165592.