New Horizons in Peripheral Artery Disease.

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is the lower limb manifestation of systemic atherosclerotic disease. PAD may initially present with symptoms of intermittent claudication, whilst chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI), the end stage of PAD, presents with rest pain and/or tissue loss. PAD is an age-related condition present in over 10% of those aged ≥65 in high-income countries. Guidelines regarding definition, diagnosis and staging of PAD and CLTI have been updated to reflect the changing patterns and presentations of disease given the increasing prevalence of diabetes. Recent research has changed guidelines on optimal medical therapy, with low-dose anticoagulant plus aspirin recommended in some patients. Recently published randomised trials highlight where bypass-first or endovascular-first approaches may be optimal in infra-inguinal disease. New techniques in endovascular surgery have increased minimally invasive options for ever more complex disease. Increasing recognition has been given to the complexity of patients with CLTI where a high prevalence of both frailty and cognitive impairment are present and a significant burden of multi-morbidity and polypharmacy. Despite advances in minimally invasive revascularisation techniques and reduction in amputation incidence, survival remains poor for many with CLTI. Shared decision-making is essential, and conservative management is often appropriate for older patients. There is emerging evidence of the benefit of specialist geriatric team input in the perioperative management of older patients undergoing surgery for CLTI. Recent UK guidelines now recommend screening for frailty, cognitive impairment and delirium in older vascular surgery patients as well as recommending all vascular surgery services have support and input from specialist geriatrics teams.

Clinimetrics of performance-based functional outcome measures for vascular amputees: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Objective physical performance-based outcome measures (PerBOMs) are essential tools for the holistic management of people who have had an amputation due to vascular disease. These people are often non-ambulatory, however it is currently unclear which PerBOMs are high quality and appropriate for those who are either ambulatory or non-ambulatory. RESEARCH QUESTION: Which PerBOMs have appropriate clinimetric properties to be recommended for those who have had amputations due to vascular disease ('vascular amputee')? DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCARE, the Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Scopus databases were searched for the terms: "physical performance" or "function", "clinimetric properties", "reliability", "validity", "amputee" and "peripheral vascular disease" or "diabetes". REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of PerBOMs for vascular amputees was performed following COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology and PRISMA guidelines. The quality of studies and individual PerBOMs was assessed using COSMIN risk of bias and good measurement properties. Overall PerBOM quality was evaluated with a modified GRADE rating. Key clinimetric properties evaluated were reliability, validity, predictive validity and responsiveness. RESULTS: A total of 15,259 records were screened. Forty-eight studies (2650 participants) were included: 7 exclusively included vascular amputees only, 35 investigated validity, 20 studied predictive validity, 23 investigated reliability or internal consistency and 7 assessed responsiveness. Meta-analysis was neither possible nor appropriate for this systematic review in accordance with COSMIN guidelines, due to heterogeneity of the data. Thirty-four different PerBOMs were identified of which only 4 are suitable for non-ambulatory vascular amputees. The Amputee Mobility Predictor no Prosthesis (AMPnoPro) and Transfemoral Fitting Predictor (TFP) predict prosthesis use only. PerBOMs available for assessing physical performance are the One-Leg Balance Test (OLBT) and Basic Amputee Mobility Score (BAMS). CONCLUSION: At present, few PerBOMs can be recommended for vascular amputees. Only 4 are available for non-ambulatory individuals: AMPnoPro, TFP, OLBT and BAMS.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on a Dedicated Vascular Emergency Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Vascular Emergency Clinics (VEC) improve patient outcomes in chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). They provide a "1 stop" open access policy, whereby "suspicion of CLTI" by a healthcare professional or patient leads to a direct review. We assessed the resilience of the outpatient VEC model to the first year of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of all patients assessed in our VEC for lower limb pathologies between March 2020 and April 2021 was performed. This was cross-referenced to national and loco-regional Governmental COVID-19 data. Individuals with CLTI were further analysed to determine Peripheral Arterial Disease-Quality Improvement Framework compliance. RESULTS: Seven hundred and ninety one patients attended for 1,084 assessments (Male n = 484, 61%; Age 72.5 ± standard deviation 12.2 years; White British n = 645, 81.7%). In total, 322 patients were diagnosed with CLTI (40.7%). A total of 188 individuals (58.6%) underwent a first revascularization strategy (Endovascular n = 128, 39.8%; Hybrid n = 41, 12.7%; Open surgery n = 19, 5.9%; Conservative n = 134, 41.6%). Major lower limb amputation rate was 10.9% (n = 35) and mortality rate was 25.8% (n = 83) at 12 months of follow-up. Median referral to assessment time was 3 days (interquartile range: 1-5). For the nonadmitted patient with CLTI, the median assessment to intervention was 8 days (interquartile range: 6-15) and median referral to intervention time of 11 days (11-18). CONCLUSIONS: The VEC model has demonstrated strong resilience to the COVID-19 pandemic with rapid treatment timelines maintained for patients with CLTI.

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).

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.

Does the Introduction of a Vascular Limb Salvage Service Improve One Year Amputation Outcomes for Patients with Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischaemia?

OBJECTIVE: Vascular limb salvage services are recommended by the Global Vascular Guidelines to help improve outcomes for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI), although their description within the literature is limited. This study reports the 12 month outcomes for an outpatient based vascular limb salvage (VaLS) clinic. METHODS: An analysis of a prospectively maintained database, involving all consecutive patients diagnosed with CLTI within the VaLS clinic from February 2018-February 2019, was undertaken. Data were compared with two comparator cohorts, identified from coding data: 1) patients managed prior to the clinic, between May 2017 and February 2018 (Pre-Clinic [PC]); and 2) patients managed outside of clinic, between February 2018 and February 2019 (Alternative Pathways [AP]). Freedom from major amputation at 12 months was the primary outcome. Kaplan-Meier plots and adjusted Cox's proportional hazard models (aHR) were used to compare outcomes. RESULTS: Five hundred and sixty-six patients (VaLS 158, AP 173, PC 235) were included (median age 74 years). Patients managed within the VaLS cohort were statistically significantly more likely to be free from major amputation (90.5%) compared with both the AP (82.1%, aHR 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28 - 0.98, p = .041) and the PC (80.0%; aHR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28 - 0.91, p = .022) cohorts at 12 months, after adjustment for age, disease severity, and presence of diabetes. CONCLUSION: This study supports the recommendations of the Global Vascular Guidelines that vascular limb salvage clinics may improve the rate of major amputation. Furthermore, the study provides a reproducible service model that delivers timely vascular assessment in an ambulatory setting. Further evaluation is required to assess longer term outcomes.

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.

A systematic review investigating the identification, causes, and outcomes of delays in the management of chronic limb-threatening ischemia and diabetic foot ulceration.

OBJECTIVE: Patients presenting with chronic limb-threatening ischemia and diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) are at high risk of major lower limb amputation. Long-standing concern exists regarding late presentation and delayed management contributing to increased amputation rates. Despite multiple guidelines existing on the management of both conditions, there is currently no accepted time frame in which to enact specialist care and treatment. This systematic review aimed to investigate potential time delays in the identification, referral, and management of both chronic limb-threatening ischemia and DFU. METHODS: A systematic review conforming to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards was performed searching MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception to November 14, 2018. All English-language qualitative and quantitative articles investigating or reporting the identification, causes, and outcomes of time delays within "high-income" countries (annual gross domestic product per person >$15,000) were included. Data were extracted independently by the investigators. Given the clinical crossover, both conditions were investigated together. A study protocol was designed and registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. RESULTS: A total of 4780 articles were screened, of which 32 articles, involving 71,310 patients and 1388 health care professionals, were included. Twenty-three articles focused predominantly on DFU. Considerable heterogeneity was noted, and only 12 articles were deemed of high quality. Only four articles defined a delay, but this was not consistent between studies. Median times from symptom onset to specialist health care assessment ranged from 15 to 126 days, with subsequent median times from assessment to treatment ranging from 1 to 91 days. A number of patient and health care factors were consistently reported as potentially causative, including poor symptom recognition by the patient, inaccurate health care assessment, and difficulties in accessing specialist services. Twenty articles reported outcomes of delays, namely, rates of major amputation, ulcer healing, and all-cause mortality. Although results were heterogeneous, they allude to delays being associated with detrimental outcomes for patients. CONCLUSIONS: Time delays exist in all aspects of the management pathway, which are in some cases considerable in length. The causes of these are complex but reflect poor patient health-seeking behaviors, inaccurate health care assessment, and barriers to referral and treatment within the care pathway. The adoption of standardized limits for referral and treatment times, exploration of missed opportunities for diagnosis, and investigation of novel strategies for providing specialist care are required to help reduce delays.

Leg ischaemia management collaboration (LIMb): study protocol for a prospective cohort study at a single UK centre.

INTRODUCTION: Severe limb ischaemia (SLI) is the end stage of peripheral arterial occlusive disease where the viability of the limb is threatened. Around 25% of patients with SLI will ultimately require a major lower limb amputation, which has a substantial adverse impact on quality of life. A newly established rapid-access vascular limb salvage clinic and modern revascularisation techniques may reduce amputation rate. The aim of this study was to investigate the 12-month amputation rate in a contemporary cohort of patients and compare this to a historical cohort. Secondary aims are to investigate the use of frailty and cognitive assessments, and cardiac MRI in risk-stratifying patients with SLI undergoing intervention and establish a biobank for future biomarker analyses. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This single-centre prospective cohort study will recruit patients aged 18-110 years presenting with SLI. Those undergoing intervention will be eligible to undergo additional venepuncture (for biomarker analysis) and/or cardiac MRI. Those aged ≥65 years and undergoing intervention will also be eligible to undergo additional frailty and cognitive assessments. Follow-up will be at 12 and 24 months and subsequently via data linkage with NHS Digital to 10 years postrecruitment. Those undergoing cardiac MRI and/or frailty assessments will receive additional follow-up during the first 12 months to investigate for perioperative myocardial infarction and frailty-related outcomes, respectively. A sample size of 420 patients will be required to detect a 10% reduction in amputation rate in comparison to a similar sized historical cohort, with 90% power and 5% type I error rate. Statistical analysis of this comparison will be by adjusted and unadjusted logistic regression analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study has been granted by the UK National Research Ethics Service (19/LO/0132). Results will be disseminated to participants via scientific meetings, peer-reviewed medical journals and social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04027244.