Frailty Assessment in Vascular OUtpatients Review (FAVOUR) protocol: single-centre prospective cohort study comparing feasibility and prognostic value of commonly used frailty assessment tools.

INTRODUCTION: Frailty has consistently demonstrated associations with poorer healthcare outcomes. Vascular guidelines have recognised the importance of frailty assessment. However, an abundance of frailty tools and a lack of prospective studies confirming suitability of routine frailty assessment in clinical practice has delayed the uptake of these guidelines. The Frailty Assessment in Vascular OUtpatients Review study speaks to this evidence gap. The primary aim is to assess feasibility of implementing routine frailty assessment in a reproducible outpatient setting. Secondary objectives include comparing prognostic values and interuser agreement across five frailty assessment tools. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This single-centre prospective cohort study of feasibility is conducted in a rapid-referral vascular surgery clinic, serving a population of 2 million. Adults with capacity (>18 years), attending a clinic for any reason, are eligible for inclusion. Five assessments are completed by patient (Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Frail NonDisabled Questionnaire), clinician (CFS, Healthcare Improvement Scotland FRAIL tool and 'Initial Clinical Evaluation') and researcher (11-item modified Frailty Index). Consistent with feasibility objectives, outcome measures include recruitment rates, frailty assessment completion rates, time-to-complete assessments and interuser variability. Electronic follow-up at 30 days and 1 year will assess home-time and mortality as prognostic indicators. Patients treated surgically/endovascularly will undergo additional 30-day and 1-year postoperative follow-up, outcome measures include: surgical procedure, mortality, complications (according to Clavien-Dindo Classification), length of stay, readmission rates, non-home discharge, home-time, higher social care requirements on discharge and amputation-free survival. Prognostic value will be compared by area under receiver operating characteristic curves. Continuous outcome variables will be analysed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Interuser agreement will be compared by percentage agreement in Cohen's kappa coefficient.  ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is sponsored by National Health Service Greater Glasgow and Clyde (R&IUGN23CE014). London-Riverside REC (23/PR/0062) granted ethical approval. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed vascular surgery and geriatric medicine themed journals and presentation at similar scientific conferences. TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06040658. Stage of study: pre-results.

A systematic review of frailty assessment tools used in vascular surgery research.

OBJECTIVE: Frailty is common in vascular patients and is recognized for its prognostic value. In the absence of consensus, a multitude of frailty assessment tools exist. This systematic review aimed to quantify the variety in these tools and describe their content and application to inform future research and clinical practice. METHODS: Multiple cross-disciplinary electronic literature databases were searched from inception to August 2022. Studies describing frailty assessment in a vascular surgical population were eligible. Data extraction to a validated template included patient demographics, tool content, and analysis methods. A secondary systematic search for papers describing the psychometric properties of commonly used frailty tools was then performed. RESULTS: Screening 5358 records identified 111 eligible studies, with an aggregate population of 5,418,236 patients. Forty-three differing frailty assessment tools were identified. One-third of these failed to assess frailty as a multidomain deficit and there was a reliance on assessing function and presence of comorbidity. Substantial methodological variability in data analysis and lack of methodological description was also identified. Published psychometric assessment was available for only 4 of the 10 most commonly used frailty tools. The Clinical Frailty Scale was the most studied and demonstrates good psychometric properties within a surgical population. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial heterogeneity in frailty assessment is demonstrated, precluding meaningful comparisons of services and data pooling. A uniform approach to assessment is required to guide future frailty research. Based on the literature, we make the following recommendations: frailty should be considered a continuous construct and the reporting of frailty tools' application needs standardized. In the absence of consensus, the Clinical Frailty Scale is a validated tool with good psychometric properties that demonstrates usefulness in vascular surgery.

Risk assessments and structured care interventions for prevention of foot ulceration in diabetes: development and validation of a prognostic model.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes-related foot ulcers give rise to considerable morbidity, generate a high monetary cost for health and social care services and precede the majority of diabetes-related lower extremity amputations. There are many clinical prediction rules in existence to assess risk of foot ulceration but few have been subject to validation. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to produce an evidence-based clinical pathway for risk assessment and management of the foot in people with diabetes mellitus to estimate cost-effective monitoring intervals and to perform cost-effectiveness analyses and a value-of-information analysis. DESIGN: We developed and validated a prognostic model using predictive modelling, calibration and discrimination techniques. An overview of systematic reviews already completed was followed by a review of randomised controlled trials of interventions to prevent foot ulceration in diabetes mellitus. A review of the health economic literature was followed by the construction of an economic model, an analysis of the transitional probability of moving from one foot risk state to another, an assessment of cost-effectiveness and a value-of-information analysis. INTERVENTIONS: The effects of simple and complex interventions and different monitoring intervals for the clinical prediction rules were evaluated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome was the incidence of foot ulceration. We compared the new clinical prediction rules in conjunction with the most effective preventative interventions at different monitoring intervals with a 'treat-all' strategy. DATA SOURCES: Data from an electronic health record for 26,154 people with diabetes mellitus in one Scottish health board were used to estimate the monitoring interval. The Prediction Of Diabetic foot UlcerationS (PODUS) data set was used to develop and validate the clinical prediction rule. REVIEW METHODS: We searched for eligible randomised controlled trials of interventions using search strategies created for Ovid® (Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomised controlled trials in progress were identified via the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry and systematic reviews were identified via PROSPERO. Databases were searched from inception to February 2019. RESULTS: The clinical prediction rule was found to accurately assess the risk of foot ulceration. Digital infrared thermometry, complex interventions and therapeutic footwear with offloading devices were found to be effective in preventing foot ulcers. The risk of developing a foot ulcer did not change over time for most people. We found that interventions to prevent foot ulceration may be cost-effective but there is uncertainty about this. Digital infrared thermometry and therapeutic footwear with offloading devices may be cost-effective when used to treat all people with diabetes mellitus regardless of their ulcer risk. LIMITATIONS: The threats to the validity of the results in some randomised controlled trials in the review and the large number of missing data in the electronic health record mean that there is uncertainty in our estimates. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that interventions to prevent foot ulceration are effective but it is not clear who would benefit most from receiving the interventions. The ulceration risk does not change over an 8-year period for most people with diabetes mellitus. A change in the monitoring interval from annually to every 2 years for those at low risk would be acceptable. FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS: Improving the completeness of electronic health records and sharing data would help improve our knowledge about the most clinically effective and cost-effective approaches to prevent foot ulceration in diabetes mellitus. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016052324. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 62. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

People with diabetes sometimes have problems with their feet that can become serious and make getting around harder and life less enjoyable. We have developed a test based on a simple score to find out a person's risk of getting a foot ulcer. We also wanted to know how often the test needs to be done. People who have been tested and learn that they might go on to have foot problems rightly expect to be given treatment that stops the problem happening in the first place. In this project, we read many written reports about the best treatments to prevent foot ulcers. We found that some things can prevent foot ulcers, such as wearing special shoes and insoles, taking the temperature of the skin of the foot and resting when the temperature rises, and receiving specialist care from diabetes foot care teams. However, we also looked at the costs of the test and treatments and found that some treatments are better value for money than others. By using people's health data from NHS computers, we discovered that very few people with diabetes develop a worse risk score for foot ulcers as time goes on, and it seems that being tested every year is not necessary for everyone. New clinical trials might help to improve foot health for people with diabetes, but if all of the researchers who have collected data from people in clinical trials shared their data it would be possible to find out more about who will gain most from these treatments without spending a lot on new research. It is clear that better input of patients' health data into NHS computers will benefit diabetes research in the future.

Five-Year Outcomes of a Randomized Trial of Treatments for Varicose Veins.

BACKGROUND: Endovenous laser ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy are recommended alternatives to surgery for the treatment of primary varicose veins, but their long-term comparative effectiveness remains uncertain. METHODS: In a randomized, controlled trial involving 798 participants with primary varicose veins at 11 centers in the United Kingdom, we compared the outcomes of laser ablation, foam sclerotherapy, and surgery. Primary outcomes at 5 years were disease-specific quality of life and generic quality of life, as well as cost-effectiveness based on models of expected costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained that used data on participants' treatment costs and scores on the EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire. RESULTS: Quality-of-life questionnaires were completed by 595 (75%) of the 798 trial participants. After adjustment for baseline scores and other covariates, scores on the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (on which scores range from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating a better quality of life) were lower among patients who underwent laser ablation or surgery than among those who underwent foam sclerotherapy (effect size [adjusted differences between groups] for laser ablation vs. foam sclerotherapy, -2.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.49 to -1.22; P<0.001; and for surgery vs. foam sclerotherapy, -2.60; 95% CI, -3.99 to -1.22; P<0.001). Generic quality-of-life measures did not differ among treatment groups. At a threshold willingness-to-pay ratio of £20,000 ($28,433 in U.S. dollars) per QALY, 77.2% of the cost-effectiveness model iterations favored laser ablation. In a two-way comparison between foam sclerotherapy and surgery, 54.5% of the model iterations favored surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of treatments for varicose veins, disease-specific quality of life 5 years after treatment was better after laser ablation or surgery than after foam sclerotherapy. The majority of the probabilistic cost-effectiveness model iterations favored laser ablation at a willingness-to-pay ratio of £20,000 ($28,433) per QALY. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; CLASS Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN51995477.).

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of foam sclerotherapy, endovenous laser ablation and surgery for varicose veins: results from the Comparison of LAser, Surgery and foam Sclerotherapy (CLASS) randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Foam sclerotherapy (foam) and endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) have emerged as alternative treatments to surgery for patients with varicose veins, but uncertainty exists regarding their effectiveness in the medium to longer term. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of foam, EVLA and surgery for the treatment of varicose veins. DESIGN: A parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) without blinding, and economic modelling evaluation. SETTING: Eleven UK specialist vascular centres. PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred and ninety-eight patients with primary varicose veins (foam, n = 292; surgery, n = 294; EVLA, n = 212). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised between all three treatment options (eight centres) or between foam and surgery (three centres). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Disease-specific [Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ)] and generic [European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Short Form questionnaire-36 items (SF-36) physical and mental component scores] quality of life (QoL) at 6 months. Cost-effectiveness as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of life at 6 weeks; residual varicose veins; Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS); complication rates; return to normal activity; truncal vein ablation rates; and costs. RESULTS: The results appear generalisable in that participants' baseline characteristics (apart from a lower-than-expected proportion of females) and post-treatment improvement in outcomes were comparable with those in other RCTs. The health gain achieved in the AVVQ with foam was significantly lower than with surgery at 6 months [effect size -1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.97 to -0.50; p = 0.006], but was similar to that achieved with EVLA. The health gain in SF-36 mental component score for foam was worse than that for EVLA (effect size 1.54, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.06; p = 0.048) but similar to that for surgery. There were no differences in EQ-5D or SF-36 component scores in the surgery versus foam or surgery versus EVLA comparisons at 6 months. The trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis showed that, at 6 months, foam had the highest probability of being considered cost-effective at a ceiling willingness-to-pay ratio of £20,000 per QALY. EVLA was found to cost £26,107 per QALY gained versus foam, and was less costly and generated slightly more QALYs than surgery. Markov modelling using trial costs and the limited recurrence data available suggested that, at 5 years, EVLA had the highest probability (≈ 79%) of being cost-effective at conventional thresholds, followed by foam (≈ 17%) and surgery (≈ 5%). With regard to secondary outcomes, health gains at 6 weeks (p < 0.005) were greater for EVLA than for foam (EQ-5D, p = 0.004). There were fewer procedural complications in the EVLA group (1%) than after foam (7%) and surgery (8%) (p < 0.001). Participants returned to a wide range of behaviours more quickly following foam or EVLA than following surgery (p < 0.05). There were no differences in VCSS between the three treatments. Truncal ablation rates were higher for surgery (p < 0.001) and EVLA (p < 0.001) than for foam, and were similar for surgery and EVLA. CONCLUSIONS: Considerations of both the 6-month clinical outcomes and the estimated 5-year cost-effectiveness suggest that EVLA should be considered as the treatment of choice for suitable patients. FUTURE WORK: Five-year trial results are currently being evaluated to compare the cost-effectiveness of foam, surgery and EVLA, and to determine the recurrence rates following each treatment. This trial has highlighted the need for long-term outcome data from RCTs on QoL, recurrence rates and costs for foam sclerotherapy and other endovenous techniques compared against each other and against surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51995477. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A randomized trial comparing treatments for varicose veins.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy and endovenous laser ablation are widely used alternatives to surgery for the treatment of varicose veins, but their comparative effectiveness and safety remain uncertain. METHODS: In a randomized trial involving 798 participants with primary varicose veins at 11 centers in the United Kingdom, we compared the outcomes of foam, laser, and surgical treatments. Primary outcomes at 6 months were disease-specific quality of life and generic quality of life, as measured on several scales. Secondary outcomes included complications and measures of clinical success. RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline scores and other covariates, the mean disease-specific quality of life was slightly worse after treatment with foam than after surgery (P=0.006) but was similar in the laser and surgery groups. There were no significant differences between the surgery group and the foam or the laser group in measures of generic quality of life. The frequency of procedural complications was similar in the foam group (6%) and the surgery group (7%) but was lower in the laser group (1%) than in the surgery group (P<0.001); the frequency of serious adverse events (approximately 3%) was similar among the groups. Measures of clinical success were similar among the groups, but successful ablation of the main trunks of the saphenous vein was less common in the foam group than in the surgery group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Quality-of-life measures were generally similar among the study groups, with the exception of a slightly worse disease-specific quality of life in the foam group than in the surgery group. All treatments had similar clinical efficacy, but complications were less frequent after laser treatment and ablation rates were lower after foam treatment. (Funded by the Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute for Health Research; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN51995477.).

A pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial of fluid loading in high-risk surgical patients undergoing major elective surgery--the FOCCUS study.

INTRODUCTION: Fluid strategies may impact on patient outcomes in major elective surgery. We aimed to study the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pre-operative fluid loading in high-risk surgical patients undergoing major elective surgery. METHODS: This was a pragmatic, non-blinded, multi-centre, randomised, controlled trial. We sought to recruit 128 consecutive high-risk surgical patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. The patients underwent pre-operative fluid loading with 25 ml/kg of Ringer's solution in the six hours before surgery. The control group had no pre-operative fluid loading. The primary outcome was the number of hospital days after surgery with cost-effectiveness as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients were recruited within the study time frame in agreement with the funder. The median pre-operative fluid loading volume was 1,875 ml (IQR 1,375 to 2,025) in the fluid group compared to 0 (IQR 0 to 0) in controls with days in hospital after surgery 12.2 (SD 11.5) days compared to 17.4 (SD 20.0) and an adjusted mean difference of 5.5 days (median 2.2 days; 95% CI -0.44 to 11.44; P = 0.07). There was a reduction in adverse events in the fluid intervention group (P = 0.048) and no increase in fluid based complications. The intervention was less costly and more effective (adjusted average cost saving: £2,047; adjusted average gain in benefit: 0.0431 quality adjusted life year (QALY)) and has a high probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-operative intravenous fluid loading leads to a non-significant reduction in hospital length of stay after high-risk major surgery and is likely to be cost-effective. Confirmatory work is required to determine whether these effects are reproducible, and to confirm whether this simple intervention could allow more cost-effective delivery of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospective Clinical Trials, ISRCTN32188676.

A pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial of fluid loading and level of dependency in high-risk surgical patients undergoing major elective surgery: trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing major elective or urgent surgery are at high risk of death or significant morbidity. Measures to reduce this morbidity and mortality include pre-operative optimisation and use of higher levels of dependency care after surgery. We propose a pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial of level of dependency and pre-operative fluid therapy in high-risk surgical patients undergoing major elective surgery. METHODS/DESIGN: A multi-centre randomised controlled trial with a 2 * 2 factorial design. The first randomisation is to pre-operative fluid therapy or standard regimen and the second randomisation is to routine intensive care versus high dependency care during the early post-operative period. We intend to recruit 204 patients undergoing major elective and urgent abdominal and thoraco-abdominal surgery who fulfil high-risk surgical criteria. The primary outcome for the comparison of level of care is cost-effectiveness at six months and for the comparison of fluid optimisation is the number of hospital days after surgery. DISCUSSION: We believe that the results of this study will be invaluable in determining the future care and clinical resource utilisation for this group of patients and thus will have a major impact on clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number - ISRCTN32188676.

Factor analysis can be a useful standard setting tool in a high stakes OSCE assessment.

BACKGROUND: No method of standard setting for objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) is perfect. Using scores aggregated across stations risks allowing students who are incompetent in some core skills to pass an examination, which may not be acceptable for high stakes assessments. AIM: To assess the feasibility of using a factor analysis of station scores in a high stakes OSCE to derive measures of underlying competencies. METHODS: A 12-station OSCE was administered to all 192 students in the penultimate undergraduate year at the University of Aberdeen Medical School. Analysis of the correlation table of station scores was used to exclude stations performing unreliably. Factor analysis of the remaining station scores was carried out to characterise the underlying competencies being assessed. Factor scores were used to derive pass/fail cut-off scores for the examination. RESULTS: Four stations were identified as having unpredicted variations in station scores. Analysis of the content of these stations allowed the underlying problems with the station designs to be isolated. Factor analysis of the remaining 8 stations revealed 3 main underlying factors, accounting for 53% of the total variance in scores. These were labelled "examination skills", "communication skills" and "history taking skills". CONCLUSION: Factor analysis is a useful tool for characterising and quantifying the skills that are assessed in an OSCE. Standard setting procedures can be used to calculate cut-off scores for each underlying factor.