PACE: randomized, controlled, multicentre, multinational, phase III study of PLX-PAD for critical limb ischaemia in patients unsuitable for revascularization: randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Revascularization is the primary treatment modality for chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI), but is not feasible in all patients. PLX-PAD is an off-the-shelf, placental-derived, mesenchymal stromal cell-like cell therapy. This study aimed to evaluate whether PLX-PAD would increase amputation-free survival in people with CLTI who were not candidates for revascularization. METHODS: People with CLTI and minor tissue loss (Rutherford 5) who were unsuitable for revascularization were entered into a randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multinational, blinded, trial, in which PLX-PAD was compared with placebo (2 : 1 randomization), with 30 intramuscular injections (0.5 ml each) into the index leg on days 0 and 60. Planned follow-up was 12-36 months, and included vital status, amputations, lesion size, pain and quality-of-life assessments, haemodynamic parameters, and adverse events. RESULTS: Of 213 patients enrolled, 143 were randomized to PLX-PAD and 70 to placebo. Demographics and baseline characteristics were balanced. Most patients were Caucasian (96.2%), male (76.1%), and ambulatory (85.9%). Most patients (76.6%) reported at least one adverse event, which were mostly expected events in CLTI, such as skin ulcer or gangrene. The probability of major amputation or death was similar for placebo and PLX-PAD (33 and 28.6% respectively; HR 0.93, 95% c.i. 0.53 to 1.63; P = 0.788). Revascularization and complete wound healing rates were similar in the two groups. A post hoc analysis of a subpopulation of 121 patients with a baseline haemoglobin A1c level below 6.5% showed improved 12-month amputation-free survival (HR 0.46, 0.21 to 0.99; P = 0.048). CONCLUSION: Although there was no evidence that PLX-PAD reduced amputation-free survival in the entire study population, benefit was observed in patients without diabetes mellitus or whose diabetes was well controlled; this requires confirmation in further studies. Trial registration: NCT03006770 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov); 2015-005532-18 (EudraCT Clinical Trials register - Search for 2015-005532-18).

Definitions and criteria for diabetes-related foot disease (IWGDF 2023 update).

Multiple disciplines are involved in the management of diabetes-related foot disease and a common vocabulary is essential for clear communication. Based on the systematic reviews of the literature that form the basis of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) Guidelines, the IWGDF has developed a set of definitions and criteria for diabetes-related foot disease. This document describes the 2023 update of these definitions and criteria. We suggest these definitions be used consistently in both clinical practice and research, to facilitate clear communication with people with diabetes-related foot disease and between professionals around the world.

Editor's Choice - Prevalence of Smoking and Impact on Peri-Operative Outcomes After Elective Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: The contemporary burden of smoking in patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in the UK is unknown. This study aimed to quantify the prevalence of smoking in patients undergoing AAA repair in the UK and determine the association between smoking and peri-operative outcomes. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study. The National Vascular Registry was interrogated for adults undergoing elective infrarenal AAA repair from 2014 to 2021 for prevalence of current smokers, former smokers, and non-smokers over time. The primary outcomes were post-operative complications by smoking status. Secondary outcomes were variation in smoking rates over time and by hospital, in hospital mortality, and length of stay by smoking status. All analyses were adjusted using the validated British Aneurysm Repair score. RESULTS: Overall, 26 916 patients undergoing elective AAA repair were included (21.9% smokers, 62.2% former smokers, 15.9% non-smokers). The prevalence of smoking did not change over time, with a 2.4 fold variation between UK hospitals (range 13.0 - 31.8% excluding outliers). In hospital mortality was not significantly different between smokers, former smokers, and non-smokers (p > .050 for all comparisons). Compared with non-smokers, smoking was associated with increased overall (odds ratio [OR] 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24 - 1.57) and respiratory complications (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.63 - 2.39), limb ischaemia (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.19 - 2.23), bowel ischaemia (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.06 - 2.54), return to theatre (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.11 - 1.71), and intensive care admission (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.31 - 1.56). Compared with former smokers, smoking was associated with increased overall (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.14 - 1.36), respiratory (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27 - 1.63) and limb ischaemia complications (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.19 - 1.84), and intensive care admission (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.28 - 1.46). On analysis of the endovascular aneurysm repair subgroup, active smoking was associated with significantly higher rates of limb ischaemia compared with former and non-smokers (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.49 - 3.01 and OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.19 - 3.16 respectively). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of smoking remains high in patients undergoing elective AAA repair with no evidence of a decline in active smokers from 2014 to 2021 compared with the general UK population. Smoking is associated with increased peri-operative complication rates.

Systematic Review of Outcome Reporting for Interventions to Treat Patients with Acute Lower Limb Ischaemia.

OBJECTIVE: Inconsistencies in outcome data of therapeutic strategies for acute lower limb ischaemia (ALI) have hindered the synthesis of findings. A core outcome set (COS) may offer a solution to this problem by defining a minimum set of outcomes that are considered essential to all stakeholders involved. The first step in developing a COS is to review the previously reported outcomes on various treatment strategies for ALI. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to August 2023. REVIEW METHODS: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative framework, adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and was pre-registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022320073). Abstracts were independently screened by two authors for full text review. All outcomes and their definitions were extracted from selected papers. Outcomes with different terminologies were then categorised into an agreed outcome term. The list of agreed outcomes was given a standardised outcome domain and core area using a 38 item standardised taxonomy. RESULTS: Of 6 184 articles identified, 176 relevant studies were included, yielding 1 325 verbatim outcomes. After deduplication, 72 unique verbatim outcomes were categorised into five broad outcome domains. Outcomes considered key to the evaluation of treatment of ALI were further categorised as delivery of care (19.4%), vascular outcomes (13.8%), and adverse events (12.5%). The three most frequently reported agreed outcomes were amputation (14.1%), death (12.3%), and general bleeding (11.6%). CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides an overview of currently reported outcomes in the literature of interventions for ALI. After categorisation into agreed outcome terms, 72 outcomes were identified that can be used in the development of a COS.

Exploring the Reporting Standards of Randomised Controlled Trials Involving Endovascular Interventions for Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular technology innovation requires rigorous evaluation in high quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, due to numerous methodological challenges, RCTs evaluating endovascular interventions are complex and potentially difficult to design, conduct, and report. This systematic review aimed to assess the quality of reporting of RCTs for endovascular interventions for lower limb peripheral arterial disease (PAD). DATA SOURCES AND REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to December 2021 was performed to identify RCTs including participants with PAD undergoing any infrainguinal lower limb endovascular intervention. Study data were extracted and assessed against the Consolidating Standards of Reporting Trials extension for Non-Pharmacological Treatments (CONSORT-NPT) and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklists. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise general study details and reporting standards of the trials. RESULTS: After screening 6 567 abstracts and 526 full text articles, 112 eligible studies were identified, reporting on 228 different endovascular devices and techniques. Details judged sufficient to replicate the investigated intervention were provided for 47 (21%) interventions. It was unclear whether the description was reported with sufficient details in a further 56 (24%), and the description was judged inadequate in 125 (55%). Any intervention descriptions were provided for 184 (81%), with variable levels of detail (some in 134 [59%] and precise in 50 [22%]). Standardisation of intervention or some aspect of this was reported in 25 (22%) trials, but only one specified that adherence to the study protocol would be monitored. CONCLUSION: The quality of the reporting standards of RCTs investigating lower limb endovascular treatments is severely limited because the interventions are poorly described, standardised, and reported. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022288214.

Editor's Choice - Quality Assessment of European Society for Vascular Surgery Clinical Practice Guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: An increasing number of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have emerged over recent years. To have clinical utility, they need to be rigorously developed and scientifically robust. Instruments have been developed to assess the quality of clinical guideline development and reporting. The aim of this study was to evaluate CPGs from the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. METHODS: CPGs published by the ESVS during the period January 2011 to January 2023 were included. Two independent reviewers assessed the guidelines after receiving training in the use and application of the AGREE II instrument. Inter-reviewer reliability was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient. Maximum scaled scores were 100. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics v.26. RESULTS: Sixteen guidelines were included in the study. Good inter-reviewer score reliability was found on statistical analysis (> 0.9). The mean ± standard deviation domain scores were 68.1 ± 20.3% for scope and purpose, 57.1 ± 21.1% for stakeholder involvement, 67.8 ± 19.5% for rigour of development, 78.1 ± 20.6% for clarity of presentation, 50.3 ± 15.4% for applicability, 77.6 ± 17.6% for editorial independence, and 69.8 ± 20.1% for overall quality. Stakeholder involvement and applicability have improved in quality over time but are still the lowest scoring domains. CONCLUSION: Most ESVS clinical guidelines are of high quality and reporting. There is scope for improvement, specifically by addressing the domains of stakeholder involvement and clinical applicability.

Systematic review and narrative synthesis of surveillance practices after endovascular intervention for lower limb peripheral arterial disease.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal timing and modality of surveillance after endovascular intervention for peripheral arterial disease is controversial, and no randomized trial to assess the value of peripheral endovascular intervention has ever been performed. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the practice of surveillance after peripheral endovascular intervention in randomized trials. METHODS: We used the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and WHO trial registry databases in this systematic review of the literature to capture surveillance strategies used in randomized trials comparing endovascular interventions. Surveillance protocols were assessed for completeness, modalities used, duration, and intensity. RESULTS: Ninety-six different surveillance protocols were reported in 103 trials comparing endovascular interventions. Protocol specification was incomplete in 32% of trials. The majority of trials used multiple surveillance modalities (mean of 3.46 modalities), most commonly clinical examination (96%), ankle-brachial index (80%), duplex ultrasound examination (75%), and digital subtraction angiography (51%). Trials involving infrapopliteal lesions used more angiographic surveillance than trials with femoropopliteal lesions (P = .006). The median number of surveillance visits in the first 12 months after intervention was three and the mean surveillance duration was 21 months. Trials treating infrapopliteal vessels had a higher surveillance intensity compared with those treating femoropopliteal lesions in the first 12 months after endovascular intervention (mean 5 vs 3 surveillance visits; P = .017). Trials with drug-eluting devices had longer surveillance duration compared with those without (mean 26 vs 19 months; P = .020). CONCLUSIONS: There is a high level of variation in the modality, duration, and intensity of surveillance protocols used in randomized trials comparing different types of peripheral endovascular arterial intervention. Further research is required to determine the value and impact of postprocedural surveillance on patient outcomes.

Editor's Choice - Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Randomised Controlled Trials Supporting Implantable Devices for Vascular and Endovascular Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: To identify implantable devices currently used for vascular and endovascular procedures, to ascertain how many have randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence available, and to assess the quality of that evidence. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, DARE, PROSPERO, clinical trial registries, and Cochrane databases. REVIEW METHODS: A list of current devices used in both vascular and endovascular procedures was generated by searching conference proceedings, manufacturer catalogues, and websites. MEDLINE, Embase, DARE, PROSPERO, clinical trial registries, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception up to June 2020. The primary outcome was the availability of RCTs to support the use of a vascular implantable device. RCTs were then quality assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: A total of 116 current vascular implantable devices were identified. The systematic literature review identified 165 RCTs. Eighty-three of the RCTs (50.3%) applied to 33 of the 116 (28.4%) current implantable devices. When grouped by device type, eight of the 13 types (62%) had at least one RCT performed. There was a high risk of bias across the majority of the RCTs, with only nine (5.4%) deemed to be at low risk of bias. Only 22 (13.3%) RCTs had a clear safety outcome. CONCLUSION: Sixty-two per cent of implantable device types for use in vascular and endovascular interventions had at least one RCT available to show equivalence to previous devices or safety. RCTs were generally of low quality and are decreasing in frequency with time. With medical implantable device failure being increasingly recognised as causing significant harm to patients worldwide, there is a clear need for a more robust implantable device regulation and approval systems.

A systematic review of outcome reporting for interventions to treat people with diabetic foot ulceration.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) is a challenging clinical problem that affects up to a quarter of patients with diabetes in their lifetime. An agreed set of outcomes for assessing treatments or interventions for DFU has not previously been considered. The aim of this study was to identify outcomes that are reported in clinical studies assessing a treatment or intervention for DFU, to inform the development of a core outcome set (COS). METHODS: Systematic literature searches were performed between January 2016 and March 2019. The search strategy was pre-registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019128250). Two authors independently screened abstracts for full text review. Outcomes were extracted from selected papers verbatim and categorized into domains according to established taxonomy. Consistency of outcome reporting was assessed. Overlapping outcomes were merged independently to condense the extracted list of outcomes for use in forthcoming consensus processes. RESULTS: Of 4645 abstracts identified, 114 studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 69 randomized studies, 40 prospective studies and 5 protocols. Some 948 outcomes were extracted verbatim. Outcome reporting was consistent for 474 (53%) outcomes. De-duplication left 714 unique verbatim outcomes across 33 domains. Merging of overlapping unique verbatim outcomes established 95 merged outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study describes contemporary outcomes reported in studies assessing interventions for DFU. Outcome reporting is considered to be poor as it was consistent in just over half of outcomes extracted. Merging of outcomes has identified 95 outcomes that can be taken forward in the development of a COS.

Standards for the development and methodology of the 2019 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot guidelines.

Diabetic foot disease is a source of major patient suffering and societal costs. Investing in evidence-based international guidelines on diabetic foot disease is likely among the most cost-effective forms of health care expenditure, provided the guidelines are outcome focused, evidence based, and properly implemented. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published and updated international guidelines since 1999. The 2019 updates are based on formulating relevant clinical questions and outcomes, rigorous systematic reviews of the literature, and recommendations that are specific, and unambiguous along with their transparent rationale, all using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. We herein describe the development of the 2019 IWGDF guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease, which consists of six chapters, each prepared by a separate working group of international experts. These documents provide guidelines related to diabetic foot disease on prevention; offloading; peripheral artery disease; infection; wound healing interventions; and classification of diabetic foot ulcers. Based on these six chapters, the IWGDF Editorial Board also produced a set of practical guidelines. Each guideline underwent extensive review by the members of the IWGDF Editorial Board as well as independent international experts in each field. We believe that adoption and implementation of the 2019 IWGDF guidelines by health care providers, public health agencies, and policymakers will result in improved prevention and management of diabetic foot disease and a subsequent worldwide reduction in the patient and societal burden this disease causes.

Practical Guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease (IWGDF 2019 update).

Diabetic foot disease results in a major global burden for patients and the health care system. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has been producing evidence-based guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease since 1999. In 2019, all IWGDF Guidelines have been updated based on systematic reviews of the literature and formulation of recommendations by multidisciplinary experts from all over the world. In this document, the IWGDF Practical Guidelines, we describe the basic principles of prevention, classification, and treatment of diabetic foot disease, based on the six IWGDF Guideline chapters. We also describe the organizational levels to successfully prevent and treat diabetic foot disease according to these principles and provide addenda to assist with foot screening. The information in these practical guidelines is aimed at the global community of health care professionals who are involved in the care of persons with diabetes. Many studies around the world support our belief that implementing these prevention and management principles is associated with a decrease in the frequency of diabetes-related lower extremity amputations. We hope that these updated practical guidelines continue to serve as reference document to aid health care providers in reducing the global burden of diabetic foot disease.

Definitions and criteria for diabetic foot disease.

Multiple disciplines are involved in the management of diabetic foot disease, and a common vocabulary is essential for clear communication. Based on the systematic reviews of the literature that form the basis of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) Guidelines, the IWGDF has developed a set of definitions and criteria for diabetic foot disease. This document describes these definitions and criteria. We suggest these definitions be used consistently in both clinical practice and research to facilitate clear communication between professionals.

Guidelines on diagnosis, prognosis, and management of peripheral artery disease in patients with foot ulcers and diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update).

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence-based guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease since 1999. This guideline is on the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of peripheral artery disease (PAD) in patients with foot ulcers and diabetes and updates the previous IWGDF Guideline. Up to 50% of patients with diabetes and foot ulceration have concurrent PAD, which confers a significantly elevated risk of adverse limb events and cardiovascular disease. We know that the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of these patients are markedly different to patients with diabetes who do not have PAD and yet there are few good quality studies addressing this important subset of patients. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to devise clinical questions and critically important outcomes in the patient-intervention-comparison-outcome (PICO) format, to conduct a systematic review of the medical-scientific literature, and to write recommendations and their rationale. The recommendations are based on the quality of evidence found in the systematic review, expert opinion where evidence was not available, and a weighing of the benefits and harms, patient preferences, feasibility and applicability, and costs related to the intervention. We here present the updated 2019 guidelines on diagnosis, prognosis, and management of PAD in patients with a foot ulcer and diabetes, and we suggest some key future topics of particular research interest.

Effectiveness of revascularisation of the ulcerated foot in patients with diabetes and peripheral artery disease: A systematic review.

In patients with diabetes, foot ulceration and peripheral artery disease (PAD), it is often difficult to determine whether, when and how to revascularise the affected lower extremity. The presence of PAD is a major risk factor for non-healing and yet clinical outcomes of revascularisation are not necessarily related to technical success. The International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot updated systematic review on the effectiveness of revascularisation of the ulcerated foot in patients with diabetes and PAD is comprised of 64 studies describing >13 000 patients. Amongst 60 case series and 4 non-randomised controlled studies, we summarised clinically relevant outcomes and found them to be broadly similar between patients treated with open vs endovascular therapy. Following endovascular revascularisation, the 1 year and 2 year limb salvage rates were 80% (IQR 78-82%) and 78% (IQR 75-83%), whereas open therapy was associated with rates of 85% (IQR 80-90%) at 1 year and 87% (IQR 85-88%) at 2 years, however these results were based on a varying combination of studies and cannot therefore be interpreted as cumulative. Overall, wound healing was achieved in a median of 60% of patients (IQR 50-69%) at 1 year in those treated by endovascular or surgical therapy, and the major amputation rate of endovascular vs open therapy was 2% vs 5% at 30 days, 10% vs 9% at 1 year and 13% vs 9% at 2 years. For both strategies, overall mortality was found to be high, with 2% (1-6%) perioperative (or 30 day) mortality, rising sharply to 13% (9-23%) at 1 year, 29% (19-48%) at 2 years and 47% (39-71%) at 5 years. Both the angiosome concept (revascularisation directly to the area of tissue loss via its main feeding artery) or indirect revascularisation through collaterals, appear to be equally effective strategies for restoring perfusion. Overall, the available data do not allow us to recommend one method of revascularisation over the other and more studies are required to determine the best revascularisation approach in diabetic foot ulceration.

Performance of prognostic markers in the prediction of wound healing or amputation among patients with foot ulcers in diabetes: A systematic review.

Clinical outcomes of patients with diabetes, foot ulceration, and peripheral artery disease (PAD) are difficult to predict. The prediction of important clinical outcomes, such as wound healing and major amputation, would be a valuable tool to help guide management and target interventions for limb salvage. Despite the existence of a number of classification tools, no consensus exists as to the most useful bedside tests with which to predict outcome. We here present an updated systematic review from the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot, comprising 15 studies published between 1980 and 2018 describing almost 6800 patients with diabetes and foot ulceration. Clinical examination findings as well as six non-invasive bedside tests were evaluated for their ability to predict wound healing and amputation. The most useful tests to inform on the probability of healing were skin perfusion pressure ≥ 40 mmHg, toe pressure ≥ 30 mmHg, or TcPO2  ≥ 25 mmHg. With these thresholds, all of these tests increased the probability of healing by greater than 25% in at least one study. To predict major amputation, the most useful tests were ankle pressure < 50 mmHg, ABI < 0.5, toe pressure < 30 mmHg, and TcPO2  < 25 mmHg, which increased the probability of major amputation by greater than 25%. These indicative values may be used as a guide when deciding which patients are at highest risk for poor outcomes and should therefore be evaluated for revascularization at an early stage. However, this should always be considered within the wider context of important co-existing factors such as infection, wound characteristics, and other comorbidities.

Effectiveness of bedside investigations to diagnose peripheral artery disease among people with diabetes mellitus: A systematic review.

The accurate identification of peripheral artery disease (PAD) in patients with diabetes and foot ulceration is important, in order to inform timely management and to plan intervention including revascularisation. A variety of non-invasive tests are available to diagnose PAD at the bedside, but there is no consensus as to the most useful test, or the accuracy of these bedside investigations when compared to reference imaging tests such as magnetic resonance angiography, computed tomography angiography, digital subtraction angiography or colour duplex ultrasound. Members of the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot updated our previous systematic review, to include all eligible studies published between 1980 and 2018. Some 15 380 titles were screened, resulting in 15 eligible studies (comprising 1563 patients, of which >80% in each study had diabetes) that evaluated an index bedside test for PAD against a reference imaging test. The primary endpoints were positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR). We found that the most commonly evaluated test parameter was ankle brachial index (ABI) <0.9, which may be useful to suggest the presence of PAD (PLR 6.5) but an ABI value between 0.9 and 1.3 does not rule out PAD (NLR 0.31). A toe brachial index >0.75 makes the diagnosis of PAD less likely (NLR 0.14-0.24), whereas pulse oximetry may be used to suggest the presence of PAD (if toe saturation < 2% lower than finger saturation; PLR 17.23-30) or render PAD less likely (NLR 0.2-0.27). We found that the presence of triphasic tibial waveforms has the best performance value for excluding a diagnosis of PAD (NLR 0.09-0.28), but was evaluated in only two studies. In addition, we found that beside clinical examination (including palpation of foot pulses) cannot reliably exclude PAD (NLR 0.75), as evaluated in one study. Overall, the quality of data is generally poor and there is insufficient evidence to recommend one bedside test over another. While there have been six additional publications in the last 4 years that met our inclusion criteria, more robust evidence is required to achieve consensus on the most useful non-invasive bedside test to diagnose PAD.

The Effect of Mode of Anaesthesia on Outcomes After Elective Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the most commonly used method to repair abdominal aortic aneurysms. EVAR can be performed using a variety of anaesthetic techniques, including general anaesthetic (GA), regional anaesthetic (RA), and local anaesthetic (LA), but little is known about the effects that each of these anaesthetic modes have on patient outcome. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of anaesthetic technique on early outcomes after elective EVAR. METHODS: Data from the UK's National Vascular Registry were analysed. All patients undergoing elective standard infrarenal EVAR between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2016 were included. Patients with a symptomatic aneurysm treated semi-electively were excluded. The primary outcome was in hospital death within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes included post-operative complications and length of hospital stay. Time to event outcomes were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for confounders, including British Aneurysm Repair score (a validated aneurysm risk prediction score that is calculated using age, sex, creatinine, cardiac disease, electrocardiogram, previous aortic surgery, white blood cell count, serum sodium, abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter, and American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade) and chronic lung disease. RESULTS: A total of 9783 patients received an elective, standard infrarenal EVAR (GA, n = 7069; RA, n = 2347; and LA, n = 367) across 89 hospitals. RA and/or LA was used in 82 hospitals. There were 64 in hospital deaths within 30 days, 50 (0.9% mortality at 30 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7-1.2) in the GA group, 11 (0.6%, 95% CI 0.3-1.1) in the RA group, and three (1.5%, 95% CI 0.5-4.7) in the LA group. The mortality rate differed between groups (p = .03) and was significantly lower in the RA group compared with the GA group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] RA/GA 0.37 [95% CI 0.17-0.81]; LA/GA 0.63 [95% CI 0.15-2.69]). The median length of stay was two days for all modes of anaesthesia, but patients were discharged from hospital more quickly in the RA and LA groups than the GA group (aHR RA/GA 1.10 [95% CI 1.03-1.17]; LA/GA 1.15 [95% CI 1.02-1.29]). Overall, 20.7% of patients experienced one or more complications (GA group, 22.1%; RA group, 16.8%; LA group, 17.7%) and pulmonary complications occurred with similar frequency in the three groups (overall 2.4%, adjusted odds ratio RA/GA 0.93 [95% CI 0.66-1.32]; LA/GA 0.82 [95% CI 0.41-1.63]). CONCLUSION: Thirty day mortality was lower with RA than with GA, but mode of anaesthesia was not associated with increased complications for patients undergoing elective standard infrarenal EVAR.

Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Use in Randomised Trials of Patients Undergoing Endovascular Intervention for Peripheral Arterial Disease: Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Randomised trials of new devices for peripheral arterial endovascular intervention are published regularly. The evidence for which antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant (antithrombotic) therapy to use after an intervention is lacking. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the antithrombotic regimens in randomised trials for peripheral arterial endovascular intervention to understand choices made and trends with time or type of device. METHODS: Data sources were the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Randomised trials including participants with peripheral arterial disease undergoing any endovascular arterial intervention were included. Trial methods were assessed to determine whether an antithrombotic protocol had been specified, its completeness, and the agent(s) prescribed. Antithrombotic therapy protocols were classed as peri-procedural (preceding and during intervention), immediate post-procedural (up to 30 days following intervention), and maintenance post-procedural (therapy continuing beyond 30 days). RESULTS: Ninety-four trials were included in narrative synthesis. Study quality was low. None of the trials justified their antithrombotic therapy protocol. Only 29% of trials had complete peri-procedural antithrombotic protocols, and 34% had complete post-procedural protocols. In total, 64 different peri-procedural protocols, and 51 separate post-procedural protocols were specified. Antiplatelet monotherapy and unfractionated heparin were the most common regimen choices in the peri-procedural setting, and dual antiplatelet therapy (55%) was most commonly utilised post procedure. Over time there has been an increasing tendency to use dual therapy (p < .001). This corresponds with the introduction of newer technologies and trials focussed on below knee intervention. CONCLUSION: Randomised trials comparing different types of peripheral endovascular arterial intervention have a high level of heterogeneity in their antithrombotic regimens. Antiplatelet therapy needs to be standardised in trials comparing endovascular technologies to reduce potential confounding. To do this, an independent randomised trial specifically examining antiplatelet therapy following peripheral arterial endovascular intervention is needed.

Atherectomy for peripheral arterial disease.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) has several treatment options, including angioplasty, stenting, exercise therapy, and bypass surgery. Atherectomy is an alternative procedure, in which atheroma is cut or ground away within the artery. This is the first update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of atherectomy for peripheral arterial disease compared to other established treatments. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 12 August 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials that compared atherectomy with other established treatments. All participants had symptomatic PAD with either claudication or critical limb ischaemia and evidence of lower limb arterial disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence. We resolved any disagreements through discussion. Outcomes of interest were: primary patency (at six and 12 months), all-cause mortality, fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, initial technical failure rates, target vessel revascularisation rates (TVR; at six and 12 months); and complications. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies, with a total of 527 participants and 581 treated lesions. We found two comparisons: atherectomy versus balloon angioplasty (BA) and atherectomy versus BA with primary stenting. No studies compared atherectomy with bypass surgery. Overall, the evidence from this review was of very low certainty, due to a high risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. Six studies (372 participants, 427 treated lesions) compared atherectomy versus BA. We found no clear difference between atherectomy and BA for the primary outcomes: six-month primary patency rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.20; 3 studies, 186 participants; very low-certainty evidence); 12-month primary patency rates (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.84; 2 studies, 149 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or mortality rates (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.66, 3 studies, 210 participants, very low-certainty evidence). One study reported cardiac failure and acute coronary syndrome as causes of death at 24 months but it was unclear which arm the participants belonged to, and one study reported no cardiovascular events. There was no clear difference when examining: initial technical failure rates (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.08; 6 studies, 425 treated vessels; very low-certainty evidence), six-month TVR (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.06 to 4.42; 2 studies, 136 treated vessels; very low-certainty evidence) or 12-month TVR (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.42; 3 studies, 176 treated vessels; very low-certainty evidence). All six studies reported complication rates (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.68; 6 studies, 387 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and embolisation events (RR 2.51, 95% CI 0.64 to 9.80; 6 studies, 387 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Atherectomy may be less likely to cause dissection (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.54; 4 studies, 290 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and may be associated with a reduction in bailout stenting (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.74; 4 studies, 315 treated vessels; very low-certainty evidence). Four studies reported amputation rates, with only one amputation event recorded in a BA participant. We used subgroup analysis to compare the effect of plain balloons/stents and drug-eluting balloons/stents, but did not detect any differences between the subgroups. One study (155 participants, 155 treated lesions) compared atherectomy versus BA and primary stenting, so comparison was extremely limited and subject to imprecision. This study did not report primary patency. The study reported one death (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.23; 155 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and three complication events (RR 7.04, 95% CI 0.80 to 62.23; 155 participants; very low-certainty evidence) in a very small data set, making conclusions unreliable. We found no clear difference between the treatment arms in cardiovascular events (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.23; 155 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This study found no initial technical failure events, and TVR rates at six and 24 months showed little difference between treatment arms (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.95 to 5.46; 155 participants; very low-certainty evidence and RR 2.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 4.37; 155 participants; very low-certainty evidence, respectively). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review update shows that the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of atherectomy on patency, mortality and cardiovascular event rates compared to plain balloon angioplasty, with or without stenting. We detected no clear differences in initial technical failure rates or TVR, but there may be reduced dissection and bailout stenting after atherectomy although this is uncertain. Included studies were small, heterogenous and at high risk of bias. Larger studies powered to detect clinically meaningful, patient-centred outcomes are required.