Intravenous Iron in a Prehabilitation Program for Older Surgical Patients: Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Older patients often have iron deficiency anemia before surgery, which can be effectively treated with intravenous iron supplementation (IVIS). Anemia and blood transfusions are associated with an increased risk of delirium. The aim of this research was to assess the effectiveness and safety of using IVIS in a prehabilitation program. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients ≥70 y who underwent abdominal surgery between November 2015 and June 2018 were included in this single-center prospective cohort study. All patients were prehabilitated; however, only anemic patients received a single dose of 1000 mg intravenous iron (ferric carboxymaltose) to increase preoperative hemoglobin levels (IVIS group). Nonanemic patients received standard care (SC). The hemoglobin levels (primary outcome) were assessed at the outpatient clinic visit, at admission, and at discharge. Secondary outcomes were postoperative delirium, postoperative anemia, blood transfusion, complications other than delirium, and length of hospital stay. All outcomes were compared between the IVIS group and SC group. RESULTS: Of all patients (n = 248), 97 anemic patients received IVIS (39%). Of the anemic patients, 50 patients (52%) had iron deficiency. Initial differences in hemoglobin concentrations between the IVIS group and SC group at T1 and T2 (7.2 versus 8.8; P < 0.001 and 7.4 versus 8.6; P = 0.023, respectively) were no longer present at discharge (6.6 versus 7.2; P = 0.35). No statistically significant differences were observed for all secondary outcomes between the IVIS group and the SC group. No infusion-related adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Adding IVIS to prehabilitation programs is safe and diminishes differences in these concentrations between preoperatively anemic and nonanemic patients. IVIS may be worthwhile as an additional component of prehabilitation programs. Results merit further investigation.

Quality of Life and Traditional Outcome Results at 1 Year in Elderly Patients Having Critical Limb Ischemia and the Role of Conservative Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Revascularization is the cornerstone of the treatment of critical limb ischemia (CLI), but the number of elderly frail patients increase. Revascularization is not always possible in these patients and conservative therapy seems to be an option. The goals of this study are to analyze the 1-year quality of life (QoL) results and mortality rates of elderly patients with CLI and to investigate if conservative treatment could be an acceptable treatment option. METHODS: Patients with CLI ≥70 years old were included in a prospective observational cohort study in 2 hospitals in the Netherlands between 2012 and 2016 and were divided over 3 treatment modalities: endovascular therapy, surgical revascularization, and conservative treatment. The World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQoL-Bref) instrument, a generic QoL assessment tool that includes components of physical, psychological, social relationships and environment, was used to evaluate QoL at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year. RESULTS: In total, 195 patients (56% male, 33% Rutherford 4, mean age of 80) were included. Physical QoL significantly increased after surgical (10.4 vs 14.9, P < .001), endovascular (10.9 vs 13.7, P < .001), and conservative therapy (11.6 vs 13.2, P = .01) at 1 year. One-year mortality was relatively low after surgery (10%) compared to endovascular (40%) and conservative therapy (37%). CONCLUSION: The results of this study could not be used to designate the superior treatment used in elderly patients with CLI. Conservative treatment could be an acceptable treatment option in selected patients with CLI unfit for revascularization. Treatment of choice in elderly patients with CLI is based on multiple factors and should be individualized in a shared decision-making process.

Cost-effectiveness of the treatments for critical limb ischemia in the elderly population.

OBJECTIVE: The treatment of critical limb ischemia (CLI), with the intention to prevent limb loss, is often an intensive and expensive therapy. The aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of endovascular and conservative treatment of elderly CLI patients unsuitable for surgery. METHODS: In this prospective observational cohort study, data were gathered in two Dutch peripheral hospitals. CLI patients aged 70 years or older were included in the outpatient clinic. Exclusion criteria were malignant disease, lack of language skills, and cognitive impairment; 195 patients were included and 192 patients were excluded. After a multidisciplinary vascular conference, patients were divided into three treatment groups (endovascular revascularization, surgical revascularization, or conservative therapy). Subanalyses based on age were made (70-79 years and ≥80 years). The follow-up period was 2 years. Cost-effectiveness of endovascular and conservative treatment was quantified using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in euros per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: At baseline, patients allocated to surgical revascularization had better health states, but the health states of endovascular revascularization and conservative therapy patients were comparable. With an ICER of €38,247.41/QALY (∼$50,869/QALY), endovascular revascularization was cost-effective compared with conservative therapy. This is favorable compared with the Dutch applicable threshold of €80,000/QALY (∼$106,400/QALY). The subanalyses also established that endovascular revascularization is a cost-effective alternative for conservative treatment both in patients aged 70 to 79 years (ICER €29,898.36/QALY; ∼$39,765/QALY) and in octogenarians (ICER €56,810.14/QALY; ∼$75,557/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Our study has shown that endovascular revascularization is cost-effective compared with conservative treatment of CLI patients older than 70 years and also in octogenarians. Given the small absolute differences in costs and effects, physicians should also consider individual circumstances that can alter the outcome of the intervention. Cost-effectiveness remains one of the aspects to take into consideration in making a clinical decision.