Assessing the quality of surgical care in vascular surgery; moving from outcome towards structural and process measures.

OBJECTIVES: This study presents a review of studies reporting on quality of care in vascular surgery. The aim of this study was to provide insight in quality improvement initiatives in vascular surgery. DESIGN: Original data were collected from MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Inclusion criteria were: description of one of the three factors of quality of care, e.g. process, outcome or structure and prospectively described. All articles identified were ascribed to a domain of quality of care. RESULTS: 57 prospective articles were included, drawn from 859 eligible reports. Structure as an indicator of quality of care was described in 19 reports, process in 7 reports and outcome in 31 reports. Most studies based on structural measures considered the introduction of a clinical pathway or a registration system. Reports based on process measures showed promising results. Outcome as clinical indicator mainly focussed on identifying risk factors for morbidity, mortality or failure of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Structure and process indicators are evaluated scarcely in vascular surgery. Many studies in vascular surgery have been focussed on outcomes as indicator of quality of care, but a shift towards process measures should be considered as focus of attention in the future.

Functional status as a prognostic factor for primary revascularization for critical limb ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Lower extremity arterial revascularization (LEAR) is the gold-standard for critical lower limb ischemia (CLI). The goal of this study was twofold. First, we evaluated the long-term functional status of patients undergoing primary LEAR for CLI. Second, prognostic factors of long-term functional status and survival after primary LEAR for CLI were assessed. METHODS: All primary LEAR procedures were analyzed. Patients were stratified by preoperative functional status: ambulatory (group I) vs nonambulatory (group II). Patients were followed-up after 3 and 6 years. Adverse events (AEs) were categorized according to predefined standards: minor, surgical, failed revascularization, and systemic. Associated patient demographic/clinical data were analyzed using univariate and multivariate methods. RESULTS: There were 106 LEAR patients (group I: n = 42, 40% vs group II: n = 64, 60%). Group II patients were significantly older (75 vs 62 years; P = .00), were classified ASA 3-4 more frequently (78% vs 52%; P < .02), had more cardiac disease (n = 42, 66% vs n = 10, 24%; P = .00), renal disease (n = 26, 41% vs n = 7, 17%; P = .00), diabetes (n = 36, 56% vs n = 8, 19%; P = .00), hypertension (n = 47, 73% vs n = 13, 31%; P = .00) and severe CLI (n = 42, 66% vs n = 18, 38%; P < .01). Group II patients had a higher incidence of death (65.6% vs 14.3%; P = .00), minor AEs (n = 38, 26% vs n = 10, 22%; P = .00), surgical AEs (n = 48, 33% vs n = 12, 26%; P < .02) and systemic AEs (n = 24, 86% vs n = 4, 9%; P < .02). Also more unplanned reinterventions occurred in group II (n = 148, 76% vs n = 47, 24%; P = .00). Nonambulatory status was a multivariate independent predictor of nonambulatory status after LEAR during 6 years follow-up (odds ration [OR[: 21.47; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.76-166.77; P = .00). Pulmonary disease (OR: 7.49; 95% CI: 2.17-25.80; P = .00), not prescribing beta-blockers (OR: 4.67; 95% CI: 1.28-17.03; P < .02), nonambulatory status (OR: 22.99; 95% CI: 6.27-84.24; P = .00), and systemic AEs (OR: 9.66; 95% CI: 1.84-50.57; P < .01) were independent predictors of death. Functional status was not improved in group II after long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: Nonambulatory patients suffer from extensive comorbid conditions. They are accompanied with an increased occurrence of AEs, unplanned reinterventions, and poor long-term survival rates. Successful LEAR did not improve their functional status after 6 years. This emphasizes that attempts for limb salvage must be carefully considered in these patients.

A systematic review of implementation of established recommended secondary prevention measures in patients with PAOD.

OBJECTIVE: Since patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD) are at high-risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, preventive measures aimed to reduce cardiovascular adverse events are advocated in the current guidelines. We conducted a systematic review to assess the implementation of secondary prevention (SP) measures in PAOD patients. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were searched to perform a systematic review of the literature from 1999 till June 2008 on SP for PAOD patients. Assessment of study quality was done following the Cochrane Library review system. The record outcomes were antiplatelet agents, heart rate lowering agents, blood pressure lowering agents, lipid lowering agents, glucose lowering agents, smoking cessation and walking exercise. RESULTS: From a total of 2137 identified studies, 83 observational studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 24 were included in the systematic review comprising 34 157 patients. These patients suffered from coronary artery disease (n=3516, 41%), myocardial infraction (n=2647, 38%), angina pectoris (n=1790, 31%), congestive heart failure (n=2052, 14%), diabetes mellitus (n=10 690, 31%),hypertension (n=20 823, 73%) and hyperlipidaemia (n=15 067, 64%). Contrary to what the guidelines prescribe, antiplatelet agents, heart rate lowering agents, blood pressure lowering agents and lipid lowering agents were prescribed in 63%, 34%, 46% and 45% of the patients, respectively. Glucose lowering agents were prescribed in 81% and smoking cessation in 39% of the patients. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients suffering from PAOD do not receive the entire approach of SP measures as suggested by the current guidelines. To our knowledge, the cause of this undertreatment is multifactorial: patient, physician or health-care-related.

Morbidity and mortality caused by cardiac adverse events after revascularization for critical limb ischemia.

BACKGROUND: We assessed cardiac adverse events (AEs) after primary lower extremity arterial revascularization (LEAR) for critical lower limb ischemia (CLI) in order to evaluate the impact of cardiac AEs on the clinical outcome. We created an optimized care protocol concerning CLI patients' preoperative work-up as well as intra- and postoperative surveillance according to recent important literature and guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a prospective analysis of clinical outcome after LEAR using patient-related risk factors, comorbidity, surgical therapy, and AEs. This cohort was divided into patients with and without AEs. AEs were categorized according to predefined standards: minor, surgical, failed revascularization, and systemic. The consequences of AEs were reoperation, additional medication, irreversible physical damage, and early death. RESULTS: There were 106 patients (Fontaine III n=49, 46%, and Fontaine IV n=57, 56%) who underwent primary revascularization by bypass graft procedure (n=67, 63%) or balloon angioplasty (n=39, 37%). No difference in comorbidity was registered between the two groups. Eighty-four AEs were registered in 34 patients (32%). Patients experiencing AEs had significantly less antiplatelet agents (without AEs n=63, 88%, vs. with AEs n=18, 53%; p=0.000) and/or beta-blockers (without AEs n=66, 92%, vs. with AEs n=16, 47%; p=0.000) compared to patients without AEs. The two most harmful consequences of AEs were irreversible physical damage (n=3) and early death (n=8). Sixty percent (n=9) of systemic AEs were heart-related. The postprocedural mortality rate was 7.5%, with a 75% (n=6) heart-related cause of death. CONCLUSION: AEs occur in >30% of CLI patients after LEAR. The most harmful AEs on the clinical outcome of CLI patients were heart-related, causing increased morbidity and death. Significant correlations between prescription of beta-blockers and antiplatelet agents and prevention of AEs were observed. A persistent focus on the prevention of systemic AEs in order to ameliorate the outcome after LEAR for limb salvage remains of utmost importance. Therefore, we advise the implementation of an optimized care protocol by discussing patients in a strict manner according to a predetermined protocol, to optimize and standardize the preoperative work-up as well as intra- and postoperative patient surveillance.