RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: We conducted this survey to gain insight into the real-life application and perceptions regarding the importance of peri-operative frailty assessment amongst vascular surgeons in Italy. METHODS: Italian vascular surgeons were invited to participate in the survey using the list provided by the Italian Society for Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (1050 invited participants). A dedicated link to the survey was emailed through Google Forms, and reminders were automatically sent on a bi-weekly basis for a total of 8 weeks before stopping data collection. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 225 respondents, thereby yielding an overall 21.5% response rate. While the vast majority of respondents stated they were aware of the meaning of frailty (93%) and agreed that its assessment was clinically relevant for patients undergoing vascular surgery (99%), only 44% of surveyed surgeons reported that they used a specific tool for peri-operative frailty assessment. However, most respondents indicated that routine evaluation of frailty was not performed at their institution (87%). The main limitations were identified as being the lack of confidence in choosing the best tool, followed by lack of awareness, lack of skilled operators, and lack of time. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that whilst most vascular surgeons in Italy are aware of the importance of frailty in affecting surgical outcomes across various interventions in the elective and non-elective settings, there is poor implementation of formal frailty assessment.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Even low quantities of iodine contrast media (ICM) could be responsible for exacerbation of a chronic kidney disease (CKD). Aim of this study was to determine whether it is more reasonable to perform endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) procedures in patients with initial CKD using CO2 rather than ICM to prevent further kidney deterioration. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed at our institution to identify patients with preoperative CKD at initial stage (class G3a-G3b according to KDOQI-KDIGO classification) who underwent either CO2-EVAR or ICM-EVAR. Primary endpoint was renal function evaluation; secondary endpoints were technical success, perioperative complications, hospital stay, and reinterventions and overall mortality at follow-up. RESULTS: Both CO2-EVAR and ICM-EVAR groups were composed of 21 patients. There were no differences in demographics, anatomy, and comorbidities, apart from worse ASA score in CO2-EVAR group (100% vs 57.1%, p = .001). Preoperative serum creatinine and glomerular filtration rates (GFR) were comparable (1.73 vs 1.6 mg/dl, p = .082 and 39.71 vs 43.04 mL/min/1.73 m2, p = .935). At follow-up (16.7 ± 18.1 months), CO2-EVAR was not associated with significant changes in creatinine and GFR, whereas ICM-EVAR determined a significant increase in creatinine (1.6 mg/dl vs 1.91 mg/dl, p = .04) and decrease in GFR values (43 vs 37.9 mL/min/1.73 m2, p = .04), determining the need for dialysis in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: ICM seems to be a determining factor in worsening renal function; therefore, an effort should be made to standardize the use of CO2 as the contrast medium of choice in patients with initial renal insufficiency undergoing EVAR.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: We tested the outcomes with the use of the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in patients who had undergone open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (enhanced recovery after vascular surgery [ERAVS] protocol). We compared them with those obtained for patients who had undergone endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and for a historical control group of standard open AAA repair in a prospective, single-center pilot study. METHODS: From June to December 2019, all patients who were candidates for open AAA repair at our department were enrolled in the ERAVS protocol (ERAVS group; 17 patients). During the same period, 18 patients had undergone EVAR (EVAR group). The historical control group of standard open AAA repair included 32 patients who had undergone surgery during the 6 months before the study period (standard protocol open repair [OR] group). The three groups were compared on an "on-treatment" basis (prospectively for the ERAVS and EVAR groups and retrospectively for the OR group) in terms of the time to discharge (TTD), interval to the resumption of oral intake, time to ambulation, resumption of bowel function, and postoperative pain. Comparisons were performed using the one-way analysis of variance test, Tukey post hoc test for quantitative data, and χ2 test for qualitative data. RESULTS: The ERAVS protocol was successfully applied for all but one patient (feasibility rate, 94%). The mean TTD was 5.1 days in the ERAVS group, 3.5 days in the EVAR group, and 8.4 days in the OR group [P < .001; F(2,64) = 11.3], with a significant difference between the OR and ERAVS and EVAR groups (P = .1 and P < .001, respectively) but not between the EVAR and ERAVS groups (P = .4). The ERAVS group had intervals to the resumption of oral intake and ambulation similar to those of the EVAR group. In contrast, these were significantly longer for the OR group. The mean time to the resumption of bowel function was similar in the ERAVS and OR groups (2.6 and 2.9 days, respectively; P = .6). In the ERAVS group, the mean value of the maximum referred pain using the numeric rating scale was 3.75 (range, 1-6). The corresponding values for the EVAR and OR groups were 2.6 (range, 0-6) and 4.9 [range, 1-8; F(2,62) = 15.4; P < .001]. The post hoc test showed a significant difference between the OR group and the ERAVS and EVAR group (P = .01 and P < .001, respectively) but not between the ERAVS and EVAR groups (P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: In our early experience, the ERAVS protocol appeared to be effective in reducing the TTD and improving the postoperative outcomes compared with the OR group, without significant differences compared with the EVAR group.
