Effects of additional exercise therapy after a successful vascular intervention for people with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is characterised by obstruction or narrowing of the large arteries of the lower limbs, usually caused by atheromatous plaques. Most people with PAD who experience intermittent leg pain (intermittent claudication) are typically treated with secondary prevention strategies, including medical management and exercise therapy. Lower limb revascularisation may be suitable for people with significant disability and those who do not show satisfactory improvement after conservative treatment. Some studies have suggested that lower limb revascularisation for PAD may not confer significantly more benefits than supervised exercise alone for improved physical function and quality of life. It is proposed that supervised exercise therapy as adjunctive treatment after successful lower limb revascularisation may confer additional benefits, surpassing the effects conferred by either treatment alone. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of a supervised exercise programme versus standard care following successful lower limb revascularisation in people with PAD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and two trial registers, most recently on 14 March 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials which compared supervised exercise training following lower limb revascularisation with standard care following lower limb revascularisation in adults (18 years and older) with PAD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were maximum walking distance or time (MWD/T) on the treadmill, six-minute walk test (6MWT) total distance, and pain-free walking distance or time (PFWD/T) on the treadmill. Our secondary outcomes were changes in the ankle-branchial index, all-cause mortality, changes in health-related quality-of-life scores, reintervention rates, and changes in subjective measures of physical function. We analysed continuous data by determining the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI), and dichotomous data by determining the odds ratio (OR) with corresponding 95% CI. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified seven studies involving 376 participants. All studies involved participants who received either additional supervised exercise or standard care after lower limb revascularisation. The studies' exercise programmes varied, and included supervised treadmill walking, combined exercise, and circuit training. The duration of exercise therapy ranged from six weeks to six months; follow-up time ranged from six weeks to five years. Standard care also varied between studies, including no treatment or advice to stop smoking, lifestyle modifications, or best medical treatment. We classified all studies as having some risk of bias concerns. The certainty of the evidence was very low due to the risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. The meta-analysis included only a subset of studies due to concerns regarding data reporting, heterogeneity, and bias in most published research. The evidence was of very low certainty for all the review outcomes. Meta-analysis comparing changes in maximum walking distance from baseline to end of follow-up showed no improvement (MD 159.47 m, 95% CI -36.43 to 355.38; I2 = 0 %; 2 studies, 89 participants). In contrast, exercise may improve the absolute maximum walking distance at the end of follow-up compared to standard care (MD 301.89 m, 95% CI 138.13 to 465.65; I2 = 0 %; 2 studies, 108 participants). Moreover, we are very uncertain if there are differences in the changes in the six-minute walk test total distance from baseline to treatment end between exercise and standard care (MD 32.6 m, 95% CI -17.7 to 82.3; 1 study, 49 participants), and in the absolute values at the end of follow-up (MD 55.6 m, 95% CI -2.6 to 113.8; 1 study, 49 participants). Regarding pain-free walking distance, we are also very uncertain if there are differences in the mean changes in PFWD from baseline to treatment end between exercise and standard care (MD 167.41 m, 95% CI -11 to 345.83; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 87 participants). We are very uncertain if there are differences in the absolute values of ankle-brachial index at the end of follow-up between the intervention and standard care (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.12; I2 = 62%; 2 studies, 110 participants), in mortality rates at the end of follow-up (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.00; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 346 participants), health-related quality of life at the end of follow-up for the physical (MD 0.73, 95% CI -5.87 to 7.33; I2 = 64%; 2 studies, 105 participants) and mental component (MD 1.04, 95% CI -6.88 to 8.95; I2 = 70%; 2 studies, 105 participants) of the 36-item Short Form Health Survey. Finally, there may be little to no difference in reintervention rates at the end of follow-up between the intervention and standard care (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.65; I2 = 65%; 5 studies, 252 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very uncertain evidence that additional exercise therapy after successful lower limb revascularisation may improve absolute maximal walking distance at the end of follow-up compared to standard care. Evidence is also very uncertain about the effects of exercise on pain-free walking distance, six-minute walk test distance, quality of life, ankle-brachial index, mortality, and reintervention rates. Although it is not possible to confirm the effectiveness of supervised exercise compared to standard care for all outcomes, studies did not report any harm to participants from this intervention after lower limb revascularisation. Overall, the evidence incorporated into this review was very uncertain, and additional evidence is needed from large, well-designed, randomised controlled studies to more conclusively demonstrate the role additional exercise therapy has after lower limb revascularisation in people with PAD.

Anaemia: A risk factor for death and adverse outcomes following surgery for acute lower limb ischaemia.

INTRODUCTION: Acute limb ischaemia (ALI) forms a significant part of the vascular surgery workload and carries with it high rates of morbidity and mortality. Anaemia is also common amongst vascular surgical patients and has been linked with poor outcomes in some subgroups. We aimed to assess the frequency of anaemia in patients with ALI and its impact on survival and complications following revascularisation to help direct future efforts to optimise outcomes in this patient group. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected departmental data on patients undergoing surgical intervention for ALI between 2014 and 2018 was performed. Anaemia was defined as a pre-operative haemoglobin (Hb) of <120 g/L for women and <130 g/L for men. The primary outcome was overall survival, assessed with the Kaplan-Meier estimator, with application of Cox proportional hazard modelling to adjust for confounding covariates. RESULTS: There were 158 patients who underwent treatment for ALI: 89 (56.3%) of these were non-anaemic with a mean Hb of 146 (SD = 18.4), and 69 (43.7%) were anaemic with a mean Hb of 106 (SD = 13.4). Anaemic patients had a significantly higher risk of death than their non-anaemic counterparts on univariate analysis (HR = 2.11, 95% CIs, 1.28-3.5, p = 0.0036). There was ongoing divergence in survival up to around 6 months between anaemic and non-anaemic groups. Under the Cox model, anaemia was similarly significant as a predictor of death (HR = 2.15, 95% CIs, 1.17-3.95, p = 0.013), accounting for recorded comorbidities, medication use and blood transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: Anaemia is a significant and independent risk factor for death following revascularisation for ALI and can be potentially be modified. Vascular surgical centres should ensure they have robust pathways in place to identify and consider treating anaemia. There is scope for further work to assess how to best optimise a patient's levels of circulating haemoglobin.

An evaluation of the epidemiology, management and outcomes for perforated peptic ulcers across the North of England over 15 years: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The management of perforated peptic ulcers has evolved over time and includes laparoscopic or open repair, and conservative management. The utilisation of, and outcomes from these strategies are not clear. Trends in epidemiology, management and outcomes for perforated peptic ulcer across the North of England over a 15-year period were analyzed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Emergency General Surgical admissions data from nine NHS trusts in the North of England from 2002 to 2016 were collected and analyzed, including demographics, interventions and outcomes. Cases were identified using ICD-10 codes K25, K26 and K27 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 0.6. RESULTS: Peptic ulcer perforation accounted for 2373 of 491141 admissions (0.48%), with a decreased incidence over time (0.62% in 2002-2006 to 0.36% in 2012-2016). Over the 15 years studied, an increasing proportion of cases were managed laparoscopically (4.5%-18.4%, p < 0.001) and under upper-gastrointestinal consultants (15.4%-28.6%, p < 0.001). Thirty-day inpatient mortality improved significantly over time (20.0%-10.8%, p < 0.001) as did mean length of stay (17.3-13.0 days, p = 0.001). Independent predictors of increased 30-day mortality were increasing age, Charlson co-morbidity score, clinical and operative risk, earlier year of admission, winter admission, weekend/bank holiday procedure and management strategy, with laparotomy and conservative management increasing risk. CONCLUSION: Outcomes (30-day mortality and LOS) improved significantly over the study period. Laparoscopic approach was increasingly utilised and was an independently significant factor associated with improved mortality. Management by upper-gastrointestinal specialists increased rates of laparoscopy, with fewer conversions to open.

Evaluating the effects of surgical subspecialisation on patient outcomes following emergency laparotomy: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: General surgeons have become increasingly subspecialised in their elective practice. Emergency laparotomies, however, are performed by a range of subspecialists who may or may not have an interest in the affected area of gastrointestinal tract. This retrospective cohort study evaluates the impact of surgical subspecialisation on patient outcomes following emergency laparotomy. METHODS: Data was collected for patients who underwent an emergency abdominal procedure on the gastrointestinal tract in the North of England from 2001 to 2016. This included demographics, co-morbidities, diagnoses and procedures undertaken. Patients were grouped according to consultants' subspecialist interest. The primary outcome of interest was 30-day postoperative mortality. RESULTS: 24,291 emergency laparotomies were performed with an associated 30-day postoperative mortality of 11.7%. Laparotomies undertaken by upper gastrointestinal (UGI) or colorectal surgeons have significantly lower mortality (10.1%) when compared with other subspecialities (13.5%). More specifically, mortality was decreased for UGI (7.9% vs. 12.9%) and colorectal procedures (10.9% vs. 14.2%) when performed by surgeons with a specialist interest in the relevant area of the gastrointestinal tract (both p < 0.001). The utilisation of laparoscopic surgery is higher, in both UGI (21.8% vs. 9.0%) and colorectal procedures (7.2% vs. 3.5%), when the causative pathology is relevant to the surgeon's subspeciality (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Mortality following emergency laparotomy is improved when performed under the care of gastrointestinal surgeons. Both UGI and colorectal emergency procedures have improved outcomes, with lower mortality and higher rates of laparoscopy, when under the care of a surgeon with a subspecialist interest in the affected area of the gastrointestinal tract.