Frailty Assessment in Vascular OUtpatients Review (FAVOUR) protocol: single-centre prospective cohort study comparing feasibility and prognostic value of commonly used frailty assessment tools.

INTRODUCTION: Frailty has consistently demonstrated associations with poorer healthcare outcomes. Vascular guidelines have recognised the importance of frailty assessment. However, an abundance of frailty tools and a lack of prospective studies confirming suitability of routine frailty assessment in clinical practice has delayed the uptake of these guidelines. The Frailty Assessment in Vascular OUtpatients Review study speaks to this evidence gap. The primary aim is to assess feasibility of implementing routine frailty assessment in a reproducible outpatient setting. Secondary objectives include comparing prognostic values and interuser agreement across five frailty assessment tools. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This single-centre prospective cohort study of feasibility is conducted in a rapid-referral vascular surgery clinic, serving a population of 2 million. Adults with capacity (>18 years), attending a clinic for any reason, are eligible for inclusion. Five assessments are completed by patient (Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Frail NonDisabled Questionnaire), clinician (CFS, Healthcare Improvement Scotland FRAIL tool and 'Initial Clinical Evaluation') and researcher (11-item modified Frailty Index). Consistent with feasibility objectives, outcome measures include recruitment rates, frailty assessment completion rates, time-to-complete assessments and interuser variability. Electronic follow-up at 30 days and 1 year will assess home-time and mortality as prognostic indicators. Patients treated surgically/endovascularly will undergo additional 30-day and 1-year postoperative follow-up, outcome measures include: surgical procedure, mortality, complications (according to Clavien-Dindo Classification), length of stay, readmission rates, non-home discharge, home-time, higher social care requirements on discharge and amputation-free survival. Prognostic value will be compared by area under receiver operating characteristic curves. Continuous outcome variables will be analysed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Interuser agreement will be compared by percentage agreement in Cohen's kappa coefficient.  ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is sponsored by National Health Service Greater Glasgow and Clyde (R&IUGN23CE014). London-Riverside REC (23/PR/0062) granted ethical approval. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed vascular surgery and geriatric medicine themed journals and presentation at similar scientific conferences. TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06040658. Stage of study: pre-results.

A systematic review of frailty assessment tools used in vascular surgery research.

OBJECTIVE: Frailty is common in vascular patients and is recognized for its prognostic value. In the absence of consensus, a multitude of frailty assessment tools exist. This systematic review aimed to quantify the variety in these tools and describe their content and application to inform future research and clinical practice. METHODS: Multiple cross-disciplinary electronic literature databases were searched from inception to August 2022. Studies describing frailty assessment in a vascular surgical population were eligible. Data extraction to a validated template included patient demographics, tool content, and analysis methods. A secondary systematic search for papers describing the psychometric properties of commonly used frailty tools was then performed. RESULTS: Screening 5358 records identified 111 eligible studies, with an aggregate population of 5,418,236 patients. Forty-three differing frailty assessment tools were identified. One-third of these failed to assess frailty as a multidomain deficit and there was a reliance on assessing function and presence of comorbidity. Substantial methodological variability in data analysis and lack of methodological description was also identified. Published psychometric assessment was available for only 4 of the 10 most commonly used frailty tools. The Clinical Frailty Scale was the most studied and demonstrates good psychometric properties within a surgical population. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial heterogeneity in frailty assessment is demonstrated, precluding meaningful comparisons of services and data pooling. A uniform approach to assessment is required to guide future frailty research. Based on the literature, we make the following recommendations: frailty should be considered a continuous construct and the reporting of frailty tools' application needs standardized. In the absence of consensus, the Clinical Frailty Scale is a validated tool with good psychometric properties that demonstrates usefulness in vascular surgery.

Outcome measures from international older adult care home intervention research: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Care homes are increasingly important settings for intervention research to enhance evidence-informed care. For such research to demonstrate effectiveness, it is essential that measures are appropriate for the population, setting and practice contexts. OBJECTIVE: To identify care home intervention studies and describe the resident outcome measures used. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: We reviewed international care home research published from 2015 to August 2022. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and ASSIA. We included any intervention study conducted in a care home, reporting resident outcomes. We extracted resident outcome measures, organised these using the domains of an adapted framework and described their use. RESULTS: From 7,330 records screened, we included 396 datasets reported in 436 publications. These included 12,167 care homes and 836,842 residents, with an average of 80 residents per study. The studies evaluated 859 unique resident outcomes 2,030 times using 732 outcome measures. Outcomes were evaluated between 1 and 112 times, with 75.1% of outcomes evaluated only once. Outcome measures were used 1-120 times, with 68.4% of measures used only once. Only 14 measures were used ≥20 times. Functional status, mood & behaviour and medications were the commonest outcome domains assessed. More than half of outcomes were assessed using scales, with a fifth using existing records or administrative data. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant heterogeneity in the choice and assessment of outcomes for intervention research in care homes. There is an urgent need to develop a consensus on useful and sensitive tools for care homes, working with residents, families and friends and staff.

The Role of Appendicectomy in Ulcerative Colitis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: This updated systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the putative role of the appendix in ulcerative colitis as a therapeutic target. METHODS: Ovid Medline, Embase, PubMed and CENTRAL were searched with MeSH terms ("appendectomy" OR "appendicitis" OR "appendix") AND ("colitis, ulcerative") through October 2020, producing 1469 references. Thirty studies, including 118 733 patients, were included for qualitative synthesis and 11 for quantitative synthesis. Subgroup analysis was performed on timing of appendicectomy. Results are expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Appendicectomy before UC diagnosis reduces the risk of future colectomy (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.89; I2 = 5%; P = .0009). Corresponding increased risk of colorectal cancer and high-grade dysplasia are identified (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.11-4.66; P = .02). Significance is lost when appendicectomy is performed after disease onset. Appendicectomy does not affect hospital admission rates (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.68-1.12; I2 = 93%; P = .27), steroid use (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.78-1.49; I2 = 36%; P = .64), immunomodulator use (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.76-1.42; I2 = 19%; P = .79), or biological therapy use (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44-1.30; I2 = 0%; P = .32). Disease extent and risk of proximal progression are unaffected by appendicectomy. The majority (71% to 100%) of patients with refractory UC avoid colectomy following therapeutic appendicectomy at 3-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Prior appendicectomy reduces risk of future colectomy. A reciprocal increased risk of CRC/HGD may be due to prolonged exposure to subclinical colonic inflammation. The results warrant further research, as consideration may be put toward incorporating a history of appendicectomy into IBD surveillance guidelines. A potential role for therapeutic appendicectomy in refractory left-sided UC is also identified.

This article was written as part of a higher degree with the University of Edinburgh. The first author received the Association of Surgeons in Training (ASiT) Edinburgh Surgery Online Bursary during the completion of the degree and this journal article. This updated systematic review finds appendicectomy before ulcerative colitis (UC) diagnosis reduces risk of future colectomy but increases the risk of colorectal malignancy. Incorporating a history of appendicectomy into IBD surveillance guidelines could be considered. A potential role for therapeutic appendicectomy in left-sided treatment refractory UC is also identified.

The incidence, operative difficulty and outcomes of staged versus index admission laparoscopic cholecystectomy and bile duct exploration for all comers: a review of 5750 patients.

BACKGROUND: The timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for emergency biliary admissions remains inconsistent with national and international guidelines. The perception that LC is difficult in acute cholecystitis and the popularity of the two-session approach to pancreatitis and suspected choledocholithiasis result in delayed management. METHODS: Analysis of prospectively maintained data in a unit adopting a policy of "intention to treat" during the index admission. The aim was to study the incidence of previous biliary admissions and compare the operative difficulty, complications and postoperative outcomes with patients who underwent index admission LC. RESULTS: Of the 5750 LC performed, 20.8% had previous biliary episodes resulting in one admission in 93% and two or more in 7%. Most presented with biliary colic (39.6%) and acute cholecystitis (27.6%). A previous biliary history was associated with increased operative difficulty (p < 0.001), longer operating times (86.9 vs. 68.1 min, p < 0.001), more postoperative complications (7.8% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.002) and longer hospital stay (8.1 vs. 5.5 days, p < 0.001) and presentation to resolution intervals. However, conversion and mortality rates showed no significant differences. CONCLUSION: Index admission LC is superior to interval cholecystectomy and should be offered to all patients fit for general anaesthesia regardless of the presenting complaints. Subspecialisation should be encouraged as a major factor in optimising resource utilisation and postoperative outcomes of biliary emergencies.