PACE: randomized, controlled, multicentre, multinational, phase III study of PLX-PAD for critical limb ischaemia in patients unsuitable for revascularization: randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Revascularization is the primary treatment modality for chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI), but is not feasible in all patients. PLX-PAD is an off-the-shelf, placental-derived, mesenchymal stromal cell-like cell therapy. This study aimed to evaluate whether PLX-PAD would increase amputation-free survival in people with CLTI who were not candidates for revascularization. METHODS: People with CLTI and minor tissue loss (Rutherford 5) who were unsuitable for revascularization were entered into a randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multinational, blinded, trial, in which PLX-PAD was compared with placebo (2 : 1 randomization), with 30 intramuscular injections (0.5 ml each) into the index leg on days 0 and 60. Planned follow-up was 12-36 months, and included vital status, amputations, lesion size, pain and quality-of-life assessments, haemodynamic parameters, and adverse events. RESULTS: Of 213 patients enrolled, 143 were randomized to PLX-PAD and 70 to placebo. Demographics and baseline characteristics were balanced. Most patients were Caucasian (96.2%), male (76.1%), and ambulatory (85.9%). Most patients (76.6%) reported at least one adverse event, which were mostly expected events in CLTI, such as skin ulcer or gangrene. The probability of major amputation or death was similar for placebo and PLX-PAD (33 and 28.6% respectively; HR 0.93, 95% c.i. 0.53 to 1.63; P = 0.788). Revascularization and complete wound healing rates were similar in the two groups. A post hoc analysis of a subpopulation of 121 patients with a baseline haemoglobin A1c level below 6.5% showed improved 12-month amputation-free survival (HR 0.46, 0.21 to 0.99; P = 0.048). CONCLUSION: Although there was no evidence that PLX-PAD reduced amputation-free survival in the entire study population, benefit was observed in patients without diabetes mellitus or whose diabetes was well controlled; this requires confirmation in further studies. Trial registration: NCT03006770 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov); 2015-005532-18 (EudraCT Clinical Trials register - Search for 2015-005532-18).

Effectiveness of bedside investigations to diagnose peripheral artery disease among people with diabetes mellitus: A systematic review.

As a progressive disease process, early diagnosis and ongoing monitoring and treatment of lower limb peripheral artery disease (PAD) is critical to reduce the risk of diabetes-related foot ulcer (DFU) development, non-healing of wounds, infection and amputation, in addition to cardiovascular complications. There are a variety of non-invasive tests available to diagnose PAD at the bedside, but there is no consensus as to the most diagnostically accurate of these bedside investigations or their reliability for use as a method of ongoing monitoring. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to first determine the diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive bedside tests for identifying PAD compared to an imaging reference test and second to determine the intra- and inter-rater reliability of non-invasive bedside tests in adults with diabetes. A database search of Medline and Embase was conducted from 1980 to 30 November 2022. Prospective and retrospective investigations of the diagnostic accuracy of bedside testing in people with diabetes using an imaging reference standard and reliability studies of bedside testing techniques conducted in people with diabetes were eligible. Included studies of diagnostic accuracy were required to report adequate data to calculate the positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) which were the primary endpoints. The quality appraisal was conducted using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies and Quality Appraisal of Reliability quality appraisal tools. From a total of 8517 abstracts retrieved, 40 studies met the inclusion criteria for the diagnostic accuracy component of the review and seven studies met the inclusion criteria for the reliability component of the review. Most studies investigated the diagnostic accuracy of ankle -brachial index (ABI) (N = 38). In people with and without DFU, PLRs ranged from 1.69 to 19.9 and NLRs from 0.29 to 0.84 indicating an ABI <0.9 increases the likelihood of disease (but the extent of the increase ranges from a small to large amount) and an ABI within the normal range (≥0.90 and <1.3) does not exclude PAD. For toe-brachial index (TBI), a threshold of <0.70 has a moderate ability to rule PAD in and out; however, this is based on limited evidence. Similarly, a small number of studies indicate that one or more monophasic Doppler waveforms in the pedal arteries is associated with the presence of PAD, whereas tri- or biphasic waveform suggests that PAD is less likely. Several forms of bedside testing may also be useful as adjunct tests and 7 studies were identified that investigated the reliability of bedside tests including ABI, toe pressure, TBI, transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcPO2 ) and pulse palpation. Inter-rater reliability was poor for pulse palpation and moderate for TcPO2. The ABI, toe pressure and TBI may have good inter- and intra-rater reliability, but margins of error are wide, requiring a large change in the measurement for it to be considered a true change rather than error. There is currently no single bedside test or a combination of bedside tests that has been shown to have superior diagnostic accuracy for PAD in people with diabetes with or without DFU. However, an ABI <0.9 or >1.3, TBI of <0.70, and absent or monophasic pedal Doppler waveforms are useful to identify the presence of disease. The ability of the tests to exclude disease is variable and although reliability may be acceptable, evidence of error in the measurements means test results that are within normal limits should be considered with caution and in the context of other vascular assessment findings (e.g., pedal pulse palpation and clinical signs) and progress of DFU healing.

Performance of non-invasive bedside vascular testing in the prediction of wound healing or amputation among people with foot ulcers in diabetes: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) confers a significantly increased risk of failure to heal and major lower limb amputation for people with diabetes-related foot ulcer (DFU). Determining performance of non-invasive bedside tests for predicting likely DFU outcomes is therefore key to effective risk stratification of patients with DFU and PAD to guide management decisions. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the performance of non-invasive bedside tests for PAD to predict DFU healing, healing post-minor amputation, or need for minor or major amputation in people with diabetes and DFU or gangrene. METHODS: A database search of Medline and Embase was conducted from 1980 to 30 November 2022. Prospective studies that evaluated non-invasive bedside tests in patients with diabetes, with and without PAD and foot ulceration or gangrene to predict the outcomes of DFU healing, minor amputation, and major amputation with or without revascularisation, were eligible. Included studies were required to have a minimum 6-month follow-up period and report adequate data to calculate the positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio for the outcomes of DFU healing, and minor and major amputation. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. RESULTS: From 14,820 abstracts screened 28 prognostic studies met the inclusion criteria. The prognostic tests evaluated by the studies included: ankle-brachial index (ABI) in 9 studies; ankle pressures in 10 studies, toe-brachial index in 4 studies, toe pressure in 9 studies, transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcPO2 ) in 7 studies, skin perfusion pressure in 5 studies, continuous wave Doppler (pedal waveforms) in 2 studies, pedal pulses in 3 studies, and ankle peak systolic velocity in 1 study. Study quality was variable. Common reasons for studies having a moderate or high risk of bias were poorly described study participation, attrition rates, and inadequate adjustment for confounders. In people with DFU, toe pressure ≥30 mmHg, TcPO2 ≥25 mmHg, and skin perfusion pressure of ≥40 mmHg were associated with a moderate to large increase in pretest probability of healing in people with DFU. Toe pressure ≥30 mmHg was associated with a moderate increase in healing post-minor amputation. An ABI using a threshold of ≥0.9 did not increase the pretest probability of DFU healing, whereas an ABI <0.5 was associated with a moderate increase in pretest probability of non-healing. Few studies investigated amputation outcomes. An ABI <0.4 demonstrated the largest increase in pretest probability of a major amputation (PLR ≥10). CONCLUSIONS: Prognostic capacity of bedside testing for DFU healing and amputation is variable. A toe pressure ≥30 mmHg, TcPO2 ≥25 mmHg, and skin perfusion pressure of ≥40 mmHg are associated with a moderate to large increase in pretest probability of healing in people with DFU. There are little data available evaluating the prognostic capacity of bedside testing for healing after minor amputation or for major amputation in people with DFU. Current evidence suggests that an ABI <0.4 may be associated with a large increase in risk of major amputation. The findings of this systematic review need to be interpreted in the context of limitations of available evidence, including varying rates of revascularisation, lack of post-revascularisation bedside testing, and heterogenous subpopulations.

Effectiveness of revascularisation for the ulcerated foot in patients with diabetes and peripheral artery disease: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with an increased likelihood of delayed or non-healing of a diabetes-related foot ulcer, gangrene, and amputation. The selection of the most effective surgical technique for revascularisation of the lower limb in this population is challenging and there is a lack of conclusive evidence to support the choice of intervention. This systematic review aimed to determine, in people with diabetes and tissue loss, if direct revascularisation is superior to indirect revascularisation and if endovascular revascularisation is superior to open revascularisation for the outcomes of wound healing, minor or major amputation, and adverse events including mortality. METHODS: Title and abstract searches of Medline, Embase, PubMed, and EBSCO were conducted from 1980 to 30th November 2022. Cohort and case-control studies and randomised controlled trials reporting comparative outcomes of direct (angiosome) revascularisation (DR) and indirect revascularisation (IR) or the comparative outcomes of endovascular revascularisation and open or hybrid revascularisation for the outcomes of healing, minor amputation, and major amputation in people with diabetes, PAD and tissue loss (including foot ulcer and/or gangrene) were eligible. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials, the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies, and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational and cohort studies where details regarding the allocation to intervention groups were not provided. RESULTS: From a total 7086 abstracts retrieved, 26 studies met the inclusion criteria for the comparison of direct angiosome revascularisation (DR) and indirect revascularisation (IR), and 11 studies met the inclusion criteria for the comparison of endovascular and open revascularisation. One study was included in both comparisons. Of the included studies, 35 were observational (31 retrospective and 4 prospective cohorts) and 1 was a randomised controlled trial. Cohort study quality was variable and generally low, with common sources of bias related to heterogeneous participant populations and interventions and lack of reporting of or adjusting for confounding factors. The randomised controlled trial had a low risk of bias. For studies of DR and IR, results were variable, and it is uncertain if one technique is superior to the other for healing, prevention of minor or major amputation, or mortality. However, the majority of studies reported that a greater proportion of participants receiving DR healed compared with IR, and that IR with collaterals may have similar outcomes to DR for wound healing. For patients with diabetes, infrainguinal PAD, and an adequate great saphenous vein available for use as a bypass conduit who were deemed suitable for either surgical procedure, an open revascularisation first approach was superior to endovascular therapy to prevent a major adverse limb event or death (Hazard Ratio: 0.72; 95% CI 0.61-0.86). For other studies of open and endovascular approaches, there was generally no difference in outcomes between the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of available evidence for the effectiveness of DR and IR and open and endovascular revascularisation for wound healing and prevention of minor and major amputation and adverse events including mortality in people with diabetes, PAD and tissue loss is inconclusive, and the certainty of evidence is very low. Data from one high quality randomised controlled trial supports the use of open over endovascular revascularisation to prevent a major limb event and death in people with diabetes, infrainguinal disease and tissue loss who have an adequate great saphenous vein available and who are deemed suitable for either approach.

Definitions and criteria for diabetes-related foot disease (IWGDF 2023 update).

Multiple disciplines are involved in the management of diabetes-related foot disease and a common vocabulary is essential for clear communication. Based on the systematic reviews of the literature that form the basis of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) Guidelines, the IWGDF has developed a set of definitions and criteria for diabetes-related foot disease. This document describes the 2023 update of these definitions and criteria. We suggest these definitions be used consistently in both clinical practice and research, to facilitate clear communication with people with diabetes-related foot disease and between professionals around the world.

The intersocietal IWGDF, ESVS, SVS guidelines on peripheral artery disease in people with diabetes and a foot ulcer.

Diabetes related foot complications have become a major cause of morbidity and are implicated in most major and minor amputations globally. Approximately 50% of people with diabetes and a foot ulcer have peripheral artery disease (PAD) and the presence of PAD significantly increases the risk of adverse limb and cardiovascular events. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes related foot complications since 1999. This guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis, prognosis and management of peripheral artery disease in people with diabetes mellitus and a foot ulcer. For this guideline the IWGDF, the European Society for Vascular Surgery and the Society for Vascular Surgery decided to collaborate to develop a consistent suite of recommendations relevant to clinicians in all countries. This guideline is based on three new systematic reviews. Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework clinically relevant questions were formulated, and the literature was systematically reviewed. After assessing the certainty of the evidence, recommendations were formulated which were weighed against the balance of benefits and harms, patient values, feasibility, acceptability, equity, resources required, and when available, costs. Through this process five recommendations were developed for diagnosing PAD in a person with diabetes, with and without a foot ulcer or gangrene. Five recommendations were developed for prognosis relating to estimating likelihood of healing and amputation outcomes in a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer or gangrene. Fifteen recommendations were developed related to PAD treatment encompassing prioritisation of people for revascularisation, the choice of a procedure and post-surgical care. In addition, the Writing Committee has highlighted key research questions where current evidence is lacking. The Writing Committee believes that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals to provide better care and will reduce the burden of diabetes related foot complications.

Editor's Choice - Prevalence of Smoking and Impact on Peri-Operative Outcomes After Elective Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: The contemporary burden of smoking in patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in the UK is unknown. This study aimed to quantify the prevalence of smoking in patients undergoing AAA repair in the UK and determine the association between smoking and peri-operative outcomes. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study. The National Vascular Registry was interrogated for adults undergoing elective infrarenal AAA repair from 2014 to 2021 for prevalence of current smokers, former smokers, and non-smokers over time. The primary outcomes were post-operative complications by smoking status. Secondary outcomes were variation in smoking rates over time and by hospital, in hospital mortality, and length of stay by smoking status. All analyses were adjusted using the validated British Aneurysm Repair score. RESULTS: Overall, 26 916 patients undergoing elective AAA repair were included (21.9% smokers, 62.2% former smokers, 15.9% non-smokers). The prevalence of smoking did not change over time, with a 2.4 fold variation between UK hospitals (range 13.0 - 31.8% excluding outliers). In hospital mortality was not significantly different between smokers, former smokers, and non-smokers (p > .050 for all comparisons). Compared with non-smokers, smoking was associated with increased overall (odds ratio [OR] 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24 - 1.57) and respiratory complications (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.63 - 2.39), limb ischaemia (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.19 - 2.23), bowel ischaemia (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.06 - 2.54), return to theatre (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.11 - 1.71), and intensive care admission (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.31 - 1.56). Compared with former smokers, smoking was associated with increased overall (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.14 - 1.36), respiratory (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27 - 1.63) and limb ischaemia complications (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.19 - 1.84), and intensive care admission (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.28 - 1.46). On analysis of the endovascular aneurysm repair subgroup, active smoking was associated with significantly higher rates of limb ischaemia compared with former and non-smokers (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.49 - 3.01 and OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.19 - 3.16 respectively). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of smoking remains high in patients undergoing elective AAA repair with no evidence of a decline in active smokers from 2014 to 2021 compared with the general UK population. Smoking is associated with increased peri-operative complication rates.

Systematic Review of Outcome Reporting for Interventions to Treat Patients with Acute Lower Limb Ischaemia.

OBJECTIVE: Inconsistencies in outcome data of therapeutic strategies for acute lower limb ischaemia (ALI) have hindered the synthesis of findings. A core outcome set (COS) may offer a solution to this problem by defining a minimum set of outcomes that are considered essential to all stakeholders involved. The first step in developing a COS is to review the previously reported outcomes on various treatment strategies for ALI. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to August 2023. REVIEW METHODS: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative framework, adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and was pre-registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022320073). Abstracts were independently screened by two authors for full text review. All outcomes and their definitions were extracted from selected papers. Outcomes with different terminologies were then categorised into an "agreed outcome term". The list of agreed outcomes was given a standardised outcome domain and core area using a 38 item standardised taxonomy. RESULTS: Of 6 184 articles identified, 176 relevant studies were included, yielding 1 325 verbatim outcomes. After deduplication, 72 unique verbatim outcomes were categorised into five broad outcome domains. Outcomes considered key to the evaluation of treatment of ALI were further categorised as delivery of care (19.4%), vascular outcomes (13.8%), and adverse events (12.5%). The three most frequently reported agreed outcomes were amputation (14.1%), mortality (12.3%), and general bleeding (11.6%). CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides an overview of currently reported outcomes in the literature of interventions for ALI. After categorisation into agreed outcome terms, 72 outcomes were identified that can be used in the development of a COS.

Exploring the Reporting Standards of Randomised Controlled Trials Involving Endovascular Interventions for Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular technology innovation requires rigorous evaluation in high quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, due to numerous methodological challenges, RCTs evaluating endovascular interventions are complex and potentially difficult to design, conduct, and report. This systematic review aimed to assess the quality of reporting of RCTs for endovascular interventions for lower limb peripheral arterial disease (PAD). DATA SOURCES AND REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to December 2021 was performed to identify RCTs including participants with PAD undergoing any infrainguinal lower limb endovascular intervention. Study data were extracted and assessed against the Consolidating Standards of Reporting Trials extension for Non-Pharmacological Treatments (CONSORT-NPT) and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklists. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise general study details and reporting standards of the trials. RESULTS: After screening 6 567 abstracts and 526 full text articles, 112 eligible studies were identified, reporting on 228 different endovascular devices and techniques. Details judged sufficient to replicate the investigated intervention were provided for 47 (21%) interventions. It was unclear whether the description was reported with sufficient details in a further 56 (24%), and the description was judged inadequate in 125 (55%). Any intervention descriptions were provided for 184 (81%), with variable levels of detail (some in 134 [59%] and precise in 50 [22%]). Standardisation of intervention or some aspect of this was reported in 25 (22%) trials, but only one specified that adherence to the study protocol would be monitored. CONCLUSION: The quality of the reporting standards of RCTs investigating lower limb endovascular treatments is severely limited because the interventions are poorly described, standardised, and reported. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022288214.

Declining Incidence of Major Lower-Extremity Amputations in the Northern Danish Region Between 2016 and 2021: The Impact of Diabetes and Preventive Vascular Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Preventing lower-extremity amputations (LEAs) is pivotal. In the present study, we aimed to examine the recent trends in nontraumatic LEAs seen in the Northern Danish Region. METHODS: Using data from the regional Business Intelligence unit, we identified all nontraumatic LEAs (n = 689) performed in people above 50 years of age in the Northern Danish Region between January 2016 and December 2021 (approximately 600,000 inhabitants). Persons with diabetes (n = 26,025) were identified based on International Classification of Diseases-10 codes and data from the National Health Insurance Service Registry, while preventive vascular procedures (n = 1,097) were identified using surgical codes. Major LEA was defined as any amputation above the ankle. Incidence rates were expressed as events per 1,000 person-years. Trends were described as differences between the periods 2016-2018 and 2019-2021. RESULTS: A total of 249 (36%) major LEAs were performed in people with diabetes. People with diabetes were younger (71 vs 77 years, P < 0.001) and more frequently male (70% versus 54%, P < 0.001). Between 2016-2018 and 2019-2021, the incidence of major LEA declined from 1.76 (95% CI: 1.75-1.76) to 1.39 (1.39-1.39) in people with diabetes and from 0.47 (0.47-0.47) to 0.20 (0.20-0.20) in people without diabetes (all P < 0.001). Simultaneously, the incidence of preventive vascular surgery increased from 2.26 (2.26-2.26) to 3.48 (3.48-3.48) in people with diabetes and declined slightly in people without 0.49 (0.49-0.49) to 0.47 (0.47-0.47) (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant declines in major LEA in both people with and without diabetes, most of the decline was driven by a large reduction in major LEAs in people without diabetes.

Diagnostic accuracy of alternative biomarkers for acute aortic syndrome: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: D-dimer is the only biomarker currently recommended in guidelines for the diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome (AAS). We undertook a systematic review to determine whether any alternative biomarkers could be useful in AAS diagnosis. METHODS: We searched electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) from inception to February 2024. Diagnostic studies were eligible if they examined biomarkers other than D-dimer for diagnosing AAS compared with a reference standard test in people presenting to the ED with symptoms of AAS. Case-control studies were identified but excluded due to high risk of bias. Selection of studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool were undertaken independently by at least two reviewers. We used narrative synthesis to summarise the findings. RESULTS: We identified 2017 citations, included 13 cohort studies (n=76-999), and excluded 38 case-control studies. Methodological quality was variable, with most included studies having unclear or high risk of bias and applicability concerns in at least one item of the QUADAS-2 tool. Only two studies reported biomarkers with sensitivity and specificity comparable to D-dimer (ie, >90% and >50%, respectively). Wang et al reported 99.1% sensitivity and 84.9% specificity for soluble ST2; however, these findings conflicted with estimates of 58% sensitivity and 70.8% specificity reported in another study. Chun and Siu reported 95.6% sensitivity and 56.1% specificity for neutrophil count, but this has not been confirmed elsewhere. CONCLUSION: There are many potential alternative biomarkers for AAS but few have been evaluated in more than one study, study designs are often weak and reported biomarker accuracy is modest or inconsistent between studies. Alternative biomarkers to D-dimer are not ready for routine clinical use. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022252121.

Consensus statement on the interhospital transfer of patients with acute aortic syndrome: TRAVERSING Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Standardisation of referral pathways and the transfer of patients with acute aortic syndromes (AAS) to regional centres are recommended by NHS England in the Acute Aortic Dissection Toolkit. The aim of the Transfer of Thoracic Aortic Vascular Emergencies to Regional Specialist INstitutes Group study was to establish an interdisciplinary consensus on the interhospital transfer of patients with AAS to specialist high-volume aortic centres. METHODS: Consensus on the key aspects of interhospital transfer of patients with AAS was established using the Delphi method, in line with Conducting and Reporting of Delphi Studies guidelines. A national patient charity for aortic dissection was involved in the design of the Delphi study. Vascular and cardiothoracic surgeons, emergency physicians, interventional radiologists, cardiologists, intensivists and anaesthetists in the United Kingdom were invited to participate via their respective professional societies. RESULTS: Three consecutive rounds of an electronic Delphi survey were completed by 212, 101 and 58 respondents, respectively. Using predefined consensus criteria, 60 out of 117 (51%) statements from the survey were included in the consensus statement. The study concluded that patients can be taken directly to a specialist aortic centre if they have typical symptoms of AAS on the background of known aortic disease or previous aortic intervention. Accepted patients should be transferred in a category 2 ambulance (response time <18 min), ideally accompanied by transfer-trained personnel or Adult Critical Care Transfer Services. A clear plan should be agreed in case of a cardiac arrest occurring during the transfer. Patients should reach the aortic centre within 4 hours of the initial referral from their local hospital. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus statement is the first set of national interdisciplinary recommendations on the interhospital transfer of patients with AAS. Its implementation is likely to contribute to safer and more standardised emergency referral pathways to regional high-volume specialist aortic units.

The intersocietal IWGDF, ESVS, SVS guidelines on peripheral artery disease in people with diabetes mellitus and a foot ulcer.

Diabetes related foot complications have become a major cause of morbidity and are implicated in most major and minor amputations globally. Approximately 50% of people with diabetes and a foot ulcer have peripheral artery disease (PAD) and the presence of PAD significantly increases the risk of adverse limb and cardiovascular events. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes related foot complications since 1999. This guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of peripheral artery disease in people with diabetes mellitus and a foot ulcer. For this updated guideline, the IWGDF, the European Society for Vascular Surgery, and the Society for Vascular Surgery decided to collaborate to develop a consistent suite of recommendations relevant to clinicians in all countries. This guideline is based on three new systematic reviews. Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework clinically relevant questions were formulated, and the literature was systematically reviewed. After assessing the certainty of the evidence, recommendations were formulated which were weighed against the balance of benefits and harms, patient values, feasibility, acceptability, equity, resources required, and when available, costs. Through this process five recommendations were developed for diagnosing PAD in a person with diabetes, with and without a foot ulcer or gangrene. Five recommendations were developed for prognosis relating to estimating likelihood of healing and amputation outcomes in a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer or gangrene. Fifteen recommendations were developed related to PAD treatment encompassing prioritisation of people for revascularisation, the choice of a procedure and post-surgical care. In addition, the Writing Committee has highlighted key research questions where current evidence is lacking. The Writing Committee believes that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals to provide better care and will reduce the burden of diabetes related foot complications.

Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation for Intermittent Claudication (NESIC): multicentre, randomized controlled trial.

METHODS: This was an open, multicentre, randomized controlled trial. Patients with intermittent claudication attending vascular surgery outpatient clinics were randomized (1:1) to receive either neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) or not in addition to local standard care available at study centres (best medical therapy alone or plus supervised exercise therapy (SET)). The objective of this trial was to investigate the clinical efficacy of an NMES device in addition to local standard care in improving walking distances in patients with claudication. The primary outcome was change in absolute walking distance, measured by a standardized treadmill test at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included intermittent claudication (IC) distance, adherence, quality of life, and haemodynamic changes. RESULTS: Of 200 participants randomized, 160 were included in the primary analysis (intention to treat, Tobit regression model). The square root of absolute walking distance was analysed (due to a right-skewed distribution) and, although adjunctive NMES improved it at 3 months, no statistically significant effect was observed. SET as local standard care seemed to improve distance compared to best medical therapy at 3 months (3.29 units; 95 per cent c.i., 1.77 to 4.82; P < 0.001). Adjunctive NMES improved distance in mild claudication (2.88 units; 95 per cent c.i., 0.51 to 5.25; P = 0.02) compared to local standard care at 3 months. No serious adverse events relating to the device were reported. CONCLUSION: Supervised exercise therapy is effective and NMES may provide further benefit in mild IC.This trial was supported by a grant from the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Program, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research partnership. Trial registration: ISRCTN18242823.

Patients with intermittent claudication experience pain in their legs during walking or exercise which ends with rest. This severely impairs physical activity and quality of life. Treatment for such patients typically involves best medical therapy, which includes exercise advice. This study aimed to determine whether a neuromuscular electrical stimulation device improved the walking distance of patients with intermittent claudication compared to local standard care available (which may include supervised exercise therapy) in a trial. Supervised exercise improved walking distances but there was no difference in those that received a device in this patient group.

Editor's Choice - Quality Assessment of European Society for Vascular Surgery Clinical Practice Guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: An increasing number of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have emerged over recent years. To have clinical utility, they need to be rigorously developed and scientifically robust. Instruments have been developed to assess the quality of clinical guideline development and reporting. The aim of this study was to evaluate CPGs from the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. METHODS: CPGs published by the ESVS during the period January 2011 to January 2023 were included. Two independent reviewers assessed the guidelines after receiving training in the use and application of the AGREE II instrument. Inter-reviewer reliability was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient. Maximum scaled scores were 100. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics v.26. RESULTS: Sixteen guidelines were included in the study. Good inter-reviewer score reliability was found on statistical analysis (> 0.9). The mean ± standard deviation domain scores were 68.1 ± 20.3% for scope and purpose, 57.1 ± 21.1% for stakeholder involvement, 67.8 ± 19.5% for rigour of development, 78.1 ± 20.6% for clarity of presentation, 50.3 ± 15.4% for applicability, 77.6 ± 17.6% for editorial independence, and 69.8 ± 20.1% for overall quality. Stakeholder involvement and applicability have improved in quality over time but are still the lowest scoring domains. CONCLUSION: Most ESVS clinical guidelines are of high quality and reporting. There is scope for improvement, specifically by addressing the domains of stakeholder involvement and clinical applicability.

The Intersocietal IWGDF, ESVS, SVS Guidelines on Peripheral Artery Disease in People With Diabetes Mellitus and a Foot Ulcer.

Diabetes related foot complications have become a major cause of morbidity and are implicated in most major and minor amputations globally. Approximately 50% of people with diabetes and a foot ulcer have peripheral artery disease (PAD) and the presence of PAD significantly increases the risk of adverse limb and cardiovascular events. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes related foot complications since 1999. This guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of peripheral artery disease in people with diabetes mellitus and a foot ulcer. For this updated guideline, the IWGDF, the European Society for Vascular Surgery, and the Society for Vascular Surgery decided to collaborate to develop a consistent suite of recommendations relevant to clinicians in all countries. This guideline is based on three new systematic reviews. Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework clinically relevant questions were formulated, and the literature was systematically reviewed. After assessing the certainty of the evidence, recommendations were formulated which were weighed against the balance of benefits and harms, patient values, feasibility, acceptability, equity, resources required, and when available, costs. Through this process five recommendations were developed for diagnosing PAD in a person with diabetes, with and without a foot ulcer or gangrene. Five recommendations were developed for prognosis relating to estimating likelihood of healing and amputation outcomes in a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer or gangrene. Fifteen recommendations were developed related to PAD treatment encompassing prioritisation of people for revascularisation, the choice of a procedure and post-surgical care. In addition, the Writing Committee has highlighted key research questions where current evidence is lacking. The Writing Committee believes that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals to provide better care and will reduce the burden of diabetes related foot complications.

Systematic review and narrative synthesis of surveillance practices after endovascular intervention for lower limb peripheral arterial disease.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal timing and modality of surveillance after endovascular intervention for peripheral arterial disease is controversial, and no randomized trial to assess the value of peripheral endovascular intervention has ever been performed. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the practice of surveillance after peripheral endovascular intervention in randomized trials. METHODS: We used the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and WHO trial registry databases in this systematic review of the literature to capture surveillance strategies used in randomized trials comparing endovascular interventions. Surveillance protocols were assessed for completeness, modalities used, duration, and intensity. RESULTS: Ninety-six different surveillance protocols were reported in 103 trials comparing endovascular interventions. Protocol specification was incomplete in 32% of trials. The majority of trials used multiple surveillance modalities (mean of 3.46 modalities), most commonly clinical examination (96%), ankle-brachial index (80%), duplex ultrasound examination (75%), and digital subtraction angiography (51%). Trials involving infrapopliteal lesions used more angiographic surveillance than trials with femoropopliteal lesions (P = .006). The median number of surveillance visits in the first 12 months after intervention was three and the mean surveillance duration was 21 months. Trials treating infrapopliteal vessels had a higher surveillance intensity compared with those treating femoropopliteal lesions in the first 12 months after endovascular intervention (mean 5 vs 3 surveillance visits; P = .017). Trials with drug-eluting devices had longer surveillance duration compared with those without (mean 26 vs 19 months; P = .020). CONCLUSIONS: There is a high level of variation in the modality, duration, and intensity of surveillance protocols used in randomized trials comparing different types of peripheral endovascular arterial intervention. Further research is required to determine the value and impact of postprocedural surveillance on patient outcomes.

Impact of the first wave of COVID-19 on outcomes following emergency admissions for common acute surgical conditions: analysis of a national database in England.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the impact of the first COVID-19 wave in England on outcomes for acute appendicitis, gallstone disease, intestinal obstruction, diverticular disease, and abdominal wall hernia. METHODS: Emergency surgical admissions for patients aged 18 years and older to 124 NHS Trust hospitals between January and June in 2019 and 2020 were extracted from Hospital Episode Statistics. The risk of 90-day mortality after admission during weeks 11-19 in 2020 (national lockdown) and 2019 (pre-COVID-19) was estimated using multilevel logistic regression with case-mix adjustment. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 90 days. RESULTS: There were 12 231 emergency admissions and 564 deaths within 90 days during weeks 11-19 in 2020, compared with 18 428 admissions and 542 deaths in the same interval in 2019. Overall, 90-day mortality was higher in 2020 versus 2019, with an adjusted OR of 1.95 (95 per cent c.i. 0.78 to 4.89) for appendicitis, 2.66 (1.81 to 3.92) for gallstone disease, 1.99 (1.44 to 2.74) for diverticular disease, 1.70 (1.13 to 2.55) for hernia, and 1.22 (1.01 to 1.47) for intestinal obstruction. After emergency surgery, 90-day mortality was higher in 2020 versus 2019 for gallstone disease (OR 3.37, 1.26 to 9.02), diverticular disease (OR 2.35, 1.16 to 4.73), and hernia (OR 2.34, 1.23 to 4.45). For intestinal obstruction, the corresponding OR was 0.91 (0.59 to 1.41). For admissions not leading to emergency surgery, mortality was higher in 2020 versus 2019 for gallstone disease (OR 2.55, 1.67 to 3.88), diverticular disease (1.90, 1.32 to 2.73), and intestinal obstruction (OR 1.30, 1.06 to 1.60). CONCLUSION: Emergency admission was reduced during the first lockdown in England and this was associated with higher 90-day mortality.

Healthcare organization policy recommendations for the governance of surgical innovation: review of NHS policies.

BACKGROUND: The governance for introducing innovative surgical procedures/devices differs from the research requirements needed for new drugs. New invasive procedures/devices may be offered to patients outside of research protocols with local organization oversight alone. Such institutional arrangements exist in many countries and written policies provide guidance for their use, but little is known about their scope or standards. METHODS: One hundred and fifty acute NHS trusts in England and seven health boards in Wales were systematically approached for information about their policies. A modified framework approach was used to analyse when policies considered new procedures/devices to be within local organization remit and/or requiring research ethics committee (REC) approval. RESULTS: Of 113 policies obtained, 109 and 34 described when local organization and REC approval was required, respectively. Procedures/devices being used for the first time in the organization (n = 69) or by a clinician (n = 67) were commonly within local remit, and only 36 stated that evidence was required. Others stated limited evidence as a rationale for needing REC approval (n = 13). External guidance categorizing procedures as 'research only' was the most common reason for gaining REC approval (n = 15). Procedures/devices with uncertain outcomes (n = 28), requiring additional training (n = 26), and not previously used (n = 6) were within the remit of policies, while others recommended REC application in these situations (n = 5, 2 and 7, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study on NHS policies for surgical innovation shows variability in the introduction of procedures/devices in terms of local oversight and/or need for REC approval. Current NHS standards allow untested innovations to occur without the safety of research oversight and thus a standard approach is urgently needed.

Editor's Choice - Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Randomised Controlled Trials Supporting Implantable Devices for Vascular and Endovascular Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: To identify implantable devices currently used for vascular and endovascular procedures, to ascertain how many have randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence available, and to assess the quality of that evidence. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, DARE, PROSPERO, clinical trial registries, and Cochrane databases. REVIEW METHODS: A list of current devices used in both vascular and endovascular procedures was generated by searching conference proceedings, manufacturer catalogues, and websites. MEDLINE, Embase, DARE, PROSPERO, clinical trial registries, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception up to June 2020. The primary outcome was the availability of RCTs to support the use of a vascular implantable device. RCTs were then quality assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: A total of 116 current vascular implantable devices were identified. The systematic literature review identified 165 RCTs. Eighty-three of the RCTs (50.3%) applied to 33 of the 116 (28.4%) current implantable devices. When grouped by device type, eight of the 13 types (62%) had at least one RCT performed. There was a high risk of bias across the majority of the RCTs, with only nine (5.4%) deemed to be at low risk of bias. Only 22 (13.3%) RCTs had a clear safety outcome. CONCLUSION: Sixty-two per cent of implantable device types for use in vascular and endovascular interventions had at least one RCT available to show equivalence to previous devices or safety. RCTs were generally of low quality and are decreasing in frequency with time. With medical implantable device failure being increasingly recognised as causing significant harm to patients worldwide, there is a clear need for a more robust implantable device regulation and approval systems.