Explore the vast range of titles available.

The outcome of patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) varies by country. Study of practice differences might allow the formulation of pathways to improve care. We compared data from the Hospital Episode Statistics for England and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample for the USA for patients admitted to hospital with rAAA from 2005 to 2010. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, mortality after intervention, and decision to follow non-corrective treatment. In-hospital mortality and the rate of non-corrective treatment were analysed by binary logistic regression for each health-care system, after adjustment for age, sex, year, and Charlson comorbidity index. The study included 11 799 patients with rAAA in England and 23 838 patients with rAAA in the USA. In-hospital mortality was lower in the USA than in England (53·05% [95% CI 51·26–54·85] vs 65·90%; p<0·0001). Intervention (open or endovascular repair) was offered to a greater proportion of cases in the USA than in England (19 174 [80·43%] vs 6897 [58·45%]; p<0·0001) and endovascular repair was more common in the USA than in England (4003 [20·88%] vs 589 [8·54%]; p<0·0001). Postintervention mortality was similar in both countries (41·77% for England and 41·65% for USA). These observations persisted in age-matched and sex-matched comparisons. In both countries, reduced mortality was associated with increased use of endovascular repair, increased hospital caseload (volume) for rAAA, high hospital bed capacity, hospitals with teaching status, and admission on a weekday. In-hospital survival from rAAA, intervention rates, and uptake of endovascular repair are lower in England than in the USA. In England and the USA, the lowest mortality for rAAA was seen in teaching hospitals with larger bed capacities and doing a greater proportion of cases with endovascular repair. These common factors suggest strategies for improving outcomes for patients with rAAA. None.

The aims of this study were to describe the key features of acute NHS Trusts with different levels of research activity and to investigate associations between research activity and clinical outcomes. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Comprehensive Clinical Research Network (CCRN) funding and number of patients recruited to NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN) portfolio studies for each NHS Trusts were used as markers of research activity. Patient-level data for adult non-elective admissions were extracted from the English Hospital Episode Statistics (2005-10). Risk-adjusted mortality associations between Trust structures, research activity and, clinical outcomes were investigated. Low mortality Trusts received greater levels of funding and recruited more patients adjusted for size of Trust (n = 35, 2,349 £/bed [95% CI 1,855-2,843], 5.9 patients/bed [2.7-9.0]) than Trusts with expected (n = 63, 1,110 £/bed, [864-1,357] p<0.0001, 2.6 patients/bed [1.7-3.5] p<0.0169) or, high (n = 42, 930 £/bed [683-1,177] p = 0.0001, 1.8 patients/bed [1.4-2.1] p<0.0005) mortality rates. The most research active Trusts were those with more doctors, nurses, critical care beds, operating theatres and, made greater use of radiology. Multifactorial analysis demonstrated better survival in the top funding and patient recruitment tertiles (lowest vs. highest (odds ratio & 95% CI: funding 1.050 [1.033-1.068] p<0.0001, recruitment 1.069 [1.052-1.086] p<0.0001), middle vs. highest (funding 1.040 [1.024-1.055] p<0.0001, recruitment 1.085 [1.070-1.100] p<0.0001). Research active Trusts appear to have key differences in composition than less research active Trusts. Research active Trusts had lower risk-adjusted mortality for acute admissions, which persisted after adjustment for staffing and other structural factors.

Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are a localized dilatation of the aorta that represents a systemic disease process. Mortality associated with a ruptured AAA is high, but no tests to predict the risk of rupture currently exist. In this Review, Nordon and colleagues outline the pathophysiology and epidemiology of AAA and the risk factors for this condition. They also discuss factors that influence the outcome of patients with AAA after surgical management. Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are found in up to 8% of men aged >65 years, yet usually remain asymptomatic until they rupture. Rupture of an AAA and its associated catastrophic physiological insult carries overall mortality in excess of 80%, and 2% of all deaths are AAA-related. Pathologically, AAAs are associated with inflammation, smooth muscle cell apoptosis, and matrix degradation. Once thought to be a consequence of advanced atherosclerosis, accruing evidence indicates that AAAs are a focal representation of a systemic disease of the vasculature. Risk factors for AAAs include increasing age, male sex, smoking, and low HDL-cholesterol levels. Familial associations exist and although susceptibility genes have been described on the basis of candidate-gene studies, robust genetic studies have failed to discover causative gene mutations. The surgical management of AAAs has been revolutionized by minimally invasive endovascular repair. Ongoing randomized trials will establish whether endovascular repair confers a survival advantage over open surgery for patients with a ruptured AAA. In many countries, centralization of vascular surgical services has largely been driven by the improved outcomes of elective aneurysm surgery in specialized centers, the widespread adoption of endovascular techniques, and the introduction of screening programs. Key Points Abdominal aortic aneurysms are a local representation of a systemic disease process Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms continue to be associated with high mortality Screening programs target men aged >65 years, as this group is at highest risk of developing an abdominal aortic aneurysm The diameter of an abdominal aortic aneurysm is currently the only validated measure of rupture risk Endovascular repair has substantially reduced perioperative morbidity and mortality of abdominal aortic aneurysms Centralization of vascular surgical services has led to improved outcomes among patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm

Antiplatelet therapy following peripheral arterial endovascular intervention lacks high quality evidence to guide practice. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of three months of dual antiplatelet therapy on amputation-free survival following peripheral arterial endovascular intervention in patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia. A retrospective review of symptomatic patients undergoing primary peripheral arterial endovascular intervention over a seven-year period was performed. The primary outcome measure was amputation-free survival. A sample size calculation based on previous cohort studies suggested that 629 limbs would be required to show a difference between single and dual therapy. Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariate logistic regression analysis of recorded baseline characteristics was performed to determine predictors of amputation-free survival. Dual antiplatelet therapy was routinely given for 3 months. 754 limbs were treated with primary angioplasty and/or stenting over a 7-year period, 508 of these for chronic limb threatening ischemia. There was no difference in unadjusted amputation-free survival between patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia taking single vs. dual antiplatelet therapy (69% vs. 74% respectively Log rank Chi.sup.2 = 0.1, p = .72). After adjusting for confounders, at 1 year there was also no significant difference in amputation-free survival between patients taking single vs. dual antiplatelet therapy [OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.2, p = .3]. There was no difference in rates of major bleeding between single and dual antiplatelet therapy. There was no clear evidence of reduced amputation-free survival in patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia undergoing peripheral arterial endovascular intervention being treated with dual antiplatelet therapy for 3 months. This is at odds with other retrospective case series and highlights the limitations in basing clinical practice on such data. There is a need for an adequately powered, independent randomised trial to definitively answer the question.

Identifying individuals with diabetes at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains challenging. We aimed to establish whether peripheral neuropathy (PN) is associated with incident CVD events and to what extent information on PN may improve risk prediction among individuals with type 2 diabetes. We obtained data for individuals with type 2 diabetes, and free of CVD, from a large primary care patient cohort. Incident CVD events were recorded during a 30-month follow-up period. Eligible individuals had complete ascertainment of cardiovascular risk factors and PN status at baseline. The association between PN and incident CVD events (non-fatal myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation, congestive cardiac failure, transient ischaemic attack and stroke) was evaluated using Cox regression, adjusted for standard CVD risk factors. We assessed the predictive accuracy of models including conventional CVD risk factors with and without information on PN. Among 13 043 eligible individuals, we recorded 407 deaths from any cause and 399 non-fatal CVD events. After adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, systolic blood pressure, cholesterol, body mass index, HbA1c, smoking status and use of statin or antihypertensive medication, PN was associated with incident CVD events (HR 1.33; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.75, p=0.04). The addition of information on PN to a model based on standard CVD risk factors resulted in modest improvements in discrimination for CVD risk prediction and reclassified 6.9% of individuals into different risk categories. PN is associated with increased risk for a first cardiovascular event among individuals with diabetes.

This Commentary highlights the under-recognized prevalence and heavy burden of peripheral artery disease (PAD) and its important role as a harbinger of complications of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Although increasing in prevalence globally, PAD is being further accelerated with diabetes, and patients with advanced PAD are at high risk for chronic limb-threatening ischemia. The need for (repeated) revascularization and amputation places a heavy social burden on patients and family, and a heavy financial burden on the health care system, exceeding the cost of coronary artery and cerebrovascular diseases. Clinical trial research in PAD will be enhanced by widely agreed-upon definitions of major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse limb events. Antithrombotic and lipid-lowering therapies are recommended but underutilized, while the optimal peri-interventional antithrombotic regimen is still under debate. Additional antiinflammatory treatment is currently an unaddressed strategy in the management of patients with PAD, and there is a strong case for the evaluation of widely available antiinflammatory agents such as colchicine.

IntroductionEndovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) requires long-term surveillance to detect and treat postoperative complications. However, prediction models to optimise follow-up strategies are still lacking. The primary objective of this study is to develop predictive models of post-operative outcomes following elective EVAR using Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven analysis. The secondary objective is to investigate morphological aortic changes following EVAR.Methods and analysisThis international, multicentre, observational study will retrospectively include 500 patients who underwent elective EVAR. Primary outcomes are EVAR postoperative complications including deaths, re-interventions, endoleaks, limb occlusion and stent-graft migration occurring within 1 year and at mid-term follow-up (1 to 3 years). Secondary outcomes are aortic anatomical changes. Morphological changes following EVAR will be analysed and compared based on preoperative and postoperative CT angiography (CTA) images (within 1 to 12 months, and at the last follow-up) using the AI-based software PRAEVAorta 2 (Nurea). Deep learning algorithms will be applied to stratify the risk of postoperative outcomes into low or high-risk categories. The training and testing dataset will be respectively composed of 70% and 30% of the cohort.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol is designed to ensure that the sponsor and the investigators comply with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the ICH E6 good clinical practice guideline. The study has been approved by the ethics committee of the University Hospital of Patras (Patras, Greece) under the number 492/05.12.2024. The results of the study will be presented at relevant national and international conferences and submitted for publication to peer-review journals.

ObjectivesComprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is a complex intervention applied to older people with evidence of benefit in medical populations. The aim of this systematic review was to describe how CGA is applied to surgical populations in randomised controlled trials. This will provide a basis for design of future studies focused on optimising CGA as a complex intervention.SettingA systematic review of randomised controlled trials.ParticipantsA systematic search was performed for studies of CGA in the perioperative period across Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane CENTRAL, from inception to March 2021.InterventionsAny randomised controlled trials of perioperative CGA versus ‘standard care’ were included.Outcome measuresQualitative description of CGA.Results12 121 titles and abstracts were screened, 68 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and 22 articles included, reporting on 13 trials. 10 trials focused on inpatients with hip fracture, with 7 of these delivering CGA on a geriatric medicine ward, 3 on a surgical ward. The remaining three trials were in elective general surgery all delivering CGA on a surgical ward. CGA components, duration of intervention and personnel delivering the intervention were highly variable across the different studies. Trials favoured postoperative delivery of CGA (11/13). Only four trials reported data on adherence to the CGA intervention.ConclusionsCGA as an intervention is variably described and delivered in randomised controlled trials in the perioperative setting. The reporting of both the intervention and standard care is often poor with little focus on adherence. Future research should focus on clearly defining and standardising the intervention as well as measuring adherence within trials.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020221797.

The use of digital technology is increasing rapidly across surgical specialities, yet there is no consensus for the term ‘digital surgery’. This is critical as digital health technologies present technical, governance, and legal challenges which are unique to the surgeon and surgical patient. We aim to define the term digital surgery and the ethical issues surrounding its clinical application, and to identify barriers and research goals for future practice. 38 international experts, across the fields of surgery, AI, industry, law, ethics and policy, participated in a four-round Delphi exercise. Issues were generated by an expert panel and public panel through a scoping questionnaire around key themes identified from the literature and voted upon in two subsequent questionnaire rounds. Consensus was defined if >70% of the panel deemed the statement important and <30% unimportant. A final online meeting was held to discuss consensus statements. The definition of digital surgery as the use of technology for the enhancement of preoperative planning, surgical performance, therapeutic support, or training, to improve outcomes and reduce harm achieved 100% consensus agreement. We highlight key ethical issues concerning data, privacy, confidentiality and public trust, consent, law, litigation and liability, and commercial partnerships within digital surgery and identify barriers and research goals for future practice. Developers and users of digital surgery must not only have an awareness of the ethical issues surrounding digital applications in healthcare, but also the ethical considerations unique to digital surgery. Future research into these issues must involve all digital surgery stakeholders including patients.