Search

OBJECTIVE We sought to investigate whether a volume-outcome relationship exists for lower extremity arterial bypass (LEAB) surgery. METHODS All LEAB procedures performed in England between 2002 and 2006 were identified from Hospital Episode Statistics data. A Charlson-type risk profile, including operating hospital annual case volume, was identified per patient. Outcome measures of revision bypass, amputation, death and a composite measure were established during the index admission and at 1 year.Quintile analysis and multilevel multivariate modeling were used to identify the existence of a volume-outcome relationship and allow adjustment of results for significant determinants of outcome. RESULTS A total of 27,660 femoropopliteal bypass and 4161 femorodistal bypass procedures were identified.As volume increased, in-hospital mortality after popliteal bypass decreased from 6.5% to 4.9% (P = 0.0045), with a corresponding odds ratio of 0.980 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.929-0.992; P = 0.014] for every increase of 50 patients per year. Major amputation decreased from 4.1% to 3.2% (P = 0.006) in high-volume hospitals, with a reduction in risk of 0.955 (95% CI, 0.928-0.983; P = 0.002) at 1 year.For distal bypass, in-hospital mortality decreased from 9.8% to 5.5% (P = 0.004) and 1-year major amputation decreased from 25.4% to 18.2% (P < 0.001), with a corresponding odds ratio of 0.658 (95% CI, 0.517-0.838; P < 0.0001) as the volume increased.An increase in the chance of revision surgery (10.6% vs 8.2%, P < 0.001) was seen with higher volume, with an increased odds ratio of 1.031 (95% CI, 1.005-1.057; P = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS A positive volume-outcome relationship exists for LEAB procedures even after employing multilevel risk adjustment models. There are benefits in terms of mortality and limb salvage both in the short-term and at 1 year postsurgery.

Background Endovenous ablation of varicose veins using radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and endovenous laser therapy (EVLT) has reported advantages over traditional open surgical treatment. There is little evidence comparing the efficacy and patient-reported outcomes between the 2 endovenous solutions. This study compares the RFA and EVLT strategies in a prospective double-blind clinical trial. Methods Consecutive patients with primary unilateral great saphenous vein (GSV) reflux undergoing endovenous treatment were randomized to RFA (VNUS ClosureFAST) or EVLT (810-nm diode laser). The primary outcome measure was GSV occlusion at 3 months after treatment. Secondary outcome measures were occlusion at 7 days, postoperative pain, analgesic requirement, and bruising, assessed at day 7 after surgery. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed preoperatively and 3 months after surgery using the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ) and EQ-5D. Results A total of 159 patients were randomized to RFA (79 patients) or EVLT (80 patients). Groups were well matched for demographics, disease extent, severity, and preoperative QoL. Duplex scanning confirmed 100% vein occlusion at 1 week in both groups. At 3 months, occlusion was 97% for RFA and 96% for EVLT; P = 0.67. Median (interquartile range) percentage above-knee bruise area was greater after EVLT 3.85% (6.1) than after RFA 0.6% (2); P = 0.0001. Postoperative pain assessed at each of the first 7 postoperative days was less after RFA (P = 0.001). Changes in the AVVQ (P = 0.12) and EQ-5D (P = 0.66) at 3 months were similar in both groups. Conclusions RFA and EVLT offer comparable venous occlusion rates at 3 months after treatment of primary GSV varices; with neither modality proving superior. RFA is associated with less periprocedural pain, analgesic requirement, and bruising. Registration number ISRCTN63135694 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

studies, as well as a formal meta-analysis. Primary outcomes were graft patency and wound infection. Secondary outcomes were overall wound complications, length of stay and cost-effectiveness. Results: 19 studies were reviewed, with evidence of considerable heterogeneity. Meta-analysis revealed a significantly reduced rate of primary patency in EVH (HR 1.294, 95% CI 1.027-1.630), with no significant difference with respect to wound infection (OR 0.972 95% CI 0.9311.014). Conclusions: EVH reduces primary patency rates after LEAB, but did not demonstrate a clear advantage with respect to wound complications. However the available data are heterogeneous and uncertainty is introduced by both evolution in technology and increasing technical experience. EVH should be used with caution and in the context of formal research.

To quantitatively summarize the incidence of misdiagnosis of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA), the most common presenting features, and the commonest incorrect differential diagnoses.A systematic search according to PRISMA guidelines was performed using EMBASE and MEDLINE databases to identify studies reporting the initial rate of misdiagnosis of patients with rAAA. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate the rate of misdiagnosis, presenting features, and commonest differential diagnoses. A sensitivity analysis was performed for studies reporting after 1990.Nine studies comprising 1109 patients contributed to the pooled analysis, which found a 42% incidence of rAAA misdiagnosis (95% CI 29% to 55%). In studies reporting after 1990, misdiagnosis was seen in 32% (95% CI 16% to 49%). The most common erroneous differential diagnoses were ureteric colic and myocardial infarction. Abdominal pain, shock, and a pulsatile mass were presenting features in 61% (49%-72%), 46% (32%-61%), and 45% (29%-62%) of rAAAs, respectively.The rate of misdiagnosis of rAAA has remained consistent over time and is concerning. There is a need for an effective clinical decision tool to enable accurate diagnosis and triage at the scene of the emergency.