Search

Background: To describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to Intensive Care following vascular surgery, and their subsequent usage of Intensive Care resources, over a 15‐year period in Australia and New Zealand. Methods: This was a retrospective, bi‐national study of 69 676 adult patients admitted to 179 Intensive Care Unit (ICUs) following vascular surgery between January 2005 and December 2019, using the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database. Results: The proportion of ICU bed days used by vascular surgery patients decreased during the study period from 3.6% in 2005 to 2.9% in 2019 (P < 0.001). The cohort had a median age of 73 years, and were most frequently admitted after a carotid endarterectomy (22%) or elective open aneurysm repair (20%). A total of 5.2% of patients did not survive to discharge. Mean annual adjusted mortality decreased during the study period from 6.1% in 2005 to 3.7% in 2019 (P < 0.001). Multiple factors were associated with higher mortality, including gender, hospital case volume and hospital type. Conclusions: Between 2005 and 2019 survival for vascular surgery patients requiring ICU admission in Australia and New Zealand improved. During the same time the proportion of ICU bed days used by these patients decreased. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) reduce the risk of stroke in patients with severe carotid stenosis. The aim was to compare contemporary treatment trends and outcomes after CEA and CAS between states of Australia. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on data from the Australasian Vascular Audit between 2010 and 2017. The primary endpoint was perioperative stroke or death (S/D). We also analysed stroke and death independently and revascularization rates per 100 000 population. Results: A total of 15 413 patients underwent carotid revascularization (CEA 14 070; CAS 1343). S/D rates were similar for CEA and CAS (1.9% versus 1.8%; P = 0.37; symptomatic 2.1% versus 2.3%; P = 0.12; asymptomatic 1.5% versus 1.1%; P = 0.67). Patients ≥80 years (2.7% versus 1.7%; P = 0.01), those who had shunts (2.2% versus 1.7%; P = 0.03) or surgery in teaching hospitals (2.6% versus 1.4%; P = 0.02) had higher rates of S/D after CEA. Patients whose proceduralist used a cerebral protection device had lower S/D rates after CAS for symptomatic disease (4.8% versus 2.2%; P = 0.03). There was a wide variation in practice between states, where CAS as a proportion of total carotid procedures ranged from 0% to 17%, and a wide variation in outcomes, with rates of S/D varying between 1.4–6.6% for CEA and 0–6.7% after CAS. Conclusion: Outcomes after CAS are equivalent to CEA when performed by vascular surgeons, however significant variation exists for both choice of revascularization procedure and perioperative outcomes between states. Further investigation is needed to determine whether clinical care pathways should be revised to achieve consistency and quality of outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Australia and New Zealand, more than 2000 carotid endarterectomies are performed annually. The major morbidities arising from this procedure are post‐operative stroke, cranial nerve injury and death. Carotid endarterectomy surgery is a key component of the vascular surgical training programme. We assessed the impact of having a surgical trainee perform a major component of this procedure on the post‐operative rates of stroke, cranial nerve injury and mortality. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of vascular surgical patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy, with data obtained from the Australasian Vascular Audit database between January 2010 and December 2014. The dataset comprised of 6528 carotid endarterectomies performed during this time. The collected data were stratified into two categories – consultant‐led cases, and those in which trainee surgeons performed at least a major component of the surgery under consultant supervision. The results were analysed for differences in post‐operative stroke, cranial nerve injury and inpatient mortality. Differences between groups were assessed using multivariate analysis, adjusting for potentially confounding covariables. Results: On multivariate analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the rates of post‐operative stroke (odds ratio (OR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57–1.36, P = 0.55), cranial nerve injury (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.39–1.21, P = 0.19) or inpatient mortality (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.29–2.13, P = 0.63) between the two cohorts. Conclusion: Having surgical trainees perform components of carotid endarterectomies under supervision is not associated with an increased rate of post‐operative stroke, cranial nerve injury or mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The endovascular treatment of carotid atherosclerosis with carotid artery stenting (CAS) remains controversial. Carotid endarterectomy remains the benchmark in terms of procedural mortality and morbidity. At present, there are no consensus Australasian guidelines for the safe performance of CAS. Methods: We applied a modified Delphi consensus method of iterative consultation between the College representatives on the Carotid Stenting Guidelines Committee (CSGC). Results: Selection of patients suitable for CAS needs careful consideration of clinical and patho-anatomical criteria and cannot be directly extrapolated from clinical indicators for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Randomized controlled trials (including pooled analyses of results) comparing CAS with CEA for treatment of symptomatic stenosis have demonstrated that CAS is more hazardous than CEA. On current evidence, the CGSC therefore recommends that CAS should not be performed in the majority of patients requiring carotid revascularisation. The evidence for CAS in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis who are considered medically high risk is weak, and there is currently no evidence to support CAS as a treatment for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The use of distal protection devices during CAS remains controversial with increased risk of clinically silent stroke. The knowledge requirements for the safe performance of CAS include an understanding of the evidence base from randomized controlled trials, carotid and aortic arch anatomy and pathology, clinical stroke syndromes, the differing treatment options for stroke and carotid atherosclerosis, and recognition and management of periprocedural complications. It is critical that all patients being considered for a carotid intervention have adequate pre-procedural neuro-imaging and an independent, standardized neurological assessment before and after the procedure. Maintenance of proficiency in CAS requires active involvement in surgical/endovascular audit and continuing medical education programs. These standards should apply in the public and private health care settings. Conclusion: These guidelines represent the consensus of an inter-collegiate committee in order to direct appropriate patient selection and the range of cognitive and technical requirements to perform CAS. Advances in endovascular technologies and the results of randomized controlled trials will guide future revisions of these guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]