| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Antoniou, George A., et al.
(författare)
-
European society for vascular surgery clinical practice guideline development scheme : an overview of evidence quality assessment methods, evidence to decision frameworks, and reporting standards in guideline development
- 2022
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. - : Elsevier. - 1078-5884 .- 1532-2165. ; 63:6, s. 791-799
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: A structured and transparent approach is instrumental in translating research evidence to health recommendations and evidence informed clinical decisions. The aim was to conduct an overview and analysis of principles and methodologies for health guideline development.Methods: A literature review on methodologies, strategies, and fundamental steps in the process of guideline development was performed. The clinical practice guideline development process and methodology adopted by the European Society for Vascular Surgery are also presented.Results: Sophisticated methodologies for health guideline development are being applied increasingly by national and international organisations. Their overarching principle is a systematic, structured, transparent, and iterative process that is aimed at making well informed healthcare choices. Critical steps in guideline development include the assessment of the certainty of the body of evidence; evidence to decision frameworks; and guideline reporting. The goal of strength of evidence assessments is to provide well reasoned judgements about the guideline developers’ confidence in study findings, and several evidence hierarchy schemes and evidence rating systems have been described for this purpose. Evidence to decision frameworks help guideline developers and users conceptualise and interpret the construct of the quality of the body of evidence. The most widely used evidence to decision frameworks are those developed by the GRADE Working Group and the WHO-INTEGRATE, and are structured into three distinct components: background; assessment; and conclusions. Health guideline reporting tools are employed to ensure methodological rigour and transparency in guideline development. Such reporting instruments include the AGREE II and RIGHT, with the former being used for guideline development and appraisal, as well as reporting.Conclusion: This guide will help guideline developers/expert panels enhance their methodology, and patients/clinicians/policymakers interpret guideline recommendations and put them in context. This document may be a useful methodological summary for health guideline development by other societies and organisations.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Janko, Matthew R., et al.
(författare)
-
In situ bypass and extra-anatomic bypass procedures result in similar survival in patients with secondary aortoenteric fistulas
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Vascular Surgery. - : Elsevier. - 0741-5214 .- 1097-6809. ; 73:1, s. 210-221.e1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: The optimal revascularization modality in secondary aortoenteric fistula (SAEF) remains unclear in the literature. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the revascularization approach associated with the lowest morbidity and mortality using real-world data in patients with SAEF. Methods: A retrospective, multi-institutional study of SAEF from 2002 to 2014 was performed using a standardized database. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, and operative and postoperative variables were recorded. The primary outcome was long-term mortality. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Results: During the study period, 182 patients at 34 institutions from 11 countries presented with SAEF (median age, 72 years; 79% male). The initial aortic procedures that resulted in SAEF were 138 surgical grafts (76%) and 42 endografts (23%), with 2 unknown; 102 of the SAEFs (56%) underwent complete excision of infected aortic graft material, followed by in situ (in-line) bypass (ISB), including antibiotic-soaked prosthetic graft (53), autogenous femoral vein (neoaortoiliac surgery; 17), cryopreserved allograft (28), and untreated prosthetic grafts (4). There were 80 patients (44%) who underwent extra-anatomic bypass (EAB) with infected graft excision. Overall median Kaplan-Meier estimated survival was 319 days (interquartile range, 20-2410 days). Stratified by EAB vs ISB, there was no significant difference in Kaplan-Meier estimated survival (P = .82). In comparing EAB vs ISB, EAB patients were older (74 vs 70 years; P = .01), had less operative hemorrhage (1200 mL vs 2000 mL; P = .04), were more likely to initiate dialysis within 30 days postoperatively (15% vs 5%; P = .02), and were less likely to experience aorta-related hemorrhage within 30 days postoperatively (3% aortic stump dehiscence vs 11% anastomotic rupture; P = .03). There were otherwise no significant differences in presentation, comorbidities, and intraoperative or postoperative variables. Multivariable Cox regression showed that the duration of antibiotic use (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.98; P = .01) and rifampin use at time of discharge (hazard ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.86; P = .03) independently decreased mortality. Conclusions: These data suggest that ISB does not offer a survival advantage compared with EAB and does not decrease the risk of postoperative aorta-related hemorrhage. After repair, <50% of SAEF patients survive 10-months. Each week of antibiotic use decreases mortality by 8%. Further study with risk modeling is imperative for this population. (J Vasc Surg 2021;73:210-21.)
|
|
| 8. |
- Janko, Matthew R., et al.
(författare)
-
In-situ bypass is associated with superior infection-free survival compared with extra-anatomic bypass for the management of secondary aortic graft infections without enteric involvement
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Vascular Surgery. - : Elsevier. - 0741-5214 .- 1097-6809. ; 76:2, s. 546-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: The optimal revascularization modality following complete resection of aortic graft infection (AGI) without enteric involvement remains unclear. The purpose of this investigation is to determine the revascularization approach associated with the lowest morbidity and mortality using real-world data in patients undergoing complete excision of AGI. Methods: A retrospective, multi-institutional study of AGI from 2002 to 2014 was performed using a standardized database. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, and perioperative variables were recorded. The primary outcome was infection-free survival. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. Results: A total of 241 patients at 34 institutions from seven countries presented with AGI during the study period (median age, 68 years; 75% male). The initial aortic procedures that resulted in AGI were 172 surgical grafts (71%), 66 endografts (27%), and three unknown (2%). Of the patients, 172 (71%) underwent complete excision of infected aortic graft material followed by in situ (in-line) bypass (ISB), including antibiotic-treated prosthetic graft (35%), autogenous femoral vein (neo-aortoiliac surgery) (24%), and cryopreserved allograft (41%). Sixty-nine patients (29%) underwent extra-anatomic bypass (EAB). Overall median Kaplan-Meier estimated survival was 5.8 years. Perioperative mortality was 16%. When stratified by ISB vs EAB, there was a significant difference in Kaplan-Meier estimated infection-free survival (2910 days; interquartile range, 391-3771 days vs 180 days; interquartile range, 27-3750 days; P <.001). There were otherwise no significant differences in presentation, comorbidities, or perioperative variables. Multivariable Cox regression showed lower infection-free survival among patients with EAB (hazard ratio [HR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-3.6; P <.001), polymicrobial infection (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.5; P = .001), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection (HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.7; P = .02), as well as the protective effect of omental/muscle flap coverage (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.37-0.92; P = .02). Conclusions: After complete resection of AGI, perioperative mortality is 16% and median overall survival is 5.8 years. EAB is associated with nearly a two and one-half-fold higher reinfection/mortality compared with ISB. Omental and/or muscle flap coverage of the repair appear protective.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Lee, Byung-Boong, et al.
(författare)
-
Venous hemodynamic changes in lower limb venous disease : the UIP consensus according to scientific evidence
- 2016
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Angiology. - : Springer. - 0392-9590 .- 1827-1839. ; 35:3, s. 236-352
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- There are excellent guidelines for clinicians to manage venous diseases but few reviews to assess their hemodynamic background. Hemodynamic concepts that evolved in the past have largely remained unchallenged in recent decades, perhaps due to their often complicated nature and in part due to emergence of new diagnostic techniques. Duplex ultrasound scanning and other imaging techniques which evolved in the latter part of the 20th century have dominated investigation. They have greatly improved our understanding of the anatomical patterns of venous reflux and obstruction. However, they do not provide the physiological basis for understanding the hemodynamics of flow, pressure, compliance and resistance. Hemodynamic investigations appear to provide a better correlation with post-treatment clinical outcome and quality of life than ultrasound findings. There is a far better prospect for understanding the complete picture of the patient's disability and response to management by combining ultrasound with hemodynamic studies. Accordingly, at the instigation of Dr Angelo Scuderi, the Union Internationale de Phlebologie (UIP) executive board commissioned a large number of experts to assess all aspects of management for venous disease by evidence-based principles. These included experts from various member societies including the European Venous Forum (EVF), American Venous Forum (AVF), American College of Phlebology (ACP) and Cardiovascular Disease Educational and Research Trust (CDERT). Their aim was to confirm or dispel long-held hemodynamic principles and to provide a comprehensive review of venous hemodynamic concepts underlying the pathophysiology of lower limb venous disorders, their usefulness for investigating patients and the relevant hemodynamic changes associated with various forms of treatment. Chapter 1 is devoted to basic hemodynamic concepts and normal venous physiology. Chapter 2 presents the mechanism and magnitude of hemodynamic changes in acute deep vein thrombosis indicating their pathophysiological and clinical significance. Chapter 3 describes the hemodynamic changes that occur in different classes of chronic venous disease and their relation to the anatomic extent of disease in the macrocirculation and microcirculation. The next four chapters (Chapters 4-7) describe the hemodynamic changes resulting from treatment by compression using different materials, intermittent compression devices, pharmacological agents and finally surgical or endovenous ablation. Chapter 8 discusses the unique hemodynamic features associated with alternative treatment techniques used by the CHIVA and ASVAL. Chapter 9 describes the hemodynamic effects following treatment to relieve pelvic reflux and obstruction. Finally, Chapter 10 demonstrates that contrary to general belief there is a moderate to good correlation between certain hemodynamic measurements and clinical severity of chronic venous disease. The authors believe that this document will be a timely asset to both clinicians and researchers alike. It is directed towards surgeons and physicians who are anxious to incorporate the conclusions of research into their daily practice. It is also directed to postgraduate trainees, vascular technologists and bioengineers, particularly to help them understand the hemodynamic background to pathophysiology, investigations and treatment of patients with venous disorders. Hopefully it will be a platform for those who would like to embark on new research in the field of venous disease.
|
|
