Search

Objective The quality of available evidence regarding new minimally invasive techniques to abolish great saphenous vein reflux is moderate. The present study assessed whether radiofrequency ablation (RFA) was noninferior to high ligation and stripping (HLS) and conservative hemodynamic cure for venous insufficiency (CHIVA) for clinical and ultrasound recurrence at 2 years in patients with primary varicose veins (VVs) due to great saphenous vein (GSV) insufficiency. Methods We performed a randomized, single-center, open-label, controlled, noninferiority trial to compare RFA and 2 surgical techniques for the treatment of primary VVs due to GSV insufficiency. The noninferiority margin was set at 15% for absolute differences. Patients aged >18 years with primary VVs and GSV incompetence, with or without clinical symptoms, C2 to C6 CEAP (Clinical, Etiologic, Anatomic, Pathophysiologic) clinical class, and GSV diameter >4 mm were randomized with a 1:1:1 ratio to RFA, HLS, or CHIVA. The rate of clinical recurrence at 24 months was the primary endpoint and was analyzed using a delta noninferiority margin of 15%. Ultrasound recurrence, safety, and quality of life were secondary endpoints. Results From December 2012 to June 2015, 225 limbs had been randomized to RFA, HLS, or CHIVA (n = 74, n = 75, and n = 76). Clinical follow-up and Doppler ultrasound examinations were performed at 1 week and 1, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. No differences in postoperative complications or pain were observed among the three groups. RFA was noninferior to HLS and CHIVA for clinical recurrence at 24 months, with an estimated difference in recurrence of 3% (95% confidence interval [CI], −4.8% to 10.7%; noninferiority P = .002) and −7% (95% CI, −17% to 3%; P Conclusions RFA was shown to be noninferior in terms of clinical recurrence to HLS and CHIVA in the treatment of VVs due to GSV insufficiency.

Objective Several studies have revealed high volume centres have better outcomes in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), thus supporting centralisation of this procedure into selected centres based on volume. To date however, the real benefit of centralisation of this pathology has not been well demonstrated. The aim of this study was to analyse the impact of centralisation in to high volume centres (defined as those performing more than 30 cases per year) on AAA treatment outcomes carried out in Catalonia (Spain). Methods Data were collected from official national registries (HDMBD) for AAA treated by endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) or open repair (OR) over a nine year period. Two time periods were selected for comparison: before centralisation (2009–2014) and after complete centralisation (2015–2017). The primary objective was to determine short term mortality (in hospital and 30 day mortality) and length of stay (LOS) after intact AAA (iAAA) and ruptured AAA (rAAA) repair, before and after centralisation. Uni- and multivariable analyses were performed in order to identify independent outcomes predictors. Results A total of 3 501 iAAAs, including 1 124 (32.1%) OR and 2377 (67.9%) EVAR, and 409 rAAAs, including 218 (53.3%) OR and 191 (46.7%) EVAR, were identified. After centralisation, there was a significant decrease in overall mortality in iAAA repair (4.7% vs. 2.0%, p Conclusion The implementation of a country based centralisation programme for AAA treatment led to a significant reduction in short term mortality, for both iAAA and rAAA, and mainly for elective OR. LOS also significantly decreased, mainly for elective EVAR. These results support the benefit of centralisation of AAA repair procedures

Background Luminor is a new drug-coated angioplasty balloon, which is approved by the European Conformity market. The aim of the present study is to analyze the 1-year results, in terms of effectiveness and safety, of the Luminor® 14/14M and 35 drug-coated balloons (iVascular, Sant Vicenc dels Horts, Barcelona, Spain) in a special cohort of critical limb ischemia (CLI) of the Luminor registry. Methods Luminor is phase IV, nonrandomized, prospective, observational, and multicenter clinical study. The present study includes patients with CLI to analyze the effectiveness, in terms of primary patency, and the safety defined by the major adverse effects: any cause mortality, major amputation, and/or clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). Both femoropopliteal and below-the-knee infrapopliteal lesions were treated. All the end points were assessed after the procedure, at 30 days, 6 and 12 months thereafter. Results About 148 patients (101 males; mean age, 73.2 ± 11.4 years) with CLI were included. About 83.3% were classified as Rutherford's class 5. Diabetes mellitus was diagnosed in 71.6%; hypertension, hyperlipidemia, renal insufficiency, and coronary disease were present in 87.2%, 57.4%, 29.7%, and 39.2% of the sample, respectively. The average follow-up was 11.2 ± 3.27 months. The primary patency and the freedom of clinically driven TLR, at 1 year, were 87.7% and 92.1%, respectively. Survival and freedom from major amputations were 85.1% and 84.7%, respectively. Conclusions Even with a very sick population, the results at 12 months are highly satisfactory with reference to survival, freedom from amputation, patency, and the absence of reintervention.

Background The aim of the study was to assess the clinical utility of strict CT scan surveillance after endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair (EVAR) and evaluate whether the anatomy of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) neck (favorable/hostile) influences regular imaging control. Methods A retrospective study of AAA patients who underwent EVAR with aortobi-iliac endoprostheses during 2006–2013 was conducted. Exclusion criteria included other types of devices. Variables analyzed were technical and clinical success, morbimortality, complications (such as endoleaks, sac enlargement), reinterventions, reintervention-free survival, and survival rate. Preoperative CT scans were performed and repeated at 1, 6 (in selective cases), 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Patients were divided into two groups according to preoperative anatomic characteristics: group I (favorable neck) and group II (hostile neck: angle > 60°, length 28 mm, and calcification or circumference thrombus ≥50%). Results A total of 127 patients with AAA (96.8% male) were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 75.9 years (range: 51–90 years). The mean AAA diameter was 62.1 mm. Hostile neck was found in 52 patients (40.9%). The technical and clinical success rate was 100% and 30-day mortality was 0.8%. The reintervention-free survival rate was 97.6%, 96.1%, and 93.7% and the survival rate was 97.6%, 96.9%, and 91.3%, during follow-up at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. Accumulated complications in proximal sealing occurred in 0%, 0%, and 1.6% in group I and 1.9%, 6.1%, and 7.7% in group II at 1, 12, and 24 months, respectively. Type II endoleaks occurred in 24.3%, 14.3%, and 11.4% in group I and 9.8%, 6.3%, and 6.8% in group II at 1, 12, and 24 months, respectively. No increased diameter was detected at 6 and 12 months. No differences were observed in reinterventions and mortality rate depending on anatomy. Conclusions CT scans performed at 6 and 12 months postoperatively did not detect complications or need for reintervention in patients with favorable necks, even in the presence of endoleaks type II, and could therefore be omitted. Hostile necks may compromise proximal sealing and require regular imaging follow-ups.

Vascular access for haemodialysis is key in renal patients both due to its associated morbidity and mortality and due to its impact on quality of life. The process, from the creation and maintenance of vascular access to the treatment of its complications, represents a challenge to decision-making, because of the complexity of the existing disease and the diversity of the specialities involved. With a view to finding a common approach, the Spanish Multidisciplinary Group on Vascular Access (GEMAV), which includes experts from the five scientific societies involved (nephrology [S.E.N.], vascular surgery [SEACV], vascular and interventional radiology [SERAM-SERVEI], infectious diseases [SEIMC] and nephrology nursing [SEDEN]), along with the methodological support of the Cochrane Center, has updated the Guidelines on Vascular Access for Haemodialysis, published in 2005. These guidelines maintain a similar structure, in that they review the evidence without compromising the educational aspects. However, on the one hand, they provide an update to methodology development following the guidelines of the GRADE system in order to translate this systematic review of evidence into recommendations that facilitate decision-making in routine clinical practice, and, on the other hand, the guidelines establish quality indicators which make it possible to monitor the quality of healthcare.© 2017 Sociedad Española de Nefrología. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0). RESUMEN: Guía Clínica Española del Acceso Vascular para HemodiálisisEl acceso vascular para hemodiálisis es esencial para el enfermo renal tanto por su morbimortalidad asociada como por su repercusión en la calidad de vida. El proceso que va desde la creación y mantenimiento del acceso vascular hasta el tratamiento de sus complicaciones constituye un reto para la toma de decisiones debido a la complejidad de la patología existente y a la diversidad de especialidades involucradas. Con el fin de conseguir un abordaje consensuado, el Grupo Español Multidisciplinar del Acceso Vascular (GEMAV), que incluye expertos de las cinco sociedades científicas implicadas (nefrología [S.E.N.], cirugía vascular [SEACV], radiología vascular e intervencionista [SERAM-SERVEI], enfermedades infecciosas [SEIMC] y enfermería nefrológica [SEDEN]), con el soporte metodológico del Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano, ha realizado una actualización de la Guía del Acceso Vascular para Hemodiálisis publicada en 2005. Esta guía mantiene una estructura similar, revisando la evidencia sin renunciar a la vertiente docente, pero se aportan como novedades, por un lado, la metodología en su elaboración, siguiendo las directrices del sistema GRADE con el objetivo de traducir esta revisión sistemática de la evidencia en recomendaciones que faciliten la toma de decisiones en la práctica clínica habitual y, por otro, el establecimiento de indicadores de calidad que permitan monitorizar la calidad asistencial.© 2017 Sociedad Española de Nefrología. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U.Este es un artículo Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0). Keywords: Clinical Practice Guidelines, Vascular access, Haemodialysis, GRADE, GEMAV, Arteriovenous fistula, Central venous catheter, Quality indicators, Monitoring, Treatment, Complications, Angioplasty, Palabras clave: Guía de práctica clínica, Acceso vascular, Hemodiálisis, GRADE, GEMAV, Fístula arteriovenosa, Catéter venoso central, Indicadores de calidad, Monitorización, Tratamiento, Complicaciones, Angioplastia

Background The objective of this study was to develop a clear-cut, objective system for prioritization of patients on the waiting list for varicose vein surgery, to enable organization of access to the health service. Methods During earlier phases, we selected which variables should be taken into account for the prioritization scale, such as clinical presentation, varicose vein size, complications, work situation, and influence on quality of life. In the last phase, to determine the relative weight of each variable, structured surveys (personal interviews or by e-mail) were performed of the convenience samples from the groups related to the healthcare process, including patients, relatives, and healthcare professionals. Results The structured survey we utilized was administered to a sample of 762 subjects that included 290 patients, 99 relatives, 179 general practitioners, 32 nurses, and 162 vascular surgeons. The final score included clinical manifestations (46.1% of relative importance), size of the varicose veins (8.2%), complications (18.3%), influence on quality of life (18.2%), and aggravating work factors (9.2%). Conclusions The prioritization system agreed upon by all the groups involved could allow for objective and transparent prioritization and lead to the rationalization of access to varicose vein surgery for patients on the waiting list.

RESUMEN: El acceso vascular para hemodiálisis es esencial para el enfermo renal tanto por su morbimortalidad asociada como por su repercusión en la calidad de vida. El proceso que va desde la creación y mantenimiento del acceso vascular hasta el tratamiento de sus complicaciones constituye un reto para la toma de decisiones debido a la complejidad de la patología existente y a la diversidad de especialidades involucradas. Con el fin de conseguir un abordaje consensuado, el Grupo Español Multidisciplinar del Acceso Vascular (GEMAV), que incluye expertos de las cinco sociedades científicas implicadas (nefrología [S.E.N.], cirugía vascular [SEACV], radiología vascular e intervencionista [SERAM-SERVEI], enfermedades infecciosas [SEIMC] y enfermería nefrológica [SEDEN]), con el soporte metodológico del Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano, ha realizado una actualización de la Guía del Acceso Vascular para Hemodiálisis publicada en 2005. Esta guía mantiene una estructura similar, revisando la evidencia sin renunciar a la vertiente docente, pero se aportan como novedades, por un lado, la metodología en su elaboración, siguiendo las directrices del sistema GRADE con el objetivo de traducir esta revisión sistemática de la evidencia en recomendaciones que faciliten la toma de decisiones en la práctica clínica habitual y, por otro, el establecimiento de indicadores de calidad que permitan monitorizar la calidad asistencial. ABSTRACT: Vascular access for haemodialysis is key in renal patients both due to its associated morbidity and mortality and due to its impact on quality of life. The process, from the creation and maintenance of vascular access to the treatment of its complications, represents a challenge when it comes to decision-making, due to the complexity of the existing disease and the diversity of the specialities involved. With a view to finding a common approach, the Spanish Multidisciplinary Group on Vascular Access (GEMAV), which includes experts from the five scientific societies involved (nephrology [S.E.N.], vascular surgery [SEACV], vascular and interventional radiology [SERAM-SERVEI], infectious diseases [SEIMC] and nephrology nursing [SEDEN]), along with the methodological support of the Cochrane Center, has updated the Guidelines on Vascular Access for Haemodialysis, published in 2005. These guidelines maintain a similar structure, in that they review the evidence without compromising the educational aspects. However, on one hand, they provide an update to methodology development following the guidelines of the GRADE system in order to translate this systematic review of evidence into recommendations that facilitate decision-making in routine clinical practice, and, on the other hand, the guidelines establish quality indicators which make it possible to monitor the quality of healthcare. Palabras clave: Guía de práctica clínica, Acceso vascular, Hemodiálisis, GRADE, GEMAV, Fístula arteriovenosa, Catéter venoso central, Indicadores de calidad, Monitorización, Tratamiento, Complicaciones, Angioplastia, Keywords: Clinical Practice Guidelines, Vascular access, Haemodialysis, GRADE, GEMAV, Arteriovenous fistula, Central venous catheter, Quality indicators, Monitoring, Treatment, Complications, Angioplasty

Anastomotic or "stitch hole" bleeding is common during vascular surgery with synthetic material such as Dacron or polytetrafluoroethylene. Hemostatic adjuncts such as fibrin sealant (FS) may reduce blood loss and operating time in such circumstances. We evaluated the safety and the hemostatic effectiveness of a ready-to-use human plasma-derived FS in vascular surgery.Patients with mild/moderate suture line bleeding during elective, open, vascular surgery using synthetic grafts or patches were studied. In an initial Exploratory Study, all patients were treated with FS Grifols, and in a subsequent Primary Study were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to FS Grifols or manual compression (MC). The primary efficacy end point was time to hemostasis (TTH), assessed at defined intervals from the start of treatment application, during a 10-min observational period. Safety end points (in Exploratory + Primary Studies) included adverse events (AEs), vital signs, physical assessments, common clinical laboratory tests (coagulation, complete blood count, serum clinical chemistry parameters, microscopic urinalysis), viral markers, and immunogenicity.In the Primary Study, the proportion of patients who achieved hemostasis at the 3-min time point was higher in the FS Grifols group (46.4%, n = 51/110) than in the MC group (26.3%, n = 15/57) (P 0.05). The benefit was maintained at successive time intervals: 69 FS Grifols patients (62.7%) and 18 MC patients (31.6%) at 4 min; 82 FS Grifols patients (74.5%) and 28 MC patients (49.1%) at 5 min. The differences between the groups persisted for TTH ≤ 7 min and TTH ≤ 10 min. Treatment failure was reported for 13 FS Grifols patients (11.8%) and 16 MC patients (28.1%). TTH was shorter after FS Grifols application than after MC application. Differences were statistically significant in favor of FS Grifols for each TTH category and for the overall comparison (P 0.001) as well as for each TTH category (cumulative) and for treatment failure (P = 0.016). Overall, AE experience and types of AEs reported were those expected in this patient population and were similar between the 2 treatment groups. The most frequently reported AEs were procedural pain (59.9% and 69.2% of patients in the FS Grifols [n = 72 + 111] and MC [n = 57] groups, respectively) and nausea (23.5% and 19.2% of patients, respectively).FS Grifols was efficacious and safe as an adjunct to anastomotic hemostasis in patients undergoing arterial surgery using prosthetic material with mild to moderate bleeding.

The goal of this article is to present for the first time to the international community the detailed findings and outcomes of the Spanish Vascular Registry (SVR) after 16 years of experience. We examined the nationwide registry promoted by the Spanish Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery (1996–2011). The changes in vascular surgical activity in Spain during the period of study were examined. We evaluated the number of services, medical specialists, consultations, admissions, and operations that occurred in Spain. We also assessed the trends in therapeutic activity and the medical and social impact of vascular pathology. A mean of 60 centers (range = 32–83) participated in the SVR (79.3 % of the total). In the last year of the study period, 94.3 % centers (100 % of teaching centers) participated. The mean number of activities per hospital per year was 5,298 consultations, 2,625 vascular explorations, 630 hospital admissions (61 % elective and 31 % emergency), and 742 surgical procedures. A total of 29,289 carotid stenosis procedures had been registered over 16 years. Both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) procedures have increased in frequency over time. In 2011, CAS constituted 19.3 % of all carotid procedures. A total of 31,703 abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) operations were registered during the study period. Surgery for ruptured AAA remained stable over time. Since its appearance in the year 2000, endovascular treatment (EVAR) increased steadily over time. Currently, EVAR represents about half of all AAA surgery (50.2 %). The total rate of in-hospital operative deaths was 1.1 %, but in-hospital mortality for open arterial surgery was 4 %. Mortality has decreased of late. The SVR has enabled us to understand the development and implementation of vascular surgery throughout Spain and to note the increased healthcare activity and the better overall results obtained as a consequence.