Delays to revascularization for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia

Impact of the Affordable Care Act on Revascularization Versus Amputation in Patients Presenting With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia in Maryland

INTRODUCTION

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) aimed to expand Medicaid, enhance health care quality and efficiency, and address health disparities. These goals have potentially influenced medical care, notably revascularization rates in patients presenting with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). This study examines the effect of the ACA on revascularization vs amputation rates in patients presenting with CTLI in Maryland.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of the Maryland State Inpatient Database comparing the rate of revascularization to rate of major amputation in patients presenting with CLTI over 2 periods: pre-ACA (2007-2009) and post-ACA (2018-2020). In this study, we included patients presenting with CLTI and underwent a major amputation or revascularization during that same admission. Using regression analysis, we estimated the odds of revascularization vs amputation pre- and post-ACA implementation, adjusting for pertinent variables.

RESULT

During the study period, 12,131 CLTI patients were treated. Post-ACA, revascularization rate increased from 43.9% to 77.4% among patients presenting with CLTI. This was associated with a concomitant decrease in the proportion of CLTI patients undergoing major amputation from 56.1% to 22.6%. In the multivariate analysis, there was a 4-fold odds of revascularization among patients with CLTI compared to amputation (OR = 4.73, 95% CI 4.34-5.16) post-ACA. This pattern was seen across all insurance groups.

CONCLUSION

The post-ACA period in Maryland was associated with an increased revascularization rate for patients presenting with CLTI with overall benefits across all insurance types.

Understanding delays in chronic limb-threatening ischaemia care: Application of the theoretical domains framework to identify factors affecting primary care clinicians' referral behaviours

INTRODUCTION

Patients in the community with suspected Chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) should be urgently referred to vascular services for investigation and management. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) allows identification of influences on health professional behaviour in order to inform future interventions. Here, the TDF is used to explore primary care clinicians' behaviours with regards to recognition and referral of CLTI.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 podiatrists, nurses and general practitioners in primary care. Directed content analysis was performed according to the framework method. Utterances were coded to TDF domains, and belief statements were defined by grouping similar utterances. Relevance of domains was confirmed according to belief frequency, presence of conflicting beliefs and the content of the beliefs indicating relevance.

RESULTS

Nine TDF domains were identified as relevant to primary care clinicians: Knowledge, Environmental context and resources, Memory, Decision and attention processes, Beliefs about capabilities, Skills, Emotions, Reinforcement and Behavioural regulation. Relationships across domains were identified, including how primary care clinician confidence and working in a highly pressurized environment can affect behaviour.

CONCLUSION

We have identified key barriers and enablers to timely recognition and referral behaviour. These beliefs identify targets for theory-driven behaviour change interventions to reduce delays in CLTI pathways.

Documentary analysis of national and international guidance for community clinicians referring patients with suspected chronic limb-threatening ischaemia

BACKGROUND

Delayed referral of patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) from the community to vascular services may increase risk of amputation due to delayed revascularisation. Lack of appropriate guidance for clinicians in the community may contribute to this problem. This documentary analysis investigated referral guidance available to primary care clinicians.

METHODS

National and international documents providing guidance on CLTI management were identified by searching sources including Medline, Embase, Guidelines International Network and College/Society websites. Data were extracted on referral recommendations, target audience and author groups. Recommendations were coded according to the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy. Clinical practice guideline quality and ease of implementation were assessed independently by two reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and Guideline Implementability Appraisal (GLIA) tools, respectively.

RESULTS

12 documents containing guidance on CLTI referrals were included. Five were clinical practice guidelines. Nine targeted clinicians in the community among their audience, yet only one included a primary care clinician in their author group. Recommendations on identification and referral of CLTI were often in non-specific language and frequently assumed specialist knowledge of vascular disease. Just 4 of the 93 behaviour change techniques were identified in the guidance documents. Three relevant domains of the AGREE II tool were scored for five clinical practice guidelines: stakeholder involvement (range 21.4%-52.4%, mean 42.9%), clarity of presentation (range 71.4%-92.9%, mean 82.9%) and applicability (25.0%-57.1%, mean 36.8%). The GLIA tool identified barriers to ease of implementation for all five clinical practice guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Most guidance for clinicians in the community on the management of CLTI has been written without their input and assumes knowledge of vascular disease, which may be lacking. Future guidance development should involve community clinicians, consider using additional behaviour change techniques, and improve the applicability and ease of implementation of recommendations.

An Endovascular- Versus a Surgery-First Revascularization Strategy for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Timely revascularization is essential for limb salvage and to reduce mortality in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). In patients who are candidates for endovascular therapy and surgical bypass, the optimal revascularization strategy remains uncertain. Recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have presented conflicting results. We conducted a trial-level meta-analysis to compare the outcomes between endovascular-first and surgery-first strategies for revascularization. PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs comparing the outcomes of endovascular-first versus surgery-first strategies for revascularization in patients with CLTI. Data were pooled for major outcomes and their aggregate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random-effects model. Kaplan-Meier curves for amputation-free survival and overall survival time were plotted using the pooled aggregated data from published curves, with their corresponding hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals reported for up to 5 years of follow-up. A total of 3 RCTs with 2,627 patients (1,312 endovascular-first and 1,315 surgery-first) were included in the meta-analysis. Of these, 1,864 patients (70.9%) were men and 347 (13.2%) were older than 80 years. Comparing the endovascular-first and surgery-first approaches, there was no significant difference in the overall (HR 0.92 [0.83 to 1.01], p = 0.09) or amputation-free survival (HR 0.98 [0.92 to 1.03], p = 0.42), reintervention (RR 1.24 [0.74 to 2.07], p = 0.41), major amputation, (RR 1.16 [0.87 to 1.54], p = 0.31), or therapeutic crossover (RR 0.92 [0.37 to 2.26], p = 0.85). In conclusion, data from available RCTs suggest that there is no difference in clinical outcomes between endovascular-first and surgery-first revascularization strategies for CLTI. A planned patient-level meta-analysis may provide further insight.

The symptom to assessment pathway for suspected chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) affects quality of care: a process mapping exercise

BACKGROUND

Delays in the pathway from first symptom to treatment of chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) are associated with worse mortality and limb loss outcomes. This study examined the processes used by vascular services to provide urgent care to patients with suspected CLTI referred from the community.

METHODS

Vascular surgery units from various regions in England were invited to participate in a process mapping exercise. Clinical and non-clinical staff at participating units were interviewed, and process maps were created that captured key staff and structures used to create processes for referral receipt, triage and assessment at the units.

RESULTS

Twelve vascular units participated, and process maps were created after interviews with 45 participants. The units offered multiple points of access for urgent referrals from general practitioners and other community clinicians. Triage processes were varied, with units using different mixes of staff (including medical staff, podiatrists and s) and this led to processes of varying speed. The organisation of clinics to provide slots for 'urgent' patients was also varied, with some adopting hot clinics, while others used dedicated slots in routine clinics. Service organisation could be further complicated by separate processes for patients with and without diabetes, and because of the organisation of services regionally into vascular networks that had arterial and non-arterial centres.

CONCLUSIONS

For referred patients with symptoms of CLTI, the points of access, triage and assessment processes used by vascular units are diverse. This reflects the local context and ingenuity of vascular units but can lead to complex processes. It is likely that benefits might be gained from simplification.

Adherence to vascular care guidelines for emergency revascularization of chronic limb-threatening ischemia

Objective

In 2022, the National Health Service Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (CQUIN) indicator for vascular surgery, with its pay-for-performance incentive for timely (5-day) revascularization of chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI), was introduced. We sought to assess its effects in terms of (1) changes in the care pathway process measures relating to timing and patient outcomes; and (2) adherence to the Peripheral Arterial Disease Quality Improvement Framework (PAD-QIF) guidelines for patients admitted with CLTI.

Methods

A retrospective before-and-after cohort study was performed from January to June 2022 of nonelective admissions for CLTI who underwent revascularization (open, endovascular, or hybrid) at Cambridge University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, a regional vascular "hub." The diagnostic and treatment pathway timing-related process measures recommended in the PAD-QIF were compared between two 3-month cohorts-before vs after introduction of the CQUIN.

Results

For the two cohorts (before vs after CQUIN), 17 of 223 and 17 of 219 total admissions met the inclusion criteria, respectively. After introduction of financial incentives, the percentage of patients meeting the 5-day targets for revascularization increased from 41.2% to 58.8% (P = .049). Improvements were also realized in the attainment of PAD-QIF targets for a referral-to-admission time of ≤2 days (from 82.4% to 88.8%; P = .525) and admission-to-specialist-review time of ≤14 hours (from 58.8% to 76.5%; P = .139). An increase also occurred in the percentage of patients receiving imaging studies within 2 days of referral (from 58.8% to 70.6%; P = .324). The reasons for delay included operating list pressures and unsuitability for intervention (eg, active COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] infection). No statistically significant changes to patient outcomes were observed between the two cohorts in terms of complications (pre-CQUIN, 23.5%; post-CQUIN, 41.2%; P = .086), length of stay (pre-QUIN, 12.0 ± 12.0 days; post-QUIN, 15.0 ± 21.0 days; P = .178), and in-hospital mortality (pre-QUIN, 0%; post-QUIN, 5.9%). Other PAD-QIF targets relating to delivery of care were poorly documented for both cohorts. These included documented staging of limb threat severity with the WIfI (wound, ischemia, foot infection) score (2.9% of patients; target >80%), documented shared decision-making (47.1%; target >80%), documented issuance of written information to patient (5.9%; target 100%), and geriatric assessment (6.3%; target >80%).

Conclusions

The pay-for-performance incentive CQUIN indicators appear to have raised the profile for the need for early revascularization to treat CLTI, engaging senior hospital management, and reducing the time to revascularization in our cohort. Further data collection is required to detect any resultant changes in patient outcomes. Documentation of guideline targets for delivery of care was often poor and should be improved.

Outcomes and use of healthcare resources after an intervention for chronic limb-threatening ischaemia

BACKGROUND

The fate of patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia undergoing revascularization or a primary amputation is unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the postoperative outcomes and post-procedural healthcare resource use/costs over 1 year after revascularization or a primary amputation for chronic limb-threatening ischaemia.

METHODS

The UK Kent Integrated Dataset, which links primary, community, and secondary care for 1.6 million people, was interrogated. All patients with a new diagnosis of chronic limb-threatening ischaemia undergoing revascularization or a major amputation between January 2016 and January 2019 (3 years) were identified. Postoperative events across all healthcare settings and post-procedure healthcare resource use were analysed over 1 year (until the end of 2019).

RESULTS

Overall, 4252 patients with a new diagnosis of chronic limb-threatening ischaemia were identified (65 per cent were male and the mean age was 73 years) between January 2016 and January 2019, of whom 579 (14 per cent) underwent an intervention (studied population); 296 (7 per cent) had an angioplasty, 75 (2 per cent) had bypass surgery, 141 (3 per cent) had a primary major lower limb amputation, 11 had a thrombo-embolectomy (0.3 per cent), and 56 had an endarterectomy (1.3 per cent). Readmissions (median of 2) were similar amongst different procedures within 1 year; bypass surgery was associated with more hospital appointments (median of 4 versus 2; P = 0.002). Patients undergoing a primary amputation had the highest number of cardiovascular events and 1-year mortality. In a linear regression model, index procedure type and Charlson co-morbidity index score were not predictors of appointments in primary/secondary care, community care visits, or readmissions after discharge. There were no statistically significant differences regarding post-procedural healthcare costs between procedures over 1 year.

CONCLUSION

Revascularization is not associated with more hospital, primary/community care appointments or increased post-procedural healthcare costs over 1 year when compared with primary amputation, in people with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia.

Impact of Vascular Service Centralization on the Carotid Endarterectomy Pathway: A Study at the Bedfordshire, Luton, and Milton Keynes Vascular Network

Introduction Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the gold standard intervention for patients experiencing transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) or embolic strokes with >50% internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis supplying index hemispheric territory. The recommended period for CEA is 14 days post-index event; this period carries a heightened risk for second ischemic events. However, implementation of this stringent timeline often encounters delays stemming from multifaceted factors. The centralization of vascular services, designed to enhance patient care, introduces a paradigm shift. Centralization's efficacy in improving patient outcomes, particularly in the CEA pathway, is a subject of ongoing investigation. Our study aims to discern the impact of centralized services on the timeliness of CEA for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, shedding light on this complex interplay of factors. Methods This retrospective study analyzed CEA data at the Bedfordshire, Luton, and Milton Keynes Vascular Network between January 2021 and June 2023. Eligible patients exhibited symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, with asymptomatic cases; those unfit for surgery or receiving best medical therapy only were excluded. Patients were categorized by their primary referral location: Hub, Spoke-1, or Spoke-2. Demographic and referral data were collected, and timelines from symptom onset to surgery were recorded. Continuous variables were expressed as means and standard deviations, and categorical variables as counts and percentages. Box plots illustrated the relationship between referral origin and surgery timing, and the Classification and Regression Tree (CART) assessed second events. Statistical significance was determined using Fisher's exact and chi-square tests, with p<0.05 indicating significance. Results A total of 148 patients underwent CEA after implementing exclusion criteria. 35.5% (n=53) of patients were referred from the Hub, while 45.6% (n=67) and 18.8% (n=28) were from Spoke-1 and Spoke-2, respectively. 40% (n=59) received CEA within the recommended timeframe, and 15.4% (n=23) experienced a second ischemic event pre-surgery. Time from TIA clinic review to referral was 5.5±8 days and 16.4±20 days from vascular referral to surgery. Patterns of delays were observed, with Spoke-2 exhibiting the most significant delays. Notably, amaurosis fugax and embolic stroke correlated with recurrent ischemic events, emphasizing the importance of timely care in CEA. Conclusion Our study underscores the significant benefits and challenges of the Hub and Spoke model in vascular surgery. The growing referral delays from Spoke sites are concerning, emphasizing the need for a multi-disciplinary team approach within Spoke sites to ensure efficient and standardized care delivery.

Hospital clinicians' perceptions and experiences of care pathways for chronic limb-threatening ischaemia: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) is a condition associated with significant risks of lower limb loss and mortality, which increase with delays in management. Guidance recommends urgent referral and assessment, but delays are evident at every stage of the CLTI patient pathway. This study uses qualitative methods to explore hospital clinicians' experiences and perceptions of the existing CLTI pathway.

METHODS

A qualitative interview study was conducted. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 13 clinicians involved in the assessment of patients referred to hospital with suspected CLTI, identified via purposive sampling from English vascular surgery units. Clinicians included podiatrists, vascular specialist nurses and doctors. Reflexive thematic analysis was performed on the data from a critical realist position.

RESULTS

The need for speed was the single overarching theme identified. Four linked underlying themes were also identified; 1. Vascular surgery as the poor relation (compared to cancer and other specialties), with a sub-theme of CLTI being a challenging diagnosis. 2. Some patients are more equal than others, with sub-themes of diabetes vs. non-diabetes, hub vs. spoke and frailty vs. non-frail. 3. Life in the National Health Service (NHS) is tough, with sub-themes of lack of resource and we're all under pressure. 4. Non-surgeons can help.

CONCLUSIONS

The underlying themes generated from the rich interview data describe barriers to timely referral, assessment and management of CLTI, as well as the utility of non-surgical roles such as podiatrists and vascular specialist nurses as a potential solution for delays. The overarching theme of the need for speed highlights the meaning given to adverse consequences of delays in management of CLTI by clinicians involved in its assessment. Future improvement projects aimed at the CLTI pathway should take these findings into account.

Peripheral Interventional Strategy Assessment (PISA) for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Revascularization: Preliminary Outcomes of a Multidisciplinary Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) still represents the gold standard for anatomical arterial mapping and revascularization decision-making in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI), although DUS (Doppler Ultrasound) remains a primary non-invasive examination tool. The Global Vascular Guidelines established the importance of preoperative arterial mapping to guarantee an adequate in-line flow to the foot. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of DUS in guiding therapeutic vascular treatments on the basis of Global Vascular Guidelines without the need of a second-level examination.

METHODS

Between January 2022 and June 2022, all consecutive patients with CLTI to be revascularized underwent clinical examination and DUS without further diagnostic examinations. Primary outcomes assessed were technical success, and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were 1-year amputation free survival, and time between evaluation and revascularization.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients with a mean age of 73.6 ± 8.5 years underwent lower limb revascularization. Technical success was 100%, and the 30-day mortality rate was 2.9%. Mean time between evaluation and revascularization was 29 ± 17 days. One-year amputation free survival was 97.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

DUS without further diagnostic examinations can accurately assess the status of the vascular tree and foot runoff, providing enough information about target vessels to guide revascularization strategies.