Objective: International guidelines recommend supervised exercise therapy (SET) as primary treatment for all patients with intermittent claudication (IC), yet primary endovascular revascularisation (ER) might be more effective in patients with iliac artery obstruction. Methods: This was a multicentre RCT including patients with IC caused by iliac artery stenosis or occlusion (NCT01385774). Patients were allocated randomly to SET or ER stratified for maximum walking distance (MWD) and concomitant SFA disease. Primary endpoints were MWD on a treadmill (3.2 km/h, 10% incline) and disease specific quality of life (VascuQol) after one year. Additional interventions during a mean follow up of 5.5 years were recorded. Results: Between November 2010 and May 2015, 114 patients were allocated to SET, and 126 to ER. The trial was terminated prematurely after 240 patients were included. Compliance with SET was 57/114 (50%) after six months. Ten patients allocated to ER (8%) did not receive this intervention. One year follow up was complete for 90/114 (79%) SET patients and for 104/126 (83%) ER patients. The mean MWD improved from 187 to 561 m in SET patients and from 196 to 574 m in ER patients (p =.69). VascuQol sumscore improved from 4.24 to 5.58 in SET patients, and from 4.28 to 5.88 in ER patients (p =.048). Some 33/114 (29%) SET patients had an ER within one year, and 2/114 (2%) surgical revascularisation (SR). Some 10/126 (8%) ER patients had additional ER within one year and 10/126 (8%) SR. After a mean of 5.5 years, 49% of SET patients and 27% of ER patients underwent an additional intervention for IC. Conclusion: Taking into account the many limitations of the SUPER study, both a strategy of primary SET and primary ER improve MWD on a treadmill and disease specific Qol of patients with IC caused by an iliac artery obstruction. It seems reasonable to start with SET in these patients and accept a 30% failure rate, which, of course, must be discussed with the patient. Patients continue to have interventions beyond one year.
DOCUMENT
Abstract—A survey was conducted among 20 Dutch hospitals about radiation protection for interventional fluoroscopy. This was a follow-up of a previous study in 2007 that led to several recommendations for radiation protection for interventional fluoroscopy. The results indicate that most recommendations have been followed. However, radiation-induced complications from interventional procedures are still often not recorded in the appropriate register. Furthermore, even though professionals with appropriate training in radiation protection are usually involved in interventional procedures, this often is not the case when these procedures are carried out outside the radiology department. Although this involvement is not required by Dutch law, it is recommended to have radiation protection professionals present more often at interventional procedures. Further improvements in radiation protection for interventional fluoroscopy may come from a comparison of dose-reducing practices among hospitals, the introduction of diagnostic reference levels for interventional procedures, and a more thorough form of screening and follow-up of patients
DOCUMENT
Background: Emergency department utilization has increased tremendously over the past years, which is accompanied by an increased necessity for emergency medicine research to support clinical practice. Important sources of evidence are systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), but these can only be informative provided their quality is sufficiently high, which can only be assessed if reporting is adequate. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs in emergency medicine using the PRISMA statement. Methods: The top five emergency medicine related journals were selected using the 5-year impact factor of the ISI Web of Knowledge of 2015. All SRs and MAs published in these journals between 2015 and 2016 were extracted and assessed independently by two reviewers on compliance with each item of the PRISMA statement. Results: The included reviews (n = 112) reported a mean of 18 ± 4 items of the PRISMA statement adequately. Reviews mentioning PRISMA adherence did not show better reporting than review without mention of adherence (mean 18.6 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.8 (SE 0.5); p = 0.214). Reviews published in journals recommending or requiring adherence to a reporting guideline showed better quality of reporting than journals without such instructions (mean 19.2 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.2 (SE 0.5); p = 0.001). Conclusion: There is room for improvement of the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs within the emergency medicine literature. Therefore, authors should use a reporting guideline such as the PRISMA statement. Active journal implementation, by requiring PRISMA endorsement, enhances quality of reporting.
DOCUMENT
