Initial data supports the value of 3D printed endovascular models although further educational validation is required.

Endovascular trainees in the National Health Service still largely rely on the apprentice-apprenticeship model from the late 19th century. As the scope for endovascular therapy increases, due to the rapid innovation, evolution and refinement of technology, so too do patients’ therapeutic options. This climate has also opened the door for more novel training adjuncts, to address the gaps that exist in our current endovascular training curriculum. The aim of this paper is to present a succinct overview of endovascular simulation, synthesizing the trials and research behind this rapidly evolving training as well as highlighting areas where further research is required. The authors searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for relevant manuscripts on all aspects of endovascular simulation training. A comprehensive Google search was also undertaken to look for any relevant information on endovascular training courses available and any unpublished work that had been presented at relevant scientific meetings. Papers were categorized into the four models: synthetic, animal, virtual reality and human cadaver, and separate searches for evidence of skill transfer were also undertaken. Authors of novel research projects were contacted for further details of unpublished work and permission granted to report such findings in this manuscript.

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives Venous thromboembolism is a potentially fatal complication of superficial endovenous treatment. Proper risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis could mitigate this hazard; however, there are currently no evidence-based or consensus guidelines. This study surveyed UK and Republic of Ireland vascular consultants to determine areas of consensus. Methods A 32-item survey was sent to vascular consultants via the Vascular and Endovascular Research Network (phase 1). These results generated 10 consensus statements which were redistributed (phase 2). ‘Good’ and ‘very good’ consensus were defined as endorsement/rejection of statements by >67% and >85% of respondents, respectively. Results Forty-two consultants completed phase 1. This generated seven statements regarding risk factors mandating peri-procedural pharmacoprophylaxis and three statements regarding specific pharmacoprophylaxis regimes. Forty-seven consultants completed phase 2. Regarding venous thromboembolism risk factors mandating pharmacoprophylaxis, ‘good’ and ‘very good’ consensus was achieved for 5/7 and 2/7 statements, respectively. Regarding specific regimens, ‘very good’ consensus was achieved for 3/3 statements. Conclusions The main findings from this study were that there was ‘good’ or ‘very good’ consensus that patients with any of the seven surveyed risk factors should be given pharmacoprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin. High-risk patients should receive one to two weeks of pharmacoprophylaxis rather than a single dose.

No abstract

No abstract

The Edinburgh Claudication Questionnaire (ECQ) was developed to help identify peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in the general population but has not been validated against diagnostic arterial imaging methods such as Duplex Vascular Ultrasound Scanning (DUS). In the present study, we assessed the accuracy of the ECQ for diagnosis using DUS. As part of a National Institute of Health Research funded project looking at novel diagnostic methods, 250 patients were studied from 15 general practices across North East England from May 2015 and November 2016. Practices identified those with a PAD diagnosis from their registers as well as age- and sex-matched controls. All the ECQs were recorded by a vascular specialist nurse. Duplex vascular ultrasound scanning was used as a reference standard for the diagnosis of occlusive PAD. The ECQ had a sensitivity of 52.5% (95% CI: 42.3%-62.5%), specificity of 87.1% (95% CI: 80.6%-92.0%), positive likelihood ratio of 4.06 (95% CI: 2.57-6.42), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.55 (95% CI: 0.44-0.68) compared with reference standard DUS. The ECQ has relatively poor overall diagnostic test accuracy in isolation. It may be helpful in ruling out PAD or as a supplementary test to improve diagnosis of symptomatic disease in General Practice.