BackgroundThe aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of standard outpatient re-evaluation for patients who are not admitted to the hospital after emergency department surgical consultation for acute abdominal pain.MethodsAll patients seen at the emergency department between June 2005 and July 2006 for acute abdominal pain were included in a prospective study using a structured diagnosis and management flowchart. Patients not admitted to the hospital were given appointments for re-evaluation at the outpatient clinic within 24 h. All clinical parameters, radiological results, diagnostic considerations, and management proposals were scored prospectively.ResultsFive-hundred patients were included in this analysis. For 148 patients (30%), the final diagnosis was different from the diagnosis after initial evaluation. Eighty-five patients (17%) had a change in management after re-evaluation, and 20 of them (4%) were admitted to the hospital for an operation. Only 6 patients (1.2%) had a delay in diagnosis and treatment, which did not cause extra morbidity.ConclusionsStandard outpatient re-evaluation is a safe and effective means of improving diagnostic accuracy and helps to adapt management for patients that are not admitted to the hospital after surgical consultation for acute abdominal pain at the emergency department.

Nonambulatory patients suffer from extensive comorbid conditions. They are accompanied with an increased occurrence of AEs, unplanned reinterventions, and poor long-term survival rates. Successful LEAR did not improve their functional status after 6 years. This emphasizes that attempts for limb salvage must be carefully considered in these patients.

The new protocol outlined in a bimonthly multidisciplinary meeting for vascular access surgery of AVFs/AVGs for hemodialysis resulted in more effective logistics according to preoperative diagnostics and operation. More importantly, a significant increase in endovascular balloon angioplasties and a significant decrease in surgical revisions was observed, resulting in less patient morbidity. Also, higher primary and secondary patency was achieved after the introduction of the new optimized care protocol.

The majority of patients suffering from PAOD do not receive the entire approach of SP measures as suggested by the current guidelines. To our knowledge, the cause of this undertreatment is multifactorial: patient, physician or health-care-related.

BackgroundDespite advances in operative repair, ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) remains associated with high mortality and morbidity rates, especially in elderly patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR), conventional open repair (OPEN), and conservative treatment in elderly patients with rAAA.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective study of all rAAA patients treated with OPEN or eEVAR between January 2005 and December 2011 in the vascular surgery department at Amphia Hospital, the Netherlands. The outcome in patients treated for rAAA by eEVAR or OPEN repair was investigated. Special attention was paid to patients who were admitted and did not receive operative intervention due to serious comorbidity, extremely advanced age, or poor physical condition. We calculated the 30-day rAAA-related mortality for all rAAA patients admitted to our hospital.ResultsTwelve patients did not receive operative emergency repair due to extreme fragility (mean age 87 years, median time to mortality 27 hours). Twenty-three patients had eEVAR and 82 had OPEN surgery. The 30-day mortality rate in operated patients was 30% (7/23) in the eEVAR group versus 26% (21/82) in the OPEN group (P=0.64). No difference in mortality was noted between eEVAR and OPEN over 5 years of follow-up. There were more cardiac adverse events in the OPEN group (n=25, 31%) than in the eEVAR group (n=2, 9%; P=0.035). Reintervention after discharge was more frequent in patients who received eEVAR (35%) than in patients who had OPEN (6%, P<0.001). Advancing age was associated with increasing mortality (hazard ratio 1.05 [95% confidence interval 1.01–1.09]) per year for patients who received operative repair, with a 67%, 76%, and 100% 5-year mortality rate in the 34 patients aged <70 years, 59 patients aged 70–79 years, and 12 octogenarians, respectively; 30-day rAAA-related mortality was also associated with increasing age (21%, 30%, and 61%, respectively; P=0.008).ConclusionThe 30-day and 5-year mortality in patients who survived rAAA was equal between the treatment options of eEVAR and OPEN. Particularly fragile and very elderly patients did not receive operative repair. The decision to intervene in rAAA should not be made on the basis of patient age alone, but also in relation to comorbidity and patient preference.