Suppr超能文献

严重肢体缺血的旁路手术或血管成形术?一项德尔菲共识研究。

Bypass or angioplasty for severe limb ischaemia? A Delphi Consensus Study.

作者信息

Bradbury A W, Bell J, Lee A J, Prescott R J, Gillespie I, Stansby G, Fowkes F G R

机构信息

BASIL Trial Office, Research Institute (Lincoln House), Heartlands Hospital, University of Birmingham, UK.

出版信息

Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2002 Nov;24(5):411-6. doi: 10.1053/ejvs.2002.1709.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To examine the level of agreement among vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists regarding their preference for the surgical or endovascular management of severe limb ischaemia.

DESIGN

Delphi consensus study using 596 different hypothetical patient scenarios.

PARTICIPANTS

Delphi consensus group for the Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) trial.

METHODS

Twenty consultant vascular surgeons and 17 interventional radiologists completed both rounds of the study. The scenarios detailed the anatomical extent of disease, whether the patients had rest pain only or had tissue loss, and whether or not a suitable vein for bypass was available. Panellists were asked to score their treatment preference for either surgery or angioplasty on an eight-point scale. Outliers (top 10% and bottom 10% responses) were removed. If the remaining 80% of responses fell within a 3-point range, this was defined as "agreement". If they did not, this was considered "disagreement".

RESULTS

There was substantial disagreement in 484 (81%) of scenarios in round 1 and 401 (67%) in round 2. This disagreement was greater among surgeon than radiologists in both round 1 (83 vs 65%) and round 2 (69 vs 42%). Surgeons also demonstrated less convergence between rounds.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial disagreement between and among surgeons and radiologists with regard to the appropriateness of surgery or angioplasty for severe limb ischaemia. This lack of consensus stems from the absence of an evidence base and means that the same patient may receive entirely different treatment depending on which hospital and consultant they attend. Not only may this unexplained variation be clinically unsatisfactory, it has major implications for the planning and use of health service resources.

摘要

目的

探讨血管外科医生和介入放射科医生在严重肢体缺血的手术或血管腔内治疗偏好方面的一致程度。

设计

采用596种不同假设患者场景的德尔菲共识研究。

参与者

严重下肢缺血旁路术与血管成形术(BASIL)试验的德尔菲共识小组。

方法

20名血管外科顾问医生和17名介入放射科医生完成了两轮研究。这些场景详细描述了疾病的解剖范围、患者是否仅存在静息痛或有组织缺失,以及是否有合适的静脉用于旁路手术。要求小组成员在八点量表上对手术或血管成形术的治疗偏好进行评分。去除异常值(前10%和后10%的回答)。如果其余80%的回答落在3分范围内,则定义为“一致”。如果没有,则视为“不一致”。

结果

在第一轮中,484个(81%)场景存在重大分歧,在第二轮中为401个(67%)。在第一轮(83%对65%)和第二轮(69%对42%)中,外科医生之间的分歧都比放射科医生更大。外科医生在两轮之间的收敛性也较低。

结论

在严重肢体缺血的手术或血管成形术的适用性方面,外科医生和放射科医生之间及内部存在重大分歧。这种缺乏共识源于缺乏证据基础,这意味着同一患者可能会根据他们就诊的医院和顾问而接受完全不同的治疗。这种无法解释的差异不仅在临床上可能不尽人意,对卫生服务资源的规划和使用也有重大影响。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验