International cross-sectional survey on attitudes and practices regarding use of contrast-enhanced ULTRAsound in VASCular surgery: The I-ULTRA-VASC study.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE Vascular Pub Date : 2024-08-12 DOI:10.1177/17085381241273221
Giulia Bertagna, Nicola Troisi, Petar Zlatanovic, Joao Rocha-Neves, Emiliano Chisci, Raffaella Berchiolli, Sandro Lepidi, Mario D'Oria
{"title":"International cross-sectional survey on attitudes and practices regarding use of contrast-enhanced ULTRAsound in VASCular surgery: The I-ULTRA-VASC study.","authors":"Giulia Bertagna, Nicola Troisi, Petar Zlatanovic, Joao Rocha-Neves, Emiliano Chisci, Raffaella Berchiolli, Sandro Lepidi, Mario D'Oria","doi":"10.1177/17085381241273221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this cross-sectional survey was to gather attitudes and practices of physicians from different countries regarding the implementation of contrast-enhanced ULTRAsound (CEUS) for vascular diseases in clinical practice as well as in academic research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A web-based survey was developed in English, including 35 questions. Two-hundred sixty physicians were invited by email to fill in the survey anonymously on Google Forms using a dedicated link. The survey started on 25<sup>th</sup> February 2024 and was closed on 13<sup>th</sup> March 2024 (17 days). A reminder was sent after the first 10 days. In addition to descriptive statistics, sub-analyses of answers according to country of origin (Italy vs other States), years of experience (≤20 years vs > 20 years), and type of institution (Academic/University vs Non-Academic/Private) were also established a priori.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 121 practitioners from 20 countries completed our survey (response rate 121/260, 46%). Most responders were males (95/121, 78.5%). Most participants were vascular surgeons (118/121, 97.5%). CEUS was available in 87/121, 70.2% of the centers involved, even though a standardized protocol was present in 54/121, and 44% of surveyed institutions. Italian institutions presented greater CEUS availability (62/72, 86.1% vs 25/49, 51.0%; <i>p</i> = .001) and higher presence of standardized protocols (38/72, 52.8% vs 16/49, 32.6%; <i>p</i> = .022) than foreign institutions. The diagnostic tool was thought to be more useful for carotid artery stenosis in the postoperative phase, while for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in the preoperative phase. For diagnosis and/or preoperative management of carotid stenosis 53/121, 44% of physicians believed that CEUS should be performed only in selected cases, while for AAA 42/121, 35% of them believed that it could be useful only for scientific purposes. Similarly, 99/121, 82% of participants answered that CEUS was usually prescribed in 0%-20% of the cases during the preoperative diagnostic pathway of patients with peripheral arterial disease. No differences between country of origin, years of experience, and type of institution were found for the reported items. There was also 106/121, 88% of respondents agreed upon the need for better integration of CEUS in current guidelines and 114/121, 94% of them upon the need for further studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This ULTRA-VASC survey has demonstrated that CEUS is still rarely used in current practice for many vascular diseases despite the availability of this tool in most centers Future studies are needed, as well as enhanced guidance on the proper implementation of CEUS from guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":23549,"journal":{"name":"Vascular","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vascular","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17085381241273221","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this cross-sectional survey was to gather attitudes and practices of physicians from different countries regarding the implementation of contrast-enhanced ULTRAsound (CEUS) for vascular diseases in clinical practice as well as in academic research.

Methods: A web-based survey was developed in English, including 35 questions. Two-hundred sixty physicians were invited by email to fill in the survey anonymously on Google Forms using a dedicated link. The survey started on 25th February 2024 and was closed on 13th March 2024 (17 days). A reminder was sent after the first 10 days. In addition to descriptive statistics, sub-analyses of answers according to country of origin (Italy vs other States), years of experience (≤20 years vs > 20 years), and type of institution (Academic/University vs Non-Academic/Private) were also established a priori.

Results: A total of 121 practitioners from 20 countries completed our survey (response rate 121/260, 46%). Most responders were males (95/121, 78.5%). Most participants were vascular surgeons (118/121, 97.5%). CEUS was available in 87/121, 70.2% of the centers involved, even though a standardized protocol was present in 54/121, and 44% of surveyed institutions. Italian institutions presented greater CEUS availability (62/72, 86.1% vs 25/49, 51.0%; p = .001) and higher presence of standardized protocols (38/72, 52.8% vs 16/49, 32.6%; p = .022) than foreign institutions. The diagnostic tool was thought to be more useful for carotid artery stenosis in the postoperative phase, while for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in the preoperative phase. For diagnosis and/or preoperative management of carotid stenosis 53/121, 44% of physicians believed that CEUS should be performed only in selected cases, while for AAA 42/121, 35% of them believed that it could be useful only for scientific purposes. Similarly, 99/121, 82% of participants answered that CEUS was usually prescribed in 0%-20% of the cases during the preoperative diagnostic pathway of patients with peripheral arterial disease. No differences between country of origin, years of experience, and type of institution were found for the reported items. There was also 106/121, 88% of respondents agreed upon the need for better integration of CEUS in current guidelines and 114/121, 94% of them upon the need for further studies.

Conclusions: This ULTRA-VASC survey has demonstrated that CEUS is still rarely used in current practice for many vascular diseases despite the availability of this tool in most centers Future studies are needed, as well as enhanced guidance on the proper implementation of CEUS from guidelines.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于在 VASCular 手术中使用造影剂增强超音波的态度和做法的国际横断面调查:I-ULTRA-VASC 研究。
调查目的这项横断面调查旨在收集不同国家的医生在临床实践和学术研究中使用对比增强超超声波(CEUS)治疗血管疾病的态度和做法:方法:用英语编写了一份网络调查问卷,包括 35 个问题。通过电子邮件邀请了 260 名医生使用专用链接在谷歌表格上匿名填写调查问卷。调查于 2024 年 2 月 25 日开始,2024 年 3 月 13 日结束(17 天)。前 10 天后,我们发送了一封提醒邮件。除描述性统计外,还事先根据原籍国(意大利 vs 其他国家)、从业年限(≤20 年 vs >20 年)和机构类型(学术/大学 vs 非学术/私立)对答案进行了分 析:共有来自 20 个国家的 121 名从业人员完成了调查(回复率为 121/260,46%)。大多数回复者为男性(95/121,78.5%)。大多数参与者是血管外科医生(118/121,97.5%)。87/121,即 70.2% 的参与中心可提供 CEUS,尽管 54/121 即 44% 的调查机构有标准化方案。与国外机构相比,意大利机构有更多的 CEUS 可用性(62/72,86.1% vs 25/49,51.0%;p = .001),有更多的标准化方案(38/72,52.8% vs 16/49,32.6%;p = .022)。该诊断工具被认为对术后阶段的颈动脉狭窄更有用,而对术前阶段的腹主动脉瘤(AAA)更有用。对于颈动脉狭窄的诊断和/或术前处理,53/121,44%的医生认为 CEUS 只应在选定的病例中使用,而对于腹主动脉瘤,42/121,35% 的医生认为 CEUS 仅在科研方面有用。同样,99/121,82% 的参与者回答说,在外周动脉疾病患者的术前诊断过程中,CEUS 通常用于 0%-20% 的病例。在报告的项目中,没有发现原籍国、工作年限和机构类型之间的差异。此外,106/121(88%)的受访者认为有必要将 CEUS 更好地纳入现行指南,114/121(94%)的受访者认为有必要开展进一步研究:结论:ULTRA-VASC 调查表明,尽管大多数中心都有 CEUS 这一工具,但目前在许多血管疾病的诊疗中仍很少使用 CEUS。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Vascular
Vascular 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
196
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Vascular provides readers with new and unusual up-to-date articles and case reports focusing on vascular and endovascular topics. It is a highly international forum for the discussion and debate of all aspects of this distinct surgical specialty. It also features opinion pieces, literature reviews and controversial issues presented from various points of view.
期刊最新文献
Comparative outcomes of surgical and conservative management in carotid artery dissection. Physician-modified funnel-shaped covered stent for selective false lumen exclusion in chronic type B aortic dissection. Embolization of a ruptured cystic artery pseudoaneurysm by percutaneous injection. A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes associated with development of surgical site infection after lower-limb revascularization surgery. Malnutrition is associated with adverse 30-day outcomes after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1