Preoperative exercise training for adults undergoing elective major vascular surgery: A systematic review.

Patients undergoing major vascular surgery may have an increased risk of postoperative complications due to poor 'fitness for surgery'. Prehabilitation aims to optimise physical fitness and risk factors before surgery to improve outcomes. The role of exercise-based prehabilitation in vascular surgery is currently unclear. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to assess the benefits and harms of preoperative exercise training in adults undergoing elective vascular surgery. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases, trial registries, and forward and backward citations for studies published between January 2008 and April 2021. We included randomised trials that compared patients receiving exercise training with those receiving usual care or no training before vascular surgery. Outcomes included mortality, complications, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Three trials with 197 participants were included. All studies involved people undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Low-certainty evidence could not differentiate between rates of all-cause mortality. Moderate-certainty evidence indicated that postoperative cardiac and renal complications were less likely to occur in people who participated in preoperative exercise training compared with those who did not. Low-certainty evidence also indicated better postoperative HRQOL outcomes in people who undertook prehabilitation. There were no serious exercise-related adverse events. The evidence on preoperative exercise training for AAA patients is promising, but currently insufficiently robust for this intervention to be recommended in clinical guidelines. High-quality trials are needed to establish its clinical and cost-effectiveness. Research is also needed to determine the feasibility and effects of prehabilitation before lower-limb revascularisation. Trial registration: PROSPERO ID: CRD42021245933.

Introduction

Major vascular surgeries, such as lower-limb revascularisation, abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, and carotid endarterectomy (CEA), are increasingly common and carry a relatively high risk of perioperative mortality and major complications. In the United Kingdom (UK), 18,090 lower-limb bypass procedures were carried out in 2017–2019 [1]. For elective procedures (n = 11,283 [62%]), 1.0% of patients died in hospital and 10.2% were readmitted within 30 days. The same report stated that 3,445 elective infra-renal AAA repairs and 4,141 CEAs were performed in 2019 [1]. For patients undergoing open AAA repair (n = 1,355 [39%]), 2.3% died in hospital and 4.7% were readmitted within 30 days. For CEA, the corresponding figures were 1.9% and 4.4%, respectively.

Vascular procedures are complicated by the common prevalence amongst patients of comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, chronic lung disease and ischaemic heart disease, and other perioperative risk factors such as advanced age, low physical fitness, and smoking. For example, in relation to the elective lower-limb bypass procedures mentioned above, 47.1% of patients were over the age of 70 years, 31% were current smokers, 70% had hypertension, and 33.7% had ischaemic heart disease [1]. Such factors can reduce a patient’s ability to withstand the physiological stress of major surgery, which is a key determinant of outcome. With lower ‘fitness for surgery’, the risk of complications and readmissions increases, and more intensive postoperative care is typically required [2-6]. The optimisation of modifiable risk factors in the weeks between diagnosis and treatment is therefore important for improving postoperative outcomes, and is an area of growing interest [7,8].

“Prehabilitation” is a term used to describe structured preoperative interventions to increase physiological reserve and address modifiable risk factors [9,10]. It typically includes three stages: screening/assessment, individualised needs-based intervention(s), and post-treatment evaluation. Exercise training is a common feature of prehabilitation programmes and is used either alone or as part of a multimodal intervention involving one or more of the following: nutritional support, psychological support, smoking cessation, alcohol reduction, and management of comorbidities. Preoperative exercise programmes may include aerobic training, resistance training, respiratory muscle training, or varying combinations of these activities.

In cancer care, prehabilitation has been shown to produce meaningful improvements in perioperative risk factors within two weeks [11], thereby facilitating patient readiness for surgery without undue delay. Subsequent benefits include a reduced risk of postoperative complications [12], better functional capacity [13], and health and social care financial savings [14]. Such findings have supported the development of principles and guidelines on prehabilitation for people with cancer [15] and new cancer prehabilitation services [16]. The role of prehabilitation for major vascular surgery is, however, less clear. For example, an evidence review for the 2020 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline on the diagnosis and management of AAA concluded that the evidence on preoperative exercise training was not robust enough to support a recommendation [17].

Although evidence on prehabilitation has been reviewed in the context of specific, individual vascular procedures (e.g., AAA repair [18]), no comprehensive review is available that covers all the most common, higher-risk procedures (i.e., lower-limb revascularisation, AAA repair, and CEA). We therefore conducted a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of prehabilitation including exercise compared with usual care or no prehabilitation on pre- and post-operative outcomes in people undergoing elective major vascular surgery.

Methods

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions v6.2 [19], reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 statement [20], and registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021245933).

Study selection

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (such as those that allocate participants to groups based on location of residence or date of assessment) of exercise training for adults (age ≥18 years) preparing for elective major vascular surgery that were published between January 1, 2008 and April 26, 2021 and met the inclusion criteria (Table 1) were identified by using our predefined search criteria (S1 Text) within the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL Complete (EBSCO), CENTRAL. The database searches were rerun on December 7, 2021. The surgical populations were limited to peripheral artery disease (PAD), AAA, and carotid artery disease to maintain a focus on vascular procedures (i.e., lower-limb revascularisation, AAA repair, and CEA, respectively) for which prehabilitation might be of greater importance. The review was restricted to studies published from 2008 onward because that was the year of the earliest study [21] included in previous reviews of exercise training before vascular surgery [22,23]. Relevant studies were also sought through screening of trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP) and forward and backward citations of included studies.

Table 1

Inclusion criteria.

Category	Description
Design	RCTs or quasi-RCTs
Population	Adults (age ≥18 years) scheduled to undergo elective procedures for PAD, AAA, or carotid artery disease
Intervention	The offer of structured, preoperative exercise training (≥7 days’ duration) either alone or as part of a multimodal intervention. Exercise training could be aerobic training, resistance training, respiratory muscle training, or any combination of these activities.
Comparator	Usual care or no exercise training
Outcome measures	At least one of the following needed to be measured: Postoperative mortality (at 30 days and maximum follow-up) • Postoperative complication rate (e.g., assessed using the Clavien Dindo scale or Comprehensive Complication Index) • Health-related quality of life (e.g., assessed using the SF-36, EQ-5D or a disease-specific tool such as the VascuQoL) • Amputation-free survival in revascularisation procedures • Hospital readmission • Length of hospital and critical care stay • Functional capacity (e.g., 6-minute walk distance, peak oxygen consumption) • Psychological health (e.g., anxiety, depression, or stress; assessed using a validated questionnaire) • Adverse events related to exercise • Adherence to the exercise programme

AAA, abdominal aortic aneurysm; PAD, peripheral artery disease; RCT, randomised controlled trial

Search results were imported into EndNote X9. Two authors (GT, KC) independently screened the identified records based on their title and abstract. When there was insufficient information to determine eligibility, full texts were retrieved and screened. Disagreements about study eligibility were resolved through discussion.

Data extraction and risk of bias assessment

Two authors (GT, KC) independently extracted data from the included studies using a standardised form in Microsoft Excel. Extracted data were compared, with any discrepancies being resolved through discussion. The data extracted from each study included author names, publication date, country, study design, participant eligibility criteria and baseline characteristics, outcome measures (Table 1) and times assessed, length of follow up, and funding. Primary outcomes were postoperative mortality, postoperative complications, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

Prehabilitation intervention details were also extracted. These included intervention timeframes, components of multimodal interventions, and details of the exercise component according to the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) [24]. The CERT, which was designed to support the complete reporting of exercise programmes, comprises 16 items listed under 7 sections/domains: what (materials); who (provider); how (delivery); where (location); when, how much (dosage); tailoring (what/how); how well (compliance/planned and actual).

We assessed risk of bias in the included studies using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2.0) [25]. RoB 2.0 addresses five specific domains: bias arising from the randomisation process; bias due to deviations from intended interventions; bias due to missing outcome data; bias in measurement of the outcome; and bias in selection of the reported result. Two authors (GT, KC) independently applied the tool to each included study for each of the three primary outcomes and recorded supporting information and justifications for judgements of risk of bias for each domain (low; high; some concerns). Any discrepancies in judgements of risk of bias or justifications for judgements were resolved by discussion. Following guidance [25], we derived an overall summary risk of bias judgement (low; some concerns; high) for each outcome, whereby the overall risk of bias for each study was determined by the highest risk of bias level recorded across the domains.

Data synthesis and analysis

We synthesised the data in both narrative and tabular formats. Although we planned meta-analyses, the included studies provided varying outcomes and data that could not be combined in a meta-analysis. We therefore did not perform a meta-analysis. We present summary outcome data and effect estimates as reported in the original trial reports.

Two authors (GT, KC) independently assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach [26]. When applicable, we followed published guidance for rating the certainty in evidence in the absence of a single estimate of effect [27]. We assessed the certainty of evidence for a particular outcome as high, moderate, low, or very low. We used GRADEpro software to prepare a ’Summary of findings’ table [28]. We justified all decisions to down- or up-grade the certainty of evidence using footnotes.

Results

The database searches yielded 23,113 records. After removing duplicates, we screened 18,506 records, from which we reviewed seven full-text documents, and finally included three studies [21,29,30]. Later, we reviewed the forward and backward citations of these three included studies. This resulted in a further seven full-text documents being reviewed; however, none of these fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The records that were excluded in the full-text reviewing stage are listed in S1 Table. Fig 1 shows the PRISMA flow diagram.

Fig 1

PRISMA flow diagram.

Study characteristics

Table 2 summarises the characteristics of the three included studies. All studies were parallel-group trials where participants were individually randomised either to an experimental group that received preoperative exercise training or a control group that received usual care. One study was conducted in the Netherlands [21], and the other two in the UK [29,30]. All three studies involved people undergoing AAA repair; a mixture of open and endovascular repairs in two studies [29,30], and unspecified in the other [21]. A total of 197 participants were included in these studies, with study sample sizes ranging from 20 to 124. Group mean ages ranged from 59 to 75 years across the studies. In two studies [29,30] participants were mostly male, and in the third study [21] they were mostly female.

Table 2

Study characteristics.

Study ID	Study design	Population	Experimental groups		Outcomes
			Intervention	Control	Mortality	Complications	HRQOL	Other
Dronkers 2008 [21]	Parallel-group, individually randomised RCTFollow-up: 7 days after surgery	Country: NetherlandsProcedure: AAA repair (not specified)Sample size: 20	Sample size: 10Mean age (y): 70Male: 20%	Sample size: 10Mean age (y): 59Male: 30%	✓	✓Pulmonary	✖	Adverse eventsAdherence
Barakat 2016 [29]	Parallel-group, individually randomised RCTFollow-up: 3 months after discharge	Country: UKProcedure: AAA repair (open repair or EVAR)Sample size: 124	Sample size: 62Mean age (y): 74Male: 90.3%EVAR: 37.1%	Sample size: 62Mean age (y): 73Male: 88.7%EVAR: 37.1%	✓	✓Cardiac, pulmonary, renal, SIRS, bleeding requiring reoperation or transfusion	✖	Length of stayPreoperative fitness (VT, peak V˙O_2)Adverse eventsAdherence
Tew 2017 [30]	Parallel-group, individually randomised RCTFollow-up: 12 weeks after discharge	Country: UKProcedure: AAA repair (open repair or EVAR)Sample size: 53	Sample size: 27Mean age (y): 75Male: 92.6%EVAR: 59.3%	Sample size: 26Mean age (y): 75Male: 96.2%EVAR: 57.7%	✓	✓Organ-specific: POMS	✓EQ-5D, SF36-PF,SF36-MH	ReadmissionsLength of stayPreoperative fitness (VT, peak V˙O_2)Adverse eventsAdherence

AAA, abdominal aortic aneurysm; EQ-5D, EuroQol 5-dimensions questionnaire; EVAR, endovascular aneurysm repair; HRQOL, health-related quality of life; peak , peak oxygen consumption; POMS, Post-Operative Morbidity Survey; RCT, randomised controlled trial; SF36-MH, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey–Mental Health subscale; SF36-PF, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey–Physical Functioning subscale; SIRS, systemic inflammatory response syndrome; VT, ventilatory threshold.

Detailed descriptions of the exercise interventions are provided in S2 Table. In one study [21], the exercise comprised of inspiratory muscle training, with participants performing one 15-minute exercise session, 6 days a week, for at least 2 weeks prior to surgery. In another study [29], participants attended hospital-based exercise classes three times per week for 6 weeks preoperatively. The classes used a circuit format with a mixture of aerobic and resistance exercises used at the exercise stations. In the third study [30], participants attended hospital-based exercise sessions three times per week for 4 weeks preoperatively, with weekly ‘maintenance’ sessions included if the operation was delayed. Each session involved high-intensity interval training on a cycle ergometer. None of the studies reported the concomitant use of any other prehabilitation interventions (e.g., smoking cessation, nutritional support).

Outcome measures varied across the included studies. All three studies reported data on postoperative mortality and complications. Postoperative complications were assessed by a blinded investigator using a variety of methods. One study assessed pulmonary complications as the incidence of atelectasis in the 7 days after surgery [21]. Another study [30] assessed organ-specific morbidity using the Post-Operative Morbidity Survey (POMS), reporting the total POMS count up to the point of hospital discharge. The third study [29] assessed the incidence of cardiac, pulmonary, and renal complications (according to specified definitions) as a composite primary outcome, as well as the incidence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome and postoperative bleeding requiring reoperation or transfusion. Only one study [30] assessed HRQOL, with participants self-completing the SF-36v2™ Health Survey to determine scores for the physical functioning and mental health subscales, and the EQ-5D-5L to determine scores for the utility index and visual analogue scale (VAS). Other postoperative outcomes included readmissions [30] and length of hospital stay [29,30]. Two studies [29,30] measured the change in cardiorespiratory fitness before surgery by determining ventilatory threshold and peak oxygen consumption from cardiopulmonary exercise testing. All studies reported data on exercise-related adverse events. All studies also reported data on intervention adherence: in one study [21] participants documented their training sessions in a diary, in another study [29] it appeared that registers were used to document class attendance, and in the third study [30] an investigator completed a case report form to document session attendance and acute responses to exercise (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, perceived exertion).

Outcome data

Table 3 summarises the data on primary outcome measures, adverse events, and adherence from each study. Two studies [21,30] reported no postoperative deaths during follow-up and one study [29] reported two deaths in each of the two study groups. Combining the studies gave a death rate of 1.9% in each group. A meta-analysis was not performed due to the low number of events and heterogeneity of interventions. Regarding complications, the largest trial [29] provided evidence that cardiac and renal complications were less likely to occur in people who participated in preoperative hospital-based exercise classes compared with those who had not. An exploratory (i.e., underpowered) sub-group analysis indicated that the effect was procedure-specific, with a greater risk reduction being observed in patients undergoing open surgical repair rather than endovascular repair. The same trial, and an earlier pilot study [21], could not differentiate between rates of pulmonary complications. A meta-analysis was not performed due to heterogeneity in interventions and outcome assessment. The one trial [30] that measured HRQOL reported superior scores in the intervention group at 12 weeks after discharge for EQ-5D utility index and SF-36 physical functioning; however, differences in EQ-VAS and SF-36 mental health scores were not statistically significant. There were no serious exercise-related adverse events. One study [30] reported two non-serious adverse events: dizziness and angina. It appeared that adherence to exercise was generally good; however, in the study of Tew et al. [30] the intensity of exercise was generally lower than intended, with only 30% of exercise bouts being reported to be in the target range of hard to very hard.

Table 3

Outcome data.

Study ID	Mortalitya	Complications	HRQOL	Adverse events	Adherence
Dronkers 2008 [21]	0	Incidence of pulmonary complications:Intervention: 3/10Control: 8/10RR 0.38 (0.14, 1.02)b	N/A	0	"All participants reported their daily inspiratory muscle training workout in their diaries."
Barakat 2016 [29]	2 in each group	Incidence of cardiac complications:Intervention: 5/62 (EVAR 1, OAR 4)Control: 14/62 (EVAR 3, OAR 11)RR 0.36 (0.14, 0.93)bIncidence of pulmonary complications:Intervention: 7/62 (EVAR 0, OAR 7)Control: 13/62 (EVAR 4, OAR 9)RR 0.54 (0.23, 1.26)bIncidence of renal complications:Intervention: 4/62 (EVAR 1, OAR 3)Control: 13/62 (EVAR 1, OAR 12)RR 0.31 (0.11, 0.89)b	N/A	0	0 classes: 11/626–12 classes: 19/6213–18 classes: 32/62
Tew 2017 [30]	0	Total POMS count up to hospital discharge:Intervention (mean): 2.3Control (mean): 2.1(difference 0.2, 95% CI -0.3 to 0.7)	EQ-5D utility index scores at 12 weeks: Intervention (mean, n = 21): 0·837Control (mean, n = 22): 0·760(difference 0·077, 0·005 to 0·148)EQ-VAS score at 12 weeks:Intervention (mean, n = 21): 79·6Control (mean, n = 22): 74·4(difference 5·2, –1·7 to 12·0)SF-36 physical functioning at 12 weeks: Intervention (mean, n = 22): 49·4Control (mean, n = 21): 46·5(difference 2·9, 0·4 to 5·4)SF-36® mental health at 12 weeks:Intervention (mean, n = 21): 55·6Control (mean, n = 21): 55·0(difference 0·6, –2·4 to 3·6)	2 (dizziness, angina)	240/324 (74%) main-phase and 36/40 (90%) maintenance sessions completed (overall attendance = 75·8%)17/27 (63%) attended ≥9/12 main-phase sessions and all maintenance sessions30% of exercise bouts were reported to be in the target range of hard to very hard

EVAR, endovascular aneurysm repair; HRQOL, health-related quality of life; OAR, open aneurysm repair; POMS, Post-Operative Morbidity Survey; RR, risk ratio.

aAt 7 days after surgery for Dronkers 2008 and 30 days after surgery for Barakat 2016 and Tew 2017.

bRisk ratios taken from [17]. Effect sizes below 1 favour the intervention group.

Two studies [29,30] reported data on length of hospital stay. For intervention versus control, median length of hospital stay was 7 versus 8 days (P = 0.025), respectively in the study of Barakat et al. [29] and 7 versus 6 days (P not reported) in the study of Tew et al. [30]. The same two studies also used cardiopulmonary exercise testing to assess ventilatory threshold and peak oxygen consumption (measures of cardiorespiratory fitness) at baseline and preoperatively (after prehabilitation). In the study of Barakat et al. [29], there were statistically significant (P<0.05) improvements in ventilatory threshold and peak oxygen consumption in the intervention group (mean changes of +1.9 and +1.6 ml/kg/min, respectively) but not in the control group (mean changes of -0.2 and -1.2 ml/kg/min, respectively). In the study of Tew et al. [30], preoperative scores for these outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups (mean differences of 0·3 [95% CI -0·4 to 1·1] and 0·5 [95% CI -0·6 to 1·7] ml/kg/min, respectively). One study [29] reported data on the incidence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and bleeding requiring reoperation or transfusion. During hospital stay, SIRS occurred in 50/62 (80.6%) intervention participants and 51/62 (82.3%) control participants (P = 0.817). Rates of postoperative bleeding were 4/62 (6.5%) and 7/62 (11.3%), respectively (P = 0.343). Finally, one study [30] reported data on hospital readmissions: 0/27 (0%) versus 3/26 (11.5%) for intervention and control groups, respectively.

Risk of bias and certainty of evidence

A summary of the risk of bias assessments is provided in Fig 2. For the outcomes of postoperative mortality and complications, the overall risk of bias was judged to be low in all three studies. For HRQOL, the study of Tew et al. [30] received an overall rating of ‘some concerns’ because participants completed the questionnaires with knowledge of the intervention received.

Fig 2

Risk of bias judgements.

The certainty of evidence assessments for the primary outcomes are summarised in Table 4. The evidence was rated as moderate for cardiac and renal complications, and low for mortality, pulmonary complications, and HRQOL. All outcomes were downgraded one or two levels for imprecision. HRQOL was also downgraded one level for its ‘some concerns’ risk of bias rating.

Table 4

Summary of findings.

Outcomes	Impact	Number of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)
Postoperative mortality	The studies could not differentiate between rates of all-cause mortality.	197 (3 RCTs)	⨁⨁◯◯ LOW a
Cardiac complications (including myocardial infarction, prolonged inotropic support, new onset arrhythmia, and unstable angina)	One study reported a lower rate of complications in the intervention group.	124 (1 RCT)	⨁⨁⨁◯ MODERATE b
Pulmonary complications (including atelectasis, pneumonia, pneumonia requiring reintubation, exacerbation of COPD, and reintubation)	Two studies could not differentiate between rates of complications.	144 (2 RCTs)	⨁⨁◯◯ LOW a
Renal complications (including acute renal failure and renal insufficiency)	One study reported a lower rate of complications in the intervention group.	124 (1 RCT)	⨁⨁⨁◯ MODERATE b
Postoperative HRQOL (including SF-36 physical functioning and mental health subscales and EQ-5D utility index)	One study reported better postoperative HRQOL outcomes in the intervention group.	53 (1 RCT)	⨁⨁◯◯ LOW b,c

Explanations

a. Confidence interval crosses two lines of a defined minimum clinically important difference (for complications: RR MIDs of 0.8 and 1.25), downgrade 2 levels.

b. Confidence interval crosses one line of a defined minimum clinically important difference (for complications: RR MIDs of 0.8 and 1.25), downgrade 1 level.

c. Participants completed the questionnaires with knowledge of the intervention received, downgrade 1 level.

Discussion

Main findings

This systematic review evaluating preoperative exercise training in the context of major vascular surgery identified three comparative studies in patients undergoing elective AAA repair and no studies in patients receiving any other vascular procedure. One study provided moderate-certainty evidence that postoperative cardiac and renal complications were less likely to occur in patients with an AAA who participated in preoperative exercise training compared with those who did not. Another study provided low-certainty evidence of better postoperative HRQOL outcomes in people who had received exercise. Rates of all-cause mortality and pulmonary complications could not be differentiated between groups (low-certainty evidence). There were no serious exercise-related adverse events. This review provides researchers, healthcare practitioners, and policy makers with an overview of the current evidence to inform future research directions and clinical practice.

Exercise training before AAA repair

We identified three RCTs that provided data on a broad range of outcome measures (Tables 2–4). Overall, our impression is that the current evidence on efficacy and safety is promising, but insufficiently robust for preoperative exercise training to be recommended in clinical guidelines. For example, the small sample sizes and relatively short follow-up periods reduces confidence in the reported outcomes. Our findings are consistent with three other recent reviews of preoperative exercise for people with AAA [17,18,31], which identified the same primary studies. These reviews all called for further research. Our search of trial registries identified three relevant ongoing studies that will include a combined total of 195 participants [32-34]. However, these studies all have a main focus on feasibility, so an adequately powered RCT would still be needed to establish clinical and cost-effectiveness. Suggested features of a full-scale trial are as follows:

Population: adults undergoing elective repair of an unruptured AAA

Intervention: a supervised exercise programme that prioritises aerobic exercise training but may also include resistance training and respiratory muscle training. In the context of the UK healthcare system, the programme duration should be 4–6 weeks to fit with the 8-week referral to repair target.

Comparator: usual care (including preoperative assessment but no structured exercise)

Outcomes: postoperative mortality and complications, HRQOL, adverse events, resource use and costs

Study design: pragmatic multi-centre RCT

Whether or not to include people undergoing EVAR will require careful consideration; their inclusion would facilitate recruitment, but possibly at the expense of reducing the effect size (preoperative fitness is less important before EVAR because this procedure is less metabolically demanding than open surgery). Indeed, the study of Barakat et al. [29] provided preliminary data indicating a greater effect of prehabilitation on postoperative complications in people undergoing open surgery compared with those receiving EVAR. Further research is necessary to better understand which patient sub-groups stand to benefit most from prehabilitation. Other potential areas of future research include the comparative effectiveness of different exercise programmes, the feasibility and effects of delivering exercise as part of a multimodal prehabilitation programme, the role of new technologies and remote modes of delivery, and the values and preferences of patients regarding prehabilitation options.

There is limited direct evidence to support the recommendation of a specific prehabilitation programme for people undergoing elective AAA repair (or any other vascular procedure). Guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on improving surgical outcomes for people with AAA [35] recommend that exercise be promoted to improve cardiovascular and general health, however specific programme details (e.g., mode, frequency, intensity, duration) are not provided, and individuals are signposted to other NICE guidelines on physical activity that are not specific to people with AAA [36]. Other guidelines provide more specific recommendations on preoperative exercise training [37,38], but these are largely based on data from other surgical populations and expert opinion. Notable recommendations are as follows:

A stepped care model of prehabilitation should be considered, where higher risk patients receive targeted and more intensive individualised interventions and low risk patients receive more generalised universal interventions (e.g., preoperative education)

A combination of aerobic training, resistance training, and respiratory muscle training should be delivered, however aerobic training should be prioritised because aerobic exercise capacity specifically is associated with surgical outcome [4-6]

Moderate to high intensity interval exercise programmes are recommended

Exercise training should commence as early in the surgical pathway as possible

Supervised exercise programmes are preferred using either face-to-face or remote/virtual supervision

Regarding safety considerations, again there is little direct evidence to inform practice. However, given the nature of the population, we would advocate a cautious approach. Pragmatic control measures include thorough preparticipation screening, exclusion of patients with contraindications to exercise (e.g., severe aortic stenosis, uncontrolled arrhythmia), exercise sessions supervised and delivered by individuals with relevant expertise, prompt evaluation of untoward medical signs and symptoms, first aid equipment immediately available, and reduction in exercise intensity if a patient has systolic blood pressure rise to >180 mmHg or heart rate >95% of their maximum [39]. The latter point relates to a concern that excessive rises in double product (systolic blood pressure × heart rate) during excessive training may evoke aneurysm expansion or rupture. However, the available evidence suggests that these concerns are unfounded [40].

Exercise training before lower-limb revascularisation for PAD

We found no eligible studies of preoperative exercise training in patients undergoing lower-limb revascularisation for PAD; a finding that is consistent with a recent Cochrane review on this topic [22]. However, other evidence (mostly indirect) highlights the potential benefit of prehabilitation in this specific population: (i) observational data showing that impaired functional capacity is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications after infra-inguinal bypass surgery [41]; (ii) meta-analyses of RCTs showing that structured exercise training can produce meaningful improvements in functional capacity in people who are being managed conservatively for intermittent claudication due to PAD [42,43], and (iii) meta-analyses of RCTs showing that preoperative exercise training can reduce postoperative complications in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery [44,45]. However, we would caution against extrapolating from this evidence due to some unique features of this population. For example, ischaemic leg pain owing to the condition might make ’conventional’ exercise programmes based on walking, running, or cycling difficult to perform. Accordingly, further research is needed to generate evidence that is specific to this population.

Our search of trial registries failed to identify any relevant ongoing studies, but we did identify one study that had been terminated early due to “Difficulty with enrolment and change in available study resources” [46]. This pilot RCT sought to ascertain the feasibility and acceptability of recruiting people with lower-extremity PAD to a prehabilitation programme in which participants were encouraged to increase their physical activity, practice stress reduction, and engage in other healthy behaviours “in the days leading up to surgery”. The primary outcomes were the feasibility and acceptability of participation, with specific targets including the enrolment of 25–40 participants, a drop-out rate of <15% at the 8-month follow-up, and >85% usage of the pedometers by participants in the intervention group. The study was stopped after having only enrolled seven patients in 16 months. The exclusion of patients with critical limb ischaemia may have hampered recruitment by vastly reducing the number of potentially eligible patients, however the outcome still indicates that prehabilitation trials in the PAD population might be difficult to perform. Accordingly, we recommend that further work is done to establish the feasibility of the intervention and key trial processes (e.g., recruitment) prior to embarking on a full-scale trial. Suggested features of a feasibility study are as follows:

Population: adults undergoing elective lower-limb revascularisation, including people with intermittent claudication with lifestyle limiting symptoms for whom conservative treatment did not work and people with critical limb ischaemia

Intervention: a supervised exercise programme that prioritises aerobic exercise training but may also include resistance training and respiratory muscle training

Comparator: usual care (including preoperative assessment but no structured exercise)

Outcomes: feasibility–rates of recruitment, retention, adherence, outcome completion; other–postoperative mortality and complications, HRQOL, adverse events, resource use and costs

Study design: pragmatic multi-centre pilot RCT

Whether or not to include endovascular procedures requires similar considerations to those discussed previously for the AAA population. The exercise intervention also needs further development since lower-body exercise may not be acceptable to many patients. Programmes involving arm ergometry may be worth exploring because this mode of training has been shown to improve aerobic fitness and walking distances in people with intermittent claudication [47].

Exercise training before revascularisation for carotid artery disease

We also did not find any completed or ongoing trials of preoperative exercise training in carotid artery disease. This is perhaps unsurprising for two main reasons. Firstly, conducting a trial on this population would be challenging because the vast majority of procedures (in the UK at least) are performed in patients who have experienced transient symptoms or a stroke, for whom the target is to operate with two weeks of initial symptoms [48]. Thus, the timeframe to recruit and train patients would be very short. Secondly, it is unclear how preoperative exercise training would reduce postoperative complications in this population. The complication rate is low and procedures do not generate a large inflammatory response. We are also not aware of any data demonstrating an association between poor fitness and an increased risk of postoperative complications after CEA. Therefore, we do not think that revascularisation for carotid artery disease is a good model to explore the potential benefits of preoperative exercise in future research. This is not to say that other aspects of preoperative optimisation are not important (e.g., smoking cessation), and exercise may still have an important role as part of optimal medical management in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis [49,50] and in rehabilitation after stroke [51].

Strengths and limitations of this review

This review benefits from robust methods in keeping with established guidelines [19], including a registered protocol. Searches were comprehensive and two review authors conducted the record screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments independently. The exercise interventions were also reported according to clinical consensus guidelines [24]. However, this review has some limitations. First, we did not identify any eligible studies involving PAD or carotid artery disease populations. Second, there were only three eligible studies in the context of AAA repair, two of which were pilot or feasibility trials [21,30], and the other of which was powered on a composite endpoint [29]. All had relatively short follow-up periods. Third, we were unable to conduct meaningful meta-analyses due to limited data and heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures.

Conclusion

The aim of our systematic review was to assess the benefits and harms of preoperative exercise training in adults undergoing elective major vascular procedures. The evidence on preoperative exercise training for people undergoing AAA repair is promising, but currently insufficiently robust for this intervention to be recommended in clinical guidelines. More high-quality trials are needed to guide best practice and policy. Research is also needed to determine the feasibility and effects of exercise training in people awaiting lower-limb revascularisation.

Records that were excluded at the full-text reviewing stage.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Descriptions of the exercise components used in prehabilitation interventions according to Consensus Exercise Reporting Template (CERT).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Database search strategies.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

6 Dec 2021

7 Dec 2021

Response to Reviewers

Preoperative exercise training for adults undergoing elective major vascular surgery: A systematic review

Journal Requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

We have reformatted the headings and updated the figure citations and file names for figures. Supporting information has been uploaded separately as individual files. Postal codes have been removed from affiliations.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

[I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: GT and GD were investigators on one of the included trials (Tew 2017).]

We have re-named this section as “Competing interests” and inserted the following variant of what has been suggested: “The authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: GT and GD were investigators on one of the included trials (Tew 2017).”

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

We have included that statement in the Competing Interests section.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

The updated statement has been included in our cover letter.

3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

We have reviewed the reference list and believe it to be complete and correct.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for submitting this interesting article. Some comments have been made by the expert Reviewers. Please address the comments raised if you are considering a re-submission.

We are glad that you think our article is interesting. We have addressed all review comments.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: For transparency to the authors i have already reviewed this document and provided feedback which i believe has mainly been addressed. However i did not see the previous response to reviewer document. Some further considerations for review:

We appreciate the time you have taken to review our manuscript and thank you for the thoughtful and helpful comments.

1. With regard to the RoB tool, i would consider an external reviewer as some of the papers are the authors own.

The risk of bias assessments were conducted independently by two reviewers. One of the reviewers (KC) was not involved in the any of the included studies. There were no discrepancies in two reviewers’ judgements, so we are confident that our assessments are appropriate and unbiased.

2. Consider a secondary search as the current one is nearing 8 months post completion.

We performed a rerun of the database searches on December 7, 2021. No further relevant RCTs were identified.

3. This review only included 3 studies but a recently published Cochrane - identifies 4 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34236703/) please consider whether the missing study should be included in this review?

We think that the reviewer is referring to the following pilot study of Richardson and colleagues: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02845167. This study was excluded during our screening process because the intervention involved exercise sessions on three consecutive days. For inclusion in our review, the training duration needed to be at least one week.

4. Regarding the complications in the Baraket paper these were found to be surgery specific OPEN vs EVAR, it would be good to demonstrate this in the results section.

We have added the procedure-specific complication rates to Table 3, as well as the following sentence: “An exploratory (i.e., underpowered) sub-group analysis indicated that the effect was procedure-specific, with a greater risk reduction being observed in patients undergoing open surgical repair rather than endovascular repair.”

5. Page 15 lines 222-223 & 227-228 are repeats.

These sentences are worded similarly, but both are relevant and worthy of inclusion as they relate to different outcomes. The first sentence refers to how we handled the mortality data. The second sentence refers to how we handled the complications data.

6. Please discuss the discrepancy between the RoB reported here as low but reported as very high in the Cochrane review.

The Cochrane review of Fenton et al. (2021) used version 1 of the Cochrane RoB tool, whereas we used version 2, so the RoB results are not directly comparable. We can however comment on some apparent discrepancies. First, we did not consider there to be high risk of bias due to selective reporting because data were presented for the outcome measures that we were interested in. Second, Fenton et al. gave the study of Tew et al. a rating of ‘high risk’ for incomplete outcome data, stating that attrition was >20% and ITT analysis wasn’t used. Both these statements are incorrect. Third, in ‘other potential sources of bias’, Fenton et al. gave a high risk of bias rating to the study of Tew et al. for it being underpowered. This goes against Cochrane guidance that criteria related to precision should not be assessed within this domain (https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_8/8_15_2_assessing_risk_of_bias_from_other_sources.htm). Finally, we would like to note that that RoB results in the NICE evidence review (reference #17) are in keeping with our results.

7. Due to the lack of studies found in PAD and carotid disease, this review does have an overlap with the published Cochrane review. Is there consideration to expand your review to non-RCTs to include more data, although acknowledging that this is not as "high level evidence".

Quasi-RCTs were eligible for inclusion, however no such studies were found. We decided not to include uncontrolled studies because they provide little insight into the quantitative effect of prehabilitation on post-operative outcomes. Limiting the inclusion of studies to RCTs also reflects the approach used in evidence syntheses to inform clinical guidelines (i.e., to focus on “high-level evidence).

Reviewer #2: This is well-conducted systematic review of the published evidence regarding pre-habilitation exercise programmes prior to major vascular surgery (AAA, Lower limb bypasses and Carotid endarterectomy). Unfortunately there were only 3 RCTs which fulfilled the inclusion criteria, however this reflects the current lack of evidence in this area. The manuscript is well-written, however could benefit from shortening of the discussion section, where there seems to be a repetition of some of the findings in the results section.

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed the discussion section and would prefer not to shorten it. This is because we think that all the content is valuable and most of it is new (i.e., not repeated). For example, the discussion around implications for policy, practice and research and the strengths and limitations, which makes up most of the text, is all unique to this section. Also, at 1,828 words, the size of this section is in keeping with the rest of the manuscript.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

12 Jan 2022

Preoperative exercise training for adults undergoing elective major vascular surgery: A systematic review

PONE-D-21-32818R1

Dear Dr. Tew,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Athanasios Saratzis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

17 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-32818R1

Preoperative exercise training for adults undergoing elective major vascular surgery: A systematic review

Dear Dr. Tew:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Athanasios Saratzis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE