The State of Vascular Surgery Interest Groups in North America.

BACKGROUND: Vascular surgery interest groups (VSIGs) raise awareness and attract medical students to the specialty. There has been a plateauing of applicants interested in integrated programs. The goal of this survey was to assess the activities of VSIGs and identify factors associated with matriculation into vascular surgery residency. METHODS: A survey was administered to members of the association of program directors in vascular surgery. It inquired about the presence of a VSIG at the corresponding medical schools. The program directors at institutions lacking VSIGs were asked about possible hurdles in establishing one. The rest of the survey focused on the different activities of the VSIG. The VSIGs were divided into low enrollment if less than 10% of the students in that group pursue vascular surgery training and high enrollment if greater than 10% of the students pursue vascular surgery. Chi-squared test was used for comparison. RESULTS: There were 65/123 programs that responded (53% response rate). The responses came most commonly from programs in the Northeast (36.9%). Only 37% (n = 24) had a VSIG at their institutions. Lack of time (65.2%) and lack of a student champion (60.9%) were the most common hurdles encountered by the program directors who considered establishing a VSIG. Comparing the 2 groups of VSIGs, there was no difference in terms of the training paradigm, experience of program director, or geographical location. The VSIGs had comparable duration of activity, number of students, and meeting frequency. There was no difference in clinical exposure outside the curriculum between the 2 groups with observation on the wards and in clinic being most common. Endovascular simulation was significantly (P = 0.01) more common in low enrollment (83.3%) compared with high enrollment (33.3%) VSIG. There was a trend in the high enrollment group for more vascular anastomosis training (75% vs. 66.7%) that did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.65). There was no difference between the 2 groups in career development opportunities and education activities. Most VSIGs (75%) operated with a budget of less than $1,000 based on divisional or departmental funding (low enrollment = 66.7% versus high enrollment = 41.7%, P = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Only one-third of the vascular surgery training programs have an associated VSIG. Vascular surgery training programs should promote VSIG formation with equal emphasis on endovascular and open surgery, thus providing medical students an early exposure to the specialty.

Discrepancy in Outcomes after Revascularization for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia Warrants Separate Reporting of Rest Pain and Tissue Loss.

BACKGROUND: Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) manifests as rest pain (RP) and tissue loss (TL). Outcomes of lower extremity revascularization (LER) for CLTI have traditionally been evaluated as a single entity and compared with claudication. We hypothesize that patients presenting with TL have worse short-term outcomes after LER, compared to patients with RP. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample was reviewed between 2009 and 2013. All patients undergoing LER for TL and RP were identified. Patient characteristics, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), length of stay, rates of inpatient major amputation, and mortality after LER were noted. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of inpatient mortality and major amputation between the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 218,628 patients underwent LER (RP = 76,108, TL = 142,519). Patients with TL were more likely to undergo endovascular LER (RP = 31.3% vs. TL = 48.7%; P < 0.001). Patients with TL had higher comorbidities as suggested by increased likelihood of having CCI ≥3 (RP = 22.9% vs. TL = 40.3%; P < 0.001). The mean costs were significantly higher in the TL group (RP = $23,795 vs. TL = $31,470; P < 0.001). There was a significantly higher rate of major amputation (RP = 1.3% vs. TL = 6.6%; P < 0.001) and inpatient mortality (RP = 0.9% vs. TL = 1.9%; P < 0.001) after LER for TL. On multivariable analysis, TL was independently associated with increased major amputation (odds ratio [OR] 4.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.18-5.81) and increased mortality (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.16-1.74) compared to RP. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant discrepancy in outcomes of LER for TL and RP. TL is independently associated with major amputation and inpatient mortality. Outcomes of LER for TL and RP should be reported separately for better benchmarking.

The Reintervention Index: A New Outcome Measure for Comparative Effectiveness of Lower Extremity Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Reinterventions after lower extremity revascularization (LER) are common. Current outcome measures assessing durability of revascularization rely on freedom from reintervention but do not account for the frequency of repeated LER. The aim of this study is to compare the reintervention index, defined as the mean number of repeat LER, after open and endovascular revascularization. We hypothesized that endovascular procedures have reduced durability and increased frequency of reinterventions. METHODS: A retrospective review of the charts of consecutive patients undergoing LER for peripheral artery disease (PAD) in 2013-2014 by multiple specialties in a tertiary care center was performed. Patients were divided into open and endovascular groups based on the first LER procedure performed during the study period. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. Multivariable regression was performed to determine factors associated with reintervention. RESULTS: There were 367 patients (Endo = 316, Open = 51). A total of 211 patients underwent 497 reinterventions (reintervention rate = 57.5%, reintervention index = 2.35 ± 2.02 procedures [range 1-11]). Patients in the open group were more likely to be smokers (P = 0.018) and to have prior open LER (P = 0.003), while patients in the endovascular group were older (P < 0.001) and more likely to have cardiovascular comorbidities. On follow-up, there was no difference in overall or ipsilateral reintervention rates or reintervention indices between endovascular and open LER. Major amputation was significantly higher after open LER (19.61% vs. 8.54%, P = 0.013) but there was no difference in survival (P = 0.448). Multivariable analysis did not show a significant relationship between type of procedure and reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: The reintervention index provides a measure to assess the frequency of repeat LER. Patients with PAD, in this study, are afflicted with similar extent of reinterventions after open and endovascular LER.

Variations in the Management of Claudication in a Tertiary Care Center.

BACKGROUND: Multiple societal guidelines recommend medical optimization and exercise therapy for patients with claudication prior to lower extremity revascularization (LER). However, the application of those guidelines in practice remains unknown. Our hypothesis is that vascular surgeons (VS) are more adherent to guidelines compared to non-VS treating claudication. METHODS: The records of patients undergoing LER for claudication in a single center were reviewed, and adherence to guidelines prior to LER was assessed. Patients received conservative therapy if the impact of claudication on quality of life was documented, ankle-brachial index (ABI) was obtained, and patients were treated with at least 3 months of walking exercise and smoking cessation when indicated. RESULTS: There were 187 patients treated for claudication (VS = 65, non-VS = 122). There were 161 patients who underwent endovascular intervention, 19 patients had an open revascularization, and 7 patients had a hybrid procedure. Patients treated by VS were younger and more likely to be African American. Patients treated by non-VS were more likely to have hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, smoke, and be on antiplatelet and statin medications. VS was more likely to assess pattern of symptoms with claudication and obtain ABIs compared to non-VS, although the mean ABIs were no different. VS was more likely to use walking exercises and smoking cessation when indicated before LER. Even though 70.8% and 31.1% of patients treated by VS and non-VS respectively were recommended walking exercises, only 33.8% and 18.0% were given a period of 3 months to benefit from it prior to LER. Conservative therapy was significantly higher among VS compared to non-VS but was overall low (VS = 12.3%, non-VS = 3.3%, P = 0.016). After a mean follow-up of 3.1 ± 1.3 years, there was no difference in mortality or major amputation. CONCLUSIONS: Although adherence to guidelines in the medical management of vascular claudication prior to LER was higher among VS compared with non-VS, overall rates of adherence were low. Stricter institutional protocols and oversight across specialties are needed to reinforce the application of the established standards of care.

One-Year Readmission after Open and Endovascular Revascularization for Critical Limb Ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Lower extremity revascularization for critical limb ischemia (CLI) remains a subject of clinical equipoise. Readmissions and repeat lower extremity revascularization increase the cost of care and decrease the value of initial treatment. This study examines readmissions and repeat inpatient revascularization and major amputation up to 1 year after initial open and endovascular lower extremity revascularization. METHODS: The 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) was reviewed. The NRD provides all subsequent readmissions of any hospitalization for the calendar year. A cohort of patients undergoing lower extremity revascularization in January only was selected based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. Patients were divided into open and endovascular groups. Readmissions for repeat lower extremity revascularization (RFR) were identified based on procedural codes. Open and endovascular lower extremity revascularization were compared in terms of patient characteristics as well as readmissions, RFR, major amputation, and inpatient mortality at 1 year. Risk-adjusted outcomes accounting for differences in age, gender, income, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) were derived using regression analysis. RESULTS: There were 1,668 open and 1,410 endovascular lower extremity revascularizations. Patients in the endovascular group were significantly older (P < 0.01), more likely to be women (P < 0.01), and had higher CCI (P < 0.01). Patients undergoing endovascular lower extremity revascularization had significantly higher readmission rate (49 vs. 33.7, P < 0.01) and higher mortality (10.4 vs. 5.3, P < 0.01). Readmitted patients after endovascular lower extremity revascularization had significantly higher mean number of repeat readmissions compared to open lower extremity revascularization (2.49 ± 0.12 vs. 2.13 ± 0.08, P = 0.01). There was no difference in RFR (P = 0.82) or major amputation (P = 0.19). Open revascularization was independently associated with decreased readmission (odds ratio = 0.55 [0.43-0.71]) compared to endovascular. However, there was no significant association between the type of lower extremity revascularization and major amputation or RFR. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular lower extremity revascularization for CLI is performed on older and sicker patients and seems to be associated with increased readmission at 1 year compared to open lower extremity revascularization. Regardless of the initial modality of treatment, patients are likely to undergo at least 1 revascularization during readmissions.

The wire loop technique for IVC filter removal.

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are effective therapy to prevent pulmonary embolism in patients with contraindication to anticoagulation. However, IVC wall penetration by the filter struts is a common complication that can lead to symptoms specially when adjacent organs are impacted. This case report and video describe the wire loop technique for successful endovascular IVC filter retrieval in a patient with lower back pain caused by a spinal strut penetration. The patient's back pain resolved after filter retrieval and he remained stable on anticoagulation with no recurrence of venous thromboembolism.

Treatment of superior vena cava syndrome with kissing brachiocephalic stents and exchange of pacemaker leads.

Superior vena cava syndrome is an uncommon but challenging complication of patients undergoing hemodialysis through upper extremity access as well as of patients with indwelling pacemakers. This case report and Video demonstrate the multidisciplinary management of a complex patient with hemodialysis access and indwelling pacemaker for whom multiple attempts at balloon angioplasty for superior vena cava syndrome failed. A joint procedure between vascular surgery and cardiac electrophysiology teams was performed to exchange the pacemaker leads and to place bilateral kissing stents in the brachiocephalic veins. The patient tolerated the procedure well and had no recurrence of symptoms.