Polyvascular disease is common in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy and lower extremity bypass and is associated with worse outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Polyvascular disease is strongly associated with increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, its prevalence in patients undergoing carotid and lower extremity surgical revascularization and its impact on outcomes are unknown. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or infrainguinal lower extremity bypass (LEB), 2013-2019. Polyvascular disease was defined as presence of atherosclerotic occlusive disease in more than one arterial bed: carotid, coronary, and infrainguinal. Primary outcomes were (1) composite perioperative myocardial infarction (MI) or death and (2) 5-year survival. Patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes were evaluated using the χ2 test and multivariable logistic regression. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards multivariable models. RESULTS: Polyvascular disease was identified in 47% of CEA (39.0% in 2 arterial beds, 7.6% in 3 arterial beds; n = 93,736) and 47% of LEB (41.0% in 2 arterial beds, 5.7% in 3 arterial beds; n = 25,223). For both CEA and LEB, patients with polyvascular disease had more comorbidities including hypertension, congestive heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoking, diabetes mellitus, and end-stage renal disease (P < .0001). Perioperative MI/death rates increased with increasing number of vascular beds affected following CEA (0.9% in 1 bed vs 1.5% in 2 beds vs 2.7% in 3 beds; P < .001) and LEB (2.2% in 1 bed vs 5.3% in 2 beds vs 6.6% in 3 beds; P < .001). Polyvascular disease was associated independently with perioperative MI/death after CEA (odds ratio, 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-1.81;P < .0001) and LEB (odds ratio, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.52-2.08; P < .0001). Five-year survival was decreased in patients with polyvascular disease after CEA (82% in 3 beds vs 88% in 2 beds vs 92% in 1 bed; P < .01) and LEB (72% in 3 beds vs 75% in 2 beds vs 84% in 1 bed; P < .01) in a dose-dependent manner, with the lowest 5-year survival observed in those with three arterial beds involved. Polyvascular disease was independently associated with 5-year mortality after CEA (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.24-1.40; P = .0001) and LEB (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.20-1.41; P = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Polyvascular disease is common in patients undergoing CEA and LEB and is associated with a higher risk of perioperative MI/death and decreased long-term survival. After revascularization, patients with polyvascular disease should be considered for more aggressive cardioprotective medications and closer follow-up.

Medical Optimization of Patients with Symptomatic Peripheral Arterial Disease.

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a progressive disease associated with the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events and elevated mortality rates. Symptoms of PAD, including claudication and chronic limb-threatening ischemia, impair functional capacity and lead to lower quality of life. The focus of current therapies is to minimize symptoms, improve quality of life, and reduce adverse cardiovascular and limb events. Among the medical therapies are antiplatelets, anticoagulants, antihypertensives, lipid lowering therapies, cilostazol and pentoxifylline, and novel blood sugar-lowering therapies, plus exercise therapy and smoking cessation. In this review, we discuss these evidence-based medical therapies that are available for patients with symptomatic PAD.

The Association of Anticoagulation Intensity with Outcomes in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk is increased in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). A key question was whether increased intensity of anticoagulation would help prevent VTE and improve patient outcomes, including transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) and mortality. At the start of the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic, our institution, Boston Medical Center, instituted a VTE risk stratification protocol based on patients' initial D-dimer levels, medical history, and presence of thrombosis to determine whether they should receive standard-dose prophylaxis, high-dose prophylaxis, or therapeutic anticoagulation. We performed a retrospective observational cohort study examining the association of degree of anticoagulation with outcomes in 915 hospitalized COVID-19 patients hospitalized initially on the general inpatient wards between March 1,, 2020, and June 1, 2020. Patients directly hospitalized in the ICU were excluded. Most, 813 patients (89%), in our cohort were on standard-dose prophylaxis; 32 patients (3.5%) received high-dose prophylaxis; 70 patients (7.7%), were treated with therapeutic anticoagulation. VTE occurred in 45 patients (4.9%), and the overall in-hospital mortality rate was 5.4% (49 deaths). On multivariable analysis of clinical outcomes in relation to type of anticoagulation, in the high-dose prophylaxis group, there was a trend towards increased in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 2.4 (0.8-7.5, 95% CI)) and increased ICU transfer (odds ratio 2.2 (0.9-5.7, 95% CI)). Our results suggest that patients receiving high-dose prophylaxis had more severe disease that was not mitigated by intermediate-dose anticoagulation.

Temporal trends in the utilization of advanced therapies among patients with acute pulmonary embolism: insights from a national database.

There is a paucity of data regarding the contemporary temporal trends in the adoption of advanced pulmonary embolism (PE) therapies in the United States as well as the parallel trends in outcomes of patients with acute PE. Therefore, we queried the Nationwide Readmissions Database (years 2016-2020) to report the temporal trends in utilization of advanced PE therapies. Our final analysis included 920 770 hospitalizations with acute PE. We demonstrated an increase in the proportion of patients diagnosed with high-risk PE during the study years. Overall, there was an increase in the use of advanced PE therapies, which was mainly due to the increase in the utilization of systemic thrombolytics, and catheter-directed therapies. Also, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cannulation showed an incremental increase over the study years. The use of inferior vena cava filter has declined, while the use of surgical embolectomy did not change during the study years. The use of advanced therapies has increased among urban teaching, but not among urban non-teaching hospitals. During the study years, there was no change in unadjusted or adjusted in-hospital mortality rates among patients with acute PE, while the 90-day unplanned readmission rate has declined.

Outcomes following ipsilateral great saphenous vein bypass for lower extremity arterial injuries.

OBJECTIVE: Use of autologous great saphenous vein (GSV) grafts for repair of extremity arterial injuries is well established. Contralateral great saphenous vein (cGSV) is traditionally used in the setting of lower extremity vascular injury given the risk of occult ipsilateral superficial and deep venous injury. We evaluated outcomes of ipsilateral GSV (iGSV) bypass in patients with lower extremity vascular trauma. METHODS: Patient records at an ACS verified Level I urban trauma center between 2001 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who sustained lower extremity arterial injuries managed with autologous GSV bypass were included. Propensity-matched analysis compared the iGSV and cGSV groups. Primary graft patency was assessed via Kaplan-Meier analysis at 1-year and 3-years following the index operation. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients underwent autologous GSV bypass for lower extremity vascular injuries. 61 cases (80%) were secondary to penetrating trauma, and 15 patients (20%) underwent repair with iGSV bypass. Arteries injured in the iGSV group included popliteal (33.3%), common femoral (6.7%), superficial femoral (33.3%), and tibial (26.7%), while those in the cGSV group included common femoral (3.3%), superficial femoral (54.1%), and popliteal (42.6%). Reasons for using iGSV included trauma to the contralateral leg (26.7%), relative accessibility (33.3%), and other/unknown (40%). On unadjusted analysis, iGSV patients had a higher rate of 1-year amputation than cGSV patients (20% vs. 4.9%), but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.09). Propensity matched analysis also found no significant difference in 1-year major amputation (8.3% vs. 4.8%, P = 0.99). Regarding ambulatory status, iGSV patients had similar rates of independent ambulation (33.3% vs. 38.1%), need for assistive devices (58.3% vs. 57.1%), and use of a wheelchair (8.3% vs. 4.8%) compared cGSV patients at subsequent follow-up (P = 0.90). Kaplan-Meier analysis of bypass grafts revealed comparable primary patency rates for iGSV versus cGSV bypasses at 1-year (84% vs. 91%) and 3-years post-intervention (83% vs. 90%, P = 0.364). CONCLUSION: Ipsilateral GSV may be used as a durable conduit for bypass in cases of lower extremity arterial trauma where use of contralateral GSV is not feasible, with comparable long-term primary graft patency rates and ambulatory status.

Call for Formalized Pathways in Vascular Medicine Training: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

The burden of vascular diseases and complexity of their management have been growing. Vascular medicine specialists may help to bridge gaps in care, especially as part of multidisciplinary teams. However, there is a limited number of vascular medicine specialists because of constraints in training. Despite established pathways for training in vascular medicine, there are obstacles that restrict completion of training in dedicated programs. A key factor is lack of funding as a result of inadequate recognition by key national accrediting and credentialing organizations. A concerted effort is required to overcome the obstacles to expand vascular medicine training programs and ultimately the pool of vascular medicine specialists. Well-trained vascular medicine specialists will be well positioned to ease the burden of vascular disease and optimize patient outcomes.

Peri-Procedural Management of Hemodynamic Instability in Patients Undergoing Carotid Revascularization.

Acute perioperative changes in arterial pressure occur frequently, particularly in patients with cardiovascular disease or those receiving vasoactive medications, or in relation to certain cardiovascular surgical procedures. Hemodynamic Instability (HI) is common in patients undergoing carotid revascularization because of unique patho-physiological and surgical factors. The operation, by necessity, disrupts the afferent pathway of the baroreflex, which can lead to postendarterectomy HI. Poor arterial pressure control is associated with increased morbidity and mortality after carotid revascularization, but good control of arterial pressure is often difficult to achieve in practice. The incidence, implications, and etiology of HI associated with carotid surgery are reviewed, and some recommendations made for its management. Close monitoring and titration of therapy are probably the most important considerations rather than specific choice of agents.

Inadequate Adherence to Imaging Surveillance and Medical Management in Patients with Duplex Ultrasound-Detected Carotid Artery Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: It is recommended that patients with ≥50% carotid artery stenosis undergo surveillance imaging and atherosclerotic risk reduction medical therapies, regardless of whether revascularization is performed. The objective of this study was to determine rates of adherence to these recommended measures and to identify risk factors for nonadherence. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of all carotid duplex ultrasound (DUS) from 2016 to 2017 at a single institution. Patients with unilateral or bilateral ≥50% carotid stenosis were included. Primary outcomes were rates and timing of surveillance imaging and medication regimen. Patient and study characteristics were compared using univariate and multivariable analyses. A subgroup analysis of patients with a new finding of carotid stenosis was also performed. RESULTS: Carotid stenosis >50% was detected in 340 patients. Overall, 182 patients (54%) had follow-up imaging (median 261 days [IQR 166-366]) and 158 patients (46%) had no imaging follow-up (NIFU). NIFU patients had similar rates of aspirin use (86% vs. 88%, P = 0.6) and tobacco cessation counseling (71% vs. 71%, P = 0.8) but had less statin use (85% vs. 94%, P = 0.01) compared to those with imaging follow-up. Subsequent carotid revascularization was more common in patients with imaging follow-up (18% vs. 3%, P < 0.001). NIFU patients were less likely to have Medicare or commercial insurance (54% vs. 75%, P < 0.001). The indication for DUS in NIFU patients, compared to those in follow up, was less commonly neurologic symptoms (11% vs. 14%), more commonly other clinical findings (35% vs. 16%), and more commonly as work up before nonvascular surgery (25% vs. 4%, P < 0.001), respectively. NIFU rates decreased with increasing degree of carotid stenosis. Prior carotid intervention, prior DUS, or DUS ordered by a vascular surgeon were characteristics associated with imaging follow-up (P < 0.05 for all). In a subgroup of 160 patients with new carotid stenosis, a majority (64%) had NIFU and statin use was lower in these patients (82% vs. 96%, P = 0.007). On multivariable analysis, preop indication was predictive of NIFU (odds ratio [OR] 8.1 [95% confidence interval, CI 2.5-26.4], P < 0.001) whereas protective factors included: 70-80% stenosis (OR 0.33 [95% CI 0.14-0.76], P = 0.01), study ordered by vascular surgeon (OR 0.40 [95% CI 0.19-0.83], P = 0.01), and Medicare/commercial insurance (OR 0.36 [95% CI 0.2-0.66], P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of patients found to have ≥50% carotid stenosis on DUS had no imaging follow-up; these patients were less likely to be on recommended statin therapy. The benefits of nonrevascularization-based treatments for carotid disease require adherence to therapy. Forgoing surveillance imaging in patients with hemodynamically significant carotid stenosis should be a shared decision between provider and patient and does not obviate the need for medical therapies.

Society of Interventional Radiology Clinical Practice Guideline for Inferior Vena Cava Filters in the Treatment of Patients with Venous Thromboembolic Disease: Developed in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology, American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, American Heart Association, Society for Vascular Surgery, and Society for Vascular Medicine.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in the treatment of patients with or at substantial risk of venous thromboembolic disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multidisciplinary expert panel developed key questions to address in the guideline, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted. Evidence was graded based on a standard methodology, which was used to inform the development of recommendations. RESULTS: The systematic review identified a total of 34 studies that provided the evidence base for the guideline. The expert panel agreed on 18 recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Although the evidence on the use of IVC filters in patients with or at risk of venous thromboembolic disease varies in strength and quality, the panel provides recommendations for the use of IVC filters in a variety of clinical scenarios. Additional research is needed to optimize care for this patient population.

Natural History of Non-operative Management in Asymptomatic Patients with 70%-80% Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis by Duplex Criteria.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment of asymptomatic internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis, particularly for moderate to severe (70%-80%) disease, is controversial. The goal was to assess the clinical course of patients with moderate to severe carotid stenosis. METHODS: A single institution retrospective analysis of patients with asymptomatic ICA stenosis identified on duplex ultrasound as moderate to severe (70%-80%) from 2003 to 2018 were analysed. Duplex criteria for 70%-80% stenosis was a systolic velocity of ≥325 cm/s or an ICA:common carotid artery ratio of ≥4, and an end diastolic velocity of <140 cm/s. Asymptomatic status was defined as no stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA) within six months of index duplex. Primary outcomes were progression of stenosis to >80%, ipsilateral stroke/TIA without documented progression, and death. RESULTS: In total, 206 carotid arteries were identified in 182 patients meeting the inclusion criteria. Mean patient age was 71.5 years, 57.7% were male, and 67% were white. There were 19 stenoses removed from analysis except for survival analysis as they initially underwent carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stent based on surgeon/patient preference. Documented progression occurred in 24.1% of stenoses. There were 5.3% of stenoses associated with an ipsilateral stroke/TIA without documented progression, which occurred at a mean of 26.4 months. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a 60.3% five year freedom from stenosis progression, 92.5% five year freedom from stroke/TIA without documented progression, and 83.7% five year survival. Risk factors associated with stroke/TIA without documented progression at five years were atrial fibrillation (hazard ratio [HR] 14.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.72-81.16; p = .002) and clopidogrel use at index duplex (HR 6.19, 95% CI 1.33-28.83; p = .020). Risk factors associated with death at five years were end stage renal disease (HR 9.67, 95% CI 2.05-45.6; p = .004), atrial fibrillation (HR 7.55, 95% CI 2.48-23; p < .001), prior head/neck radiation (HR 6.37, 95% CI 1.39-29.31; p = .017), non-obese patients (HR 5.49, 95% CI 1.52-20; p = .009), and non-aspirin use at index duplex (HR 3.05, 95% CI 1.12-8.33; p = .030). CONCLUSION: Patients with asymptomatic moderate to severe carotid stenosis had a low rate of stroke/TIA without documented progression. However, there was a high rate of stenosis progression reinforcing the need to follow these patients closely.

Interpretation of peripheral arterial and venous Doppler waveforms: A consensus statement from the Society for Vascular Medicine and Society for Vascular Ultrasound.

This expert consensus statement on the interpretation of peripheral arterial and venous spectral Doppler waveforms was jointly commissioned by the Society for Vascular Medicine (SVM) and the Society for Vascular Ultrasound (SVU). The consensus statement proposes a standardized nomenclature for arterial and venous spectral Doppler waveforms using a framework of key major descriptors and additional modifier terms. These key major descriptors and additional modifier terms are presented alongside representative Doppler waveforms, and nomenclature tables provide context by listing previous alternate terms to be replaced by the new major descriptors and modifiers. Finally, the document reviews Doppler waveform alterations with physiologic changes and disease states, provides optimization techniques for waveform acquisition and display, and provides practical guidance for incorporating the proposed nomenclature into the final interpretation report.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Chronic Chest Pain-Noncardiac Etiology Unlikely-Low to Intermediate Probability of Coronary Artery Disease.

Chronic chest pain (CCP) of a cardiac etiology is a common clinical problem. The diagnosis and classification of the case of chest pain has rapidly evolved providing the clinician with multiple cardiac imaging strategies. Though scintigraphy and rest echocardiography remain as appropriate imaging tools in the diagnostic evaluation, new technology is available. Current evidence supports the use of alternative imaging tests such as coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), cardiac MRI (CMRI), or Rb-82 PET/CT. Since multiple imaging modalities are available to the clinician, the most appropriate noninvasive imaging strategy will be based upon the patient's clinical presentation and clinical status. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Suspected New-Onset and Known Nonacute Heart Failure.

While there is no single diagnostic test for heart failure (HF), imaging plays a supportive role beginning with confirmation of HF, especially by detecting ventricular dysfunction (Variant 1). Ejection fraction (EF) is important in HF classification, and imaging plays a subsequent role in differentiation between HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) versus preserved EF (HFpEF) (Variant 2). Once HFrEF is identified, distinction between ischemic and nonischemic etiologies with imaging support (Variant 3) facilitates further planning. Imaging approaches which are usually appropriate include: both resting transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and chest radiography for Variant 1; resting TTE and/or MRI (including functional, without absolute need for contrast) for Variant 2; and for Variant 3, a. Coronary CTA or coronary arteriography (if high pretest probability/symptoms for ischemic disease) for coronary assessment; b. Rest/vasodilator stress SPECT/CT, PET/CT, or MRI for myocardial perfusion assessment; c. Rest/exercise or inotropic stress TTE for myocardial contraction assessment; or d. MRI (including morphologic with contrast) for myocardial characterization. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Outcomes of Peripheral Vascular Interventions in Select Patients With Lower Extremity Acute Limb Ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary data on patients presenting with acute limb ischemia (ALI), who are selected for treatment with endovascular peripheral vascular interventions (PVI), are limited. Our study examined outcomes following endovascular PVI in patients with ALI by comparing with patients treated for chronic critical limb ischemia using a regional quality improvement registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of the 11 035 patients in the Vascular Study Group of New England PVI database (2010-2014), we identified 365 patients treated for lower extremity ALI who were 5:1 frequency matched (by procedure year and arterial segments treated) to 1808 patients treated for critical limb ischemia. ALI patients treated with PVI had high burden of atherosclerotic risk factors and were more likely to have had prior ipsilateral revascularizations. ALI patients were less likely to be treated with self-expanding stents and more likely to undergo thrombolysis than patients with critical limb ischemia. In multivariable analysis, ALI was associated with higher technical failure (odds ratio 1.7, 95% confidence interval, 1.1%-2.5%), increased rate of distal embolization (odds ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval, 1.5%-4.9%), longer length of stay (means ratio 1.6, 95% confidence interval, 1.4%-1.8%), and higher in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 2.8, 95% confidence interval, 1.3%-5.9%). ALI was not associated with risk of major amputation or mortality at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: In a multicenter cohort of patients treated with PVI, we found that ALI patients selected for treatment with endovascular techniques experienced greater short-term adverse events but similar long-term outcomes as their critical limb ischemia counterparts. Further studies are needed to refine the selection of ALI patients who are best served by PVI.

Preoperative Antiplatelet and Statin Use Does Not Affect Outcomes after Carotid Endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: The use of statin and antiplatelet medications has been advocated in patients with cerebrovascular disease as primary medical therapy and as an adjunct to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Our goal was to assess the prevalence of preoperative statin and antiplatelet use and its effect on perioperative outcomes after CEA. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted CEA database was queried for patients undergoing CEA between 2011 and 2014. Multivariable analysis was used to assess the effect of preoperative statin and antiplatelet use on CEA. RESULTS: There were 13,521 CEAs identified. The average age was 71 years, and 61.5% were male. More than half of patients (57.9%) were asymptomatic. Preoperative statin use was seen in 80.5% of patients, and antiplatelet use was seen in 89.3% of patients. Statin use was more common in patients with higher body mass index, independent functional status, diabetes, hypertension, bleeding disorders or anticoagulation, nonsmokers, and asymptomatic patients (P < 0.05). On univariate analysis, statin use was not associated with postoperative myocardial infarction (MI) (1.9% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.085), stroke (1.8% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.55), transient ischemic attack (TIA) (0.9% vs. 1.1%), or major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (4% vs. 3.6%). On multivariate analysis, preoperative statin use did not independently affect 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-1.6, P = 0.825), perioperative MI (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.77-1.58, P = 0.573), stroke (OR: 0.891, 95% CI: 0.64-1.2, P = 0.42), or MACE (OR 1.03, 95% CI: 0.81-1.32, P = 0.806). Antiplatelet use was more common with male gender, nonsmoking, diabetes, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dyspnea, and asymptomatic carotid disease. On univariate analysis, antiplatelet use showed no effect on 30-day mortality (0.7% vs. 1%, P = 0.28), MI (1.9% vs. 1.7%, P = 0.73), stroke (1.8% vs. 1.8%, P = 0.94), TIA (0.9% vs. 1%, P = 0.63), or MACE (3.9% vs. 4%, P = 0.8). On multivariate analysis, preoperative antiplatelet use did not independently affect 30-day mortality (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.37-1.3, P = 0.19), perioperative MI (OR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.59-1.38, P = 0.637), stroke (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.61-1.4, P = 0.69), or MACE (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.66-1.18, P = 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative statin and antiplatelet use in patients undergoing CEA was more often observed in patients with higher rates of comorbidities and asymptomatic disease, and this may represent closer follow-up and engagement with primary care physicians in this patient cohort. Preoperative statin and antiplatelet use did not affect perioperative outcomes suggesting that its short-term use is not essential. In patients who are not on statins or antiplatelet medications, CEA can safely be performed before consideration is given to their initiation.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Aortic stenosis is a common valvular condition with increasing prevalence in aging populations. When severe and symptomatic, the downstream prognosis is poor without surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is now considered a viable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients considered high and intermediate risk for surgery. Pre-intervention imaging with echocardiography and CT are essential for procedure planning and device selection to help optimize clinical outcomes with MR angiography playing largely a complementary role. Modern 3-D cross-sectional imaging has consistently shown to help reduce procedural complications from vascular access injury to paravalvular regurgitation and coronary obstruction. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

The Current State of Critical Limb Ischemia: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Chronic critical limb ischemia, marked by intractable lower extremity ischemic rest pain and tissue loss, is a highly morbid condition that leads to the loss of ambulation and decreased quality of life. It is associated with a high risk of limb loss and mortality and presents a significant economic burden to society. Objective: To review the current state of epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of critical limb ischemia. Evidence Review: An extensive literature search of the subject matter was conducted on material published in English between 1980 and 2016; both landmark and recently published articles were evaluated. Articles were reviewed if they included the terms critical limb ischemia, ischemic rest pain, gangrene, or extremity ulcers. Findings: Critical limb ischemia represents the end stage of peripheral arterial disease. Because peripheral arterial disease is most commonly caused by atherosclerosis, critical limb ischemia is heavily associated with smoking and diabetes. Revascularization is the cornerstone of therapy to prevent limb amputation, and both open vascular surgery and endovascular therapy play a key role in the treatment of patients with critical limb ischemia. However, few scientific data are available to identify the optimal revascularization strategy, which has led to a significant amount of variability and equipoise in the treatment of this condition. Medical therapy plays a significant role in optimizing coexistent cardiovascular risk factors and a limited role in improving limb outcomes in nonrevascularizable disease. Conclusions and Relevance: Understanding critical limb ischemia and its treatment strategies is important for providing the best care for affected patients. Currently, ongoing randomized clinical trials in North America and the United Kingdom aim to provide data to support the best management of these patients.

Pharmacologic treatment to improve venous leg ulcer healing.

Pharmacologic treatment for venous leg ulcers (VLUs) is an adjuvant treatment to compression therapy. It encompasses a variety of plant-derived and synthetic compounds with properties that alter venous microcirculation, endothelial function, and leukocyte activity to promote VLU healing. These compounds are often referred to as venotonics or venoactive drugs but have also been referred to as edema-protective agents, phlebotonics, vasoprotectors, phlebotropics, and venotropics. The exact mechanism of their ability to heal VLUs is not known; however, clinical trials support their efficacy. This evidence-based review assesses randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses with the objective of determining the effectiveness of venotonics to promote VLU healing.