ARISE I Consensus Review on the Management of Intracranial Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial aneurysms (IAs) remain a challenging neurological diagnosis associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There is a plethora of microsurgical and endovascular techniques for the treatment of both ruptured and unruptured aneurysms. There is no definitive consensus as to the best treatment option for this cerebrovascular pathology. The Aneurysm, Arteriovenous Malformation, and Chronic Subdural Hematoma Roundtable Discussion With Industry and Stroke Experts discussed best practices and the most promising approaches to improve the management of brain aneurysms. METHODS: A group of experts from academia, industry, and federal regulators convened to discuss updated clinical trials, scientific research on preclinical system models, management options, screening and monitoring, and promising novel device technologies, aiming to improve the outcomes of patients with IA. RESULTS: Aneurysm, Arteriovenous Malformation, and Chronic Subdural Hematoma Roundtable Discussion With Industry and Stroke Experts suggested the incorporation of artificial intelligence to capture sequential aneurysm growth, identify predictors of rupture, and predict the risk of rupture to guide treatment options. The consensus strongly recommended nationwide systemic data collection of unruptured IA radiographic images for the analysis and development of machine learning algorithms for rupture risk. The consensus supported centers of excellence for preclinical multicenter trials in areas such as genetics, cellular composition, and radiogenomics. Optical coherence tomography and magnetic resonance imaging contrast-enhanced 3T vessel wall imaging are promising technologies; however, more data are needed to define their role in IA management. Ruptured aneurysms are best managed at large volume centers, which should include comprehensive patient management with expertise in microsurgery, endovascular surgery, neurology, and neurocritical care. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and preclinical studies and scientific research on IA should engage high-volume centers and be conducted in multicenter collaborative efforts. The future of IA diagnosis and monitoring could be enhanced by the incorporation of artificial intelligence and national radiographic and biologic registries. A collaborative effort between academic centers, government regulators, and the device industry is paramount for the adequate management of IA and the advancement of the field.

The Society for Vascular Surgery clinical practice guidelines on popliteal artery aneurysms.

The Society for Vascular Surgery clinical practice guidelines on popliteal artery aneurysms (PAAs) leverage the work of a panel of experts chosen by the Society for Vascular Surgery to review the current world literature as it applies to PAAs to extract the most salient, evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of these patients. These guidelines focus on PAA screening, indications for intervention, choice of repair strategy, management of asymptomatic and symptomatic PAAs (including those presenting with acute limb ischemia), and follow-up of both untreated and treated PAAs. They offer long-awaited evidence-based recommendations for physicians taking care of these patients.

Society for Vascular Surgery clinical practice guidelines for management of extracranial cerebrovascular disease.

Management of carotid bifurcation stenosis in stroke prevention has been the subject of extensive investigations, including multiple randomized controlled trials. The proper treatment of patients with carotid bifurcation disease is of major interest to vascular surgeons and other vascular specialists. In 2011, the Society for Vascular Surgery published guidelines for the treatment of carotid artery disease. At the time, several randomized trials, comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS), were reported. Since the 2011 guidelines, several studies and a few systematic reviews comparing CEA and CAS have been reported, and the role of medical management has been reemphasized. In the present publication, we have updated and expanded on the 2011 guidelines with specific emphasis on five areas: (1) is CEA recommended over maximal medical therapy for low-risk patients; (2) is CEA recommended over transfemoral CAS for low surgical risk patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of >50%; (3) the timing of carotid intervention for patients presenting with acute stroke; (4) screening for carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic patients; and (5) the optimal sequence of intervention for patients with combined carotid and coronary artery disease. A separate implementation document will address other important clinical issues in extracranial cerebrovascular disease. Recommendations are made using the GRADE (grades of recommendation assessment, development, and evaluation) approach, as was used for other Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines. The committee recommends CEA as the first-line treatment for symptomatic low-risk surgical patients with stenosis of 50% to 99% and asymptomatic patients with stenosis of 70% to 99%. The perioperative risk of stroke and death in asymptomatic patients must be <3% to ensure benefit for the patient. In patients with recent stable stroke (modified Rankin scale score, 0-2), carotid revascularization is considered appropriate for symptomatic patients with >50% stenosis and should be performed as soon as the patient is neurologically stable after 48 hours but definitely <14 days after symptom onset. In the general population, screening for clinically asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis in patients without cerebrovascular symptoms or significant risk factors for carotid artery disease is not recommended. In selected asymptomatic patients with an increased risk of carotid stenosis, we suggest screening for clinically asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis as long as the patients would potentially be fit for and willing to consider carotid intervention if significant stenosis is discovered. For patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis of 50% to 99%, who require both CEA and coronary artery bypass grafting, we suggest CEA before, or concomitant with, coronary artery bypass grafting to potentially reduce the risk of stroke and stroke/death. The sequencing of the intervention depends on the clinical presentation and institutional experience.

A systematic review supporting the Society for Vascular Surgery Guidelines on the management of carotid artery disease.

BACKGROUND: To support the development of guidelines on the management of carotid disease, a writing committee from the Society for Vascular Surgery has commissioned this systematic review. METHODS: We searched multiple data bases for studies addressing five questions: medical management vs carotid revascularization (CEA) in asymptomatic patients, CEA vs carotid artery stenting (CAS) in symptomatic low surgical risk patients, the optimal timing of revascularization after acute stroke, screening high-risk patients for carotid disease, and the optimal sequence of interventions in patients with combined coronary and carotid disease. Studies were selected and appraised by pairs of independent reviewers. Meta-analyses were performed when feasible. RESULTS: Medical management compared with carotid interventions in asymptomatic patients was associated with better early outcome during the first 30 days. However, CEA was associated with significantly lower long-term rate of stroke/death at 5 years. In symptomatic low-risk surgical patients, CEA was associated with a lower risk of stroke, but a significant increase in myocardial infarction compared with CAS during the first 30 days. When the long-term outcome of transfemoral CAS vs CEA in symptomatic patients were examined using preplanned pooled analysis of individual patient data from four randomized trials, the risk of death or stroke within 120 days of the index procedure was 5.5% for CEA and 8.7% for CAS, which lends support that, over the long term, CEA has a superior outcome compared with transfemoral CAS. When managing acute stroke, the comparison of CEA during the first 48 hours to that between day 2 and day 14 did not reveal a statistically significant difference on outcomes during the first 30 days. Registry data show good results with CEA performed in the first week, but not within the first 48 hours. A single risk factor, aside from peripheral artery disease, was associated with low carotid screening yield. Multiple risk factors greatly increase the yield of screening. Evidence on the timing of interventions in patients with combined carotid and coronary disease was sparse and imprecise. Patients without carotid symptoms, who had the carotid intervention first, compared with a combined carotid intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting, had better outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This updated evidence summary supports the Society for Vascular Surgery clinical practice guidelines for commonly raised clinical scenarios. CEA was superior to medical therapy in the long-term prevention of stroke/death over medical therapy. CEA was also superior to transfemoral CAS in minimizing long-term stroke/death for symptomatic low risk surgical patients. CEA should optimally be performed between 2 and 14 days from the onset of acute stroke. Having multiple risk factors increases the value of carotid screening.

Impact of a multidisciplinary acute aortic dissection program: Improved outcomes with a comprehensive initial surgical repair strategy.

OBJECTIVE: As part of a multidisciplinary aortic dissection (AD) program, a more comprehensive repair strategy for patients with acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) and frequent endografting for suitable patients with type B aortic dissection (ATBAD) was adopted in 2015. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of these changes. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of a prospective database containing all patients treated for acute AD between 2003 and 2020. Patients were grouped based on differing repair strategies (pre 2015 vs post 2015). Clinical characteristics, procedural details, and survival data were analyzed. RESULTS: During this time, 323 patients (210 pre, 113 post) were treated for acute AD at our institution. There were 221 patients with ATAAD (149 pre, 72 post) and 102 patients with ATBAD (61 pre, 41 post). The majority (60%) were males, with a mean age of 65.9 ± 15.2 years. There were no differences in cardiovascular risk factors or demographics between the groups. After 2015, fewer patients with ATAAD underwent medical management alone (15% pre vs 4% post; P = .014), and most that underwent surgical intervention had a total arch or aggressive hemiarch repair (27% pre vs 78% post; P < .001). Seventy-four patients (73%) with ATBAD were treated medically, whereas 28 underwent medical management and endografting (23% pre, 34% post; P = .214). For all patients with AD, 30-day mortality was significantly improved (26% pre vs 10% post; P < .001) especially among patients who underwent ATAAD surgery (23% pre vs 9% post; P = .018). Three-year Kaplan-Meier survival estimates showed survival improvement among patients with ATAAD (Log rank P-value = .019); however, this improvement does not extend to type B dissections or the overall cohort. A survival analysis landmarked to 30 days after initial presentation showed no statistical difference in survival from 30 days to 3 years post-presentation. CONCLUSIONS: A more comprehensive repair strategy in the management of patients with acute AD resulted in improved overall patient outcomes and significantly decreased 30-day mortality, even though more complex repairs were performed. The long-term impact of the changes made to our program remains to be evaluated.

Long-term implications of elective evar that is non-compliant with clinical practice guideline diameter thresholds.

OBJECTIVE: Compliance with Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) clinical practice guideline (CPG)-diameter thresholds is variable for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). To evaluate the implications and appropriateness of repairs that are noncompliant with current guidelines, we investigated the long-term outcomes, adherence to imaging follow-up, and associated health care costs in patients undergoing EVAR for AAA who do or do not meet recommended diameter thresholds. METHODS: All patients receiving elective EVAR from 2003 to 2016 in the SVS Vascular Quality Initiative with linked Medicare claims were reviewed. Weekend procedures and isolated iliac aneurysms, as well as symptomatic and ruptured presentations, were excluded. Diameter thresholds for noncompliant repairs were defined as: men <55 mm; women <50 mm who did not have an iliac diameter ≥30 mm. We evaluated adherence to postoperative imaging surveillance, reimbursement amounts, reintervention, rupture, and all-cause mortality. We defined an EVAR quality metric as performance of the index procedure with freedom from conversion to open repair, 5-year rupture-free survival, and adherence to minimum imaging surveillance (at least one computed tomography scan documented between 6 and 24 months postoperatively). RESULTS: Among 19,018 elective EVARs, 35% did not meet CPG diameter thresholds (26% within 5 mm of threshold). The rate of noncompliant repairs increased over time (24% in 2003 vs 36% in 2016; P < .001). Patients undergoing noncompliant repairs were younger, less likely to have multiple comorbidities, and more likely to receive EVAR with adherence to instructions for use criteria (89% vs 79%; P < .001). Patients undergoing noncompliant repairs had greater 5-year freedom from reintervention (86% vs 81%; P < .001), rupture-free survival (94% vs 92%; P = .01), and overall survival rates (71% vs 61%; P < .001) compared with repairs that complied with CPG diameter thresholds. Although noncompliant repairs had higher rates of 1-year imaging surveillance, overall differences were modest (68% vs 65%; P = .003). Importantly, for the entire cohort, follow-up imaging surveillance decreased over time (93% in 2003 vs 63% in 2014; P < .001). Notably, although noncompliant repairs had higher rates of achieving the composite quality metric compared with compliant repairs (43% vs 38%; P < .001), failure occurred with a significant majority of all repairs. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with SVS-endorsed CPG diameter thresholds for elective EVAR is poor, and rates of noncompliance are increasing. Noncompliant repairs appear to be offered more commonly to patients with fewer comorbidities and favorable anatomy, and these repairs are associated with improved rates of reintervention, rupture, and survival compared with procedures meeting CPG diameter thresholds. Importantly, noncompliant repairs fail to meet minimum quality standards in a majority of cases, which underscores the need for further policies to improve the overall quality and appropriateness of AAA care delivery nationally.

Vascular and Endovascular Surgical Procedural Skills Training: Survey of Vascular Surgery Program Directors About Extracurricular Vascular Surgical Educational Courses for Vascular Trainees.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, there has been an increase in the number of Vascular Surgery Educational Courses (VSEC) provided by academic institutions, regional and national vascular surgical societies, as well as industry partners. Each course has its own curriculum and how these curricula align with the modern needs of vascular surgery trainees are unclear. As such, there is a lack of unified content, syllabus, and trainee evaluations/feedback of these courses. The Education Committee for the Association for Program directors in Vascular Surgery (APDVS) was tasked to survey vascular surgery Program directors (PDs) and Associate Program directors (APDs) across the country to investigate the educational value, utility, and feedback provided from these VSEC. METHODS: A comprehensive list of vascular surgery educational courses across the country was generated. A 21-question survey was constructed and forwarded to all members of APDVS. The survey was directed at obtaining data from the vascular surgery program director/associate program directors about their understanding of the VSEC and what they valued as critical for their trainees. In addition, we sought to gauge the feedback provided by these courses to the vascular surgery trainees, and their PD/APDs. RESULTS: The survey was sent to 170 active members of APDVS with an overall response rate of 41%. The majority of the respondents 57 (81%) were PDs. Of all the PD/APDs, 5 (7%) reported that they knew of less than 5 such programs, 26 (37%) reported knowledge of 6-10 courses, 20 (29%) reported 11-20 courses, and 19 (27%) reported knowing more than 20 such programs. 49 (70%) of those surveyed reported that their trainees benefit from these courses. Statisticallysignificant factors impacting the decision to make adjustments to the individual training program included PGY-5 residents attending the educational courses, feedback from VSEC, and positive feedback from trainees attending the courses (all P < 0.05). When asked about their wants of VSEC, 35% desired mock oral exams, and 31% looked for cadaver dissections. Of the 24 PD/APD's who made adjustments to their program based on the feedback from the educational programs, those who held the title for 5-10 years were the most willing to make any changes 13 (54%), and those with more than ten years of experience 2 (8%), were the least willing to make any changes (P < 0.05). The majority of the PD/APDs 32 (46%) felt that the regional societal meetings are the best place to hold educational courses. 38 (55%) of PD/APD's received no feedback from the VSEC course directors. 41 (59%) of the programs provide some financial support for their trainees to attend these courses and 65 (92%) of the PD/APDs suggest that industry partners should provide the financial support for attending VSEC. CONCLUSIONS: This unique survey explores the attitude of vascular surgery educators about outside vascular surgery educational courses offered by various groups and industry. It is important to create standardized curricula for vascular surgery educational courses with collaborative oversight by educational/simulation key opinion leaders, PD/APD's, course directors and industry partners. Exploring benchmarks for standardization of the curricula offered by these outside educational opportunities would streamline the needs of our vascular surgery trainees and minimize time away from home institutions. Feedback identifying vascular trainees' strengths and areas for improvement to PD/APDs would be of great educational value and is currently a missed opportunity.

Era of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair is linked to preoperative anatomic severity and perioperative patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Varying opinions on optimal elective and emergent surgical management of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms are expressed by the most recent Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS), European Society for Vascular Surgery, vs UK National Institutes for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. The UK National Institutes for Health and Care Excellence guidelines propose that open surgical repair serve as the default treatment for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. The rationale for this approach relied on data from the early era of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and are in contrast to the more balanced approaches of the SVS and European Society for Vascular Surgery. We hypothesize that significant differences in patient selection, management, and postoperative outcome are related to the era in which treatment was undertaken, contextualizing the outcomes reported in early-era EVAR randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Retrospectively, two cohorts representing all EVAR patients from "early" (n = 167; 2008-2010) and "late" (n = 129; 2015-2017) periods at a single treating institution were assembled. Primary outcomes of era-related changes in preoperative demographics, anatomy, and intraoperative events were assessed; anatomy was compared using the SVS anatomic severity grading system. These era-related differences were then placed in the context of early perioperative outcomes and at follow-up to 1 year. RESULTS: Choice of surgical strategy differed by era, despite the same patient preoperative comorbidities between EVAR groups. Preoperative anatomic severity was significantly worse in the early cohort (P < .001), with adverse proximal and distal seal zone features (P < .001). Technical success was 16.2% higher in the late cohort, with significantly fewer type 1A/B endoleaks perioperatively (P < .001). In-hospital complications, driven by higher acute kidney injury and surgical site complications in the early cohort, resulted in a 16.5% difference between cohorts (P < .05). At 1 year of follow-up, outcome differences persisted; late-era patients had fewer 1A endoleaks, fewer graft complications, and better reintervention-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: From a granular dataset of EVAR patients, we found an impact of EVAR repair era on early clinical outcomes; late cohort infrarenal EVAR patients had less severe preoperative anatomy and improved perioperative and follow-up outcomes to 1 year, suggesting that the results of early EVAR randomized controlled trials may no longer be generalizable to modern practice.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment and natural history of popliteal artery aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the best available evidence comparing open vs endovascular popliteal artery aneurysm (PAA) repair. We also summarized the natural history of PAAs to support of the Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, and Scopus for studies of patients with PAAs treated with an open vs an endovascular approach. We also included studies of natural history of untreated patients. Studies were selected and appraised by pairs of independent reviewers. A meta-analysis was performed when appropriate. RESULTS: We identified 32 original studies and 4 systematic reviews from 2191 candidate references. Meta-analysis showed that compared with the endovascular approach, open surgical repair was associated with higher primary patency at 1 year (odds ratio [OR], 2.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-3.12), lower occlusion rate at 30 days (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.24-0.68) and fewer reinterventions (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.17-0.45), but a longer hospital stay (standardized mean difference, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.23-3.09) and more wound complications (OR, 5.18; 95% CI, 2.19-12.26). There was no statistically significant difference in primary patency at 3 years (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.97-1.97), secondary patency (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.84-3.03), mortality at the longest follow-up (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.21-1.17), mortality at 30 days (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.06-1.36), or amputation (incidence rate ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.56-1.31). The certainty in these estimates was, in general, low. Studies of PAA natural history suggest that thromboembolic complications and amputation develop at a mean observation time of 18 months and they are frequent. One study showed that at 5 years, approximately one-half of the patients had complications. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review provides event rates for outcomes important to patients with PAAs. Despite the low certainty of the evidence, these rates along with surgical expertise and anatomic feasibility can help patients and surgeons to engage in shared decision-making.

Reporting of Clinical Outcomes After Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is an established treatment for many patients with infra-renal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Reporting standards were published in 2002 to ensure consistent measurement and reporting of outcomes following EVAR. We aimed to assess the range of clinical outcomes reported after EVAR and whether recent studies adhere to established reporting standards. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase from January 2014 until December 2018, using terms for 'EVAR' and 'AAA'. We included prospective studies and randomised controlled trials which reported clinical outcomes of elective infra-renal AAA repair. Data on clinical outcome reporting were extracted and compared with established reporting standards. RESULTS: 84 studies were included. Technical success was reported in 49 (58.3%) studies, but only defined in 40 (47.6%), with 22 distinct definitions. Clinical success was reported and defined in 19 (22.6%) studies. Aneurysm rupture was reported in 27 (32.1%) studies and death from rupture in 11 (13.1%) studies. All-cause and aneurysm-related mortality were reported in 72 (85.7%) and 52 (61.9%) studies, respectively. Endoleak type I (n = 61, 72.6%) and II (n = 52, 61.9%) were more commonly reported than type III (n = 45, 53.6%) or IV (n = 13, 15.5%). Complications and mortality were reported by a mean of 18 (21.4%) and 42 (50%) studies, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A wide variety of clinical outcomes were reported following EVAR. Few studies adhered to reporting guidelines. We recommend modification of reporting standards to reflect advances in endovascular technology and creation of a core outcome set for EVAR.

Scoping Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Early Management of Stroke with Focus on Endovascular Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Stroke represents one of the major causes of death and long-term disability worldwide and, even when new treatment strategies have been identified, there is a need of quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to guide and improve acute stroke care. We aim to describe the characteristics and assess the quality of CPGs in endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke due to anterior-circulation large-vessel occlusion. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of CPGs that assessed stroke management. We searched the following databases: PubMed, TripDatabase, Scopus, and Google Scholar to identify CPGs published or updated in the last 3 years and used Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II to assess the quality of the guidelines. RESULTS: We found a total of 9 CPGs published or updated between 2018 and 2020, from which only one third had adequate methodologic rigor. Guidelines presented pitfalls related to evidence search, assessment, and methods used to reach the recommendations. All the CPGs considered a 24-hour extended window of treatment and the CPGs considered the use of similar imaging techniques to diagnose and explore the extent of the stroke. However, there were variations regarding the selection criteria for thrombectomy. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the CPGs varied widely, which issues around the identification and assessment of the evidence used to reach recommendations. Despite this, the recommendations regarding the use of thrombectomy were similar across the CPGs. Readers need to carefully assess the methodologic rigor of CPGs before applying them to their clinical practice.

Acute Stroke Imaging Research Roadmap IV: Imaging Selection and Outcomes in Acute Stroke Clinical Trials and Practice.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable (STAIR) sponsored an imaging session and workshop during the Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable XI via webinar on October 1 to 2, 2020, to develop consensus recommendations, particularly regarding optimal imaging at primary stroke centers. METHODS: This forum brought together stroke neurologists, neuroradiologists, neuroimaging research scientists, members of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, industry representatives, and members of the US Food and Drug Administration to discuss imaging priorities in the light of developments in reperfusion therapies, particularly in an extended time window, and reinvigorated interest in brain cytoprotection trials. RESULTS: The imaging session summarized and compared the imaging components of recent acute stroke trials and debated the optimal imaging strategy at primary stroke centers. The imaging workshop developed consensus recommendations for optimizing the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of computed tomography and magnetic resonance acute stroke imaging, and also recommendations on imaging strategies for primary stroke centers. CONCLUSIONS: Recent positive acute stroke clinical trials have extended the treatment window for reperfusion therapies using imaging selection. Achieving rapid and high-quality stroke imaging is therefore critical at both primary and comprehensive stroke centers. Recommendations for enhancing stroke imaging research are provided.

Reliable and valid assessment of procedural skills in resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta.

BACKGROUND: Valid and reliable assessment of skills is essential for improved and evidence-based training concepts. In a recent study, we presented a novel tool to assess procedural skills in resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA), REBOA-RATE, based on international expert consensus. Although expert consensus is a strong foundation, the performance of REBOA-RATE has not been explored. The study aimed to examine the reliability and validity of REBOA-RATE. METHODS: This was an experimental simulation-based study. We enrolled doctors with three levels of expertise to perform two REBOA procedures in a simulated scenario of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Procedures were video-recorded, and videos were blinded and randomized. Three clinical experts independently rated all procedures using REBOA-RATE. Data were analyzed using Messick's framework for validity evidence, including generalizability analysis of reliability and determination of a pass/fail standard. RESULTS: Forty-two doctors were enrolled: 16 novices, 13 anesthesiologists, and 13 endovascular experts. They all performed two procedures, yielding 84 procedures and 252 ratings. The REBOA-RATE assessment tool showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.95) and excellent interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.97). Assessment using one rater and three procedures could ensure overall reliability suitable for high-stakes testing (G-coefficient >0.80). Mean scores (SD) for the three groups in the second procedure were as follows: novices, 32% (24%); anesthesiologists, 55% (29%); endovascular experts, 93% (4%) (p < 0.001). The pass/fail standard was set at 81%, which all experts but no novices passed. CONCLUSION: Data strongly support the reliability and validity of REBOA-RATE, which successfully discriminated between all experience levels. The REBOA-RATE assessment tool requires minimal instruction, and one rater is sufficient for reliable assessment. Together, these are strong arguments for the use of REBOA-RATE to assess REBOA skills, allowing for competency-based training and certification concepts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic test, no or poor gold standard, level V.

Certification in endovascular hemostasis for trauma surgeons: Possible and practical?

BACKGROUND: Endovascular hemostasis is commonplace with many practitioners providing services. Accruing sufficient experience during training could allow acute care surgeons (ACSs) to expand their practice. We quantified case load and training opportunities at our center, where dedicated dual-trained ACS/vascular surgery faculty perform these cases. Our aim was to assess whether ACS fellows could obtain sufficient experience in 6 months of their fellowship in order to certify in these techniques, per the requirements of other specialties. METHODS: We performed a retrospective case series where we reviewed 6 years (2013-2018) of endovascular activity at an academic, level I trauma center quantifying arterial access, angiography, embolization, stent and stent graft placement, and IVC filter procedures. This was compared with the certification requirements for interventional radiology, vascular surgery, cardiothoracic surgery, and interventional cardiology. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2018, 1,179 patients with a mean ± SD Injury Severity Score of 22.47 ± 13.24, underwent 4960 procedures. Annual rates per procedure, expressed as median (interquartile range), were arterial access 193.5 (181-195.5), diagnostic angiography 352 (321.5-364.5), embolization 90.5 (89.25-93.25), stent placement 24 (13.5-29.25), and IVC filter procedures 16.5 (10-23.75). Our 6-month case volume exceeded or was within 85% of the required number of cases for vascular surgery and interventional radiology training, with the exception of stent-graft deployment for both specialties, and therapeutic procedures for vascular surgery. CONCLUSION: The case volume at a large trauma center with a dedicated endovascular trauma service is sufficient to satisfy the case requirements for endovascular certification. Our trainees are already acquiring this experience informally. An endovascular trauma curriculum should now be developed to support certification within ACS fellowship training.