Current outcomes following upper and lower extremity arterial trauma from the National Trauma Data Bank.

OBJECTIVE: The modern treatments of trauma have changed in recent years. We aim to evaluate the factors associated with limb salvage and mortality after extremity arterial trauma, especially with respect to the type of conduit used in revascularization. METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank was queried to identify patients with upper and lower extremity (UE and LE) arterial injuries between 2016 and 2020. The patients were stratified by the types of arterial repair. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: 8780 patients were found with 5054 (58%) UE and 3726 (42%) LE injuries. Eighty-three percent were men, and the mean age was 34 ± 15 years. Penetrating mechanism was the predominant mode of injury in both UEs and LEs (73% and 67%, respectively) with a mean injury severity score of 14 ± 8. For UEs, the majority underwent primary repair (67%, P < .001), whereas the remainder received either a bypass (20%) or interposition graft (12%). However, LEs were more likely to receive a bypass (52%, P < .00001) than primary repair or interposition graft (34% and 14%, respectively). Compared with the extremely low rates of amputation and mortality among UE patients (2% for both), LE injuries were more likely to result in both amputation (10%, P < .001) and death (6%, P < .001). Notably, compared with primary repair, the use of a prosthetic conduit was associated with a 6.7-fold increase in the risk of amputation in UE and a 2.4-fold increase in LE (P < .0001 for both). Synthetic bypasses were associated with a nearly 3-fold increase in return to the operating room (OR) in UE bypasses (P < .05) and a 2.4-fold increase in return to the OR in LE bypasses (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In recent years, most extremity vascular trauma was due to penetrating injury with a substantial burden of morbidity and mortality. However, both limb salvage rates and survival rates have remained high. Overall, LE injuries more often led to amputation and mortality than UE injuries. The most frequently used bypass conduit was vein, which was associated with less risk of unplanned return to the OR and limb loss, corroborating current practice guidelines for extremity arterial trauma.

Five-year outcomes of fenestrated and branched endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms based on aneurysm extent.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the 5-year outcomes of fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR) for the treatment of complex aortic aneurysms stratified by the aneurysm extent. METHODS: Patients with the diagnosis of complex aortic aneurysm, who underwent F/BEVAR at a single center were included in this study and retrospectively analyzed. The cohort was divided according to the aneurysm extent, comparing group 1 (types I-III thoracoabdominal aneurysms [TAAAs]), group 2 (type IV TAAAs), and group 3 (juxtarenal [JRAAs], pararenal [PRAAs], or paravisceral [PVAAs] aortic aneurysms). The primary endpoints were 30-day and 5-year survival. The secondary endpoints were technical success, occurrence of spinal cord ischemia, primary patency of the visceral arteries, freedom from target vessel instability, and secondary interventions. RESULTS: Of 436 patients who underwent F/BEVAR between July 2012 and May 2023, 131 presented with types I to III TAAAs, 69 with type IV TAAAs, and 236 with JRAAs, PRAAs, or PVAAs. All cases were treated under a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption protocol with a patient-specific company-manufactured or off-the-shelf device. Group 1 had significantly younger patients than group 2 or 3 respectively (69.6 ± 8.7 vs 72.4 ± 7.1 vs 73.2 ± 7.3 years; P < .001) and had a higher percentage of females (50.4% vs 21.7% vs 17.8%; P < .001). Prior history of aortic dissection was significantly more common among patients in group 1 (26% vs 1.4% vs 0.9%; P < .001), and mean aneurysm diameter was larger in group 1 (64.5 vs 60.7 vs 63.2 mm; P = .033). Comorbidities were similar between groups, except for coronary artery disease (P < .001) and tobacco use (P = .003), which were less prevalent in group 1. Technical success was similar in the three groups (98.5% vs 98.6% vs 98.7%; P > .99). The 30-day mortality was 4.5%, 1.4%, and 0.4%, in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and was significantly higher in group 1 when compared with group 3 (P = .01). The incidence of spinal cord ischemia was significantly higher in group 1 compared with group 3 (5.3% vs 4.3% vs 0.4%; P = .004). The 5-year survival was significantly higher in group 3 when compared with group 1 (P = .01). Freedom from secondary intervention was significantly higher in group 3 when compared with group 1 (P = .003). At 5 years, there was no significant difference in freedom from target vessel instability between groups or primary patency in the 1652 target vessels examined. CONCLUSIONS: Larger aneurysm extent was associated with lower 5-year survival, higher 30-day mortality, incidence of secondary interventions, and spinal cord ischemia. The prevalence of secondary interventions in all groups makes meticulous follow-up paramount in patients with complex aortic aneurysm treated with F/BEVAR.

Individualized treatment rule characterization via a value function surrogate.

Precision medicine is a promising framework for generating evidence to improve health and health care. Yet, a gap persists between the ever-growing number of statistical precision medicine strategies for evidence generation and implementation in real-world clinical settings, and the strategies for closing this gap will likely be context-dependent. In this paper, we consider the specific context of partial compliance to wound management among patients with peripheral artery disease. Using a Gaussian process surrogate for the value function, we show the feasibility of using Bayesian optimization to learn optimal individualized treatment rules. Further, we expand beyond the common precision medicine task of learning an optimal individualized treatment rule to the characterization of classes of individualized treatment rules and show how those findings can be translated into clinical contexts.

Peripheral Vascular Disease.

Peripheral artery disease is most often caused by atherosclerosis. Arterial insufficiency from atherosclerotic blockages in the limbs can impair walking distance and put patients with severe disease at risk of limb loss. Management of the disease centers around early diagnosis, supervised exercise therapy and lifestyle modification, optimizing medical care (with the goal of reducing fatal cardiac and cerebrovascular events), and revascularization.

Current concepts in clinical features and diagnosis of thoracic outlet syndrome.

The diagnosis and clinical features of thoracic outlet syndrome have long confounded clinicians, owing to heterogeneity in symptom presentation and many overlapping competing diagnoses that are "more common." Despite the advent and prevalence of high-resolution imaging, along with the increasing awareness of the syndrome itself, misdiagnoses and untimely diagnoses can result in significant patient morbidity. The authors aimed to summarize the current concepts in the clinical features and diagnosis of thoracic outlet syndrome.

Investigating Unconscious Race Bias and Bias Awareness Among Vascular Surgeons.

Background: Implicit bias can influence behavior and decision-making. In clinical settings, implicit bias may influence treatment decisions and contribute to health disparities. Given documented Black-White disparities in vascular care, the purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence and degree of unconscious bias and awareness of bias among vascular surgeons treating peripheral artery disease (PAD). Methods: The sampling frame included all vascular surgeons who participate in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). Participants completed a survey which included demographic questions, the race implicit association test (IAT) to measure magnitude of unconscious bias, and six bias awareness questions to measure conscious bias. The magnitude of unconscious bias was no preference; or slight, moderate, or strong in the direction of pro-White or pro-Black. Data from participants were weighted to account for nonresponse bias and known differences in the characteristics of surgeons who chose to participate compared to the full registry. We stratified unconscious and conscious findings by physician race/ethnicity, physician sex, and years of experience. Finally, we examined the relationship between unconscious and conscious bias. Results: There were 2,512 surgeons in the VQI registry, 304 of whom completed the survey, including getting IAT results. Most participants (71.6%) showed a pro-White bias with 73.0% of this group in the moderate and strong categories. While 77.5% of respondents showed conscious awareness of bias, of those whose conscious results showed lack of awareness, 67.8% had moderate or strong bias, compared to 55.7% for those with awareness. Bias magnitude varied based on physician race/ethnicity and years of experience. Women were more likely than men to report awareness of biases and potential impact of bias on decision-making. Conclusions: Most people have some level of unconscious bias, developed from early life reinforcements, social stereotypes, and learned experiences. Regarding health disparities, however, these are important findings in a profession that takes care of patients with PAD due to heavy burden of comorbid conditions and high proportion of individuals from structurally vulnerable groups. Given the lack of association between unconscious and conscious awareness of biases, awareness may be an important first step in mitigation to minimize racial disparities in healthcare.