RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Restenosis after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a known complication. When identified in the early postoperative period, it may be related to technique. We evaluated our TCAR experience to identify potentially modifiable factors impacting restenosis. METHODS: This is a single-institution, retrospective review of patients undergoing TCAR from November 2017 to July 2022. Restenosis was defined as >50% stenosis on duplex ultrasound (DUS) examination or computed tomographic angiography (CTA). Continuous variables were compared using Kruskal-Wallis's test. Categorical variables were compared using the Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Of 61 interventions, 11 (18%) developed restenosis within the median follow-up of 345 days (interquartile range, 103-623 days). Among these patients, 82% (9/11) had >50% stenosis, and 18% (2/11) had >80% stenosis. Both patients with high-grade restenosis were symptomatic and underwent revascularization. Diagnosis of post-TCAR restenosis was via DUS examination in 45% (5/11), CTA in 18% (2/11), or both CTA/DUS examination in 36% (4/11). Restenosis occurred within 1 month in 54% (6/11) and 6 months in 72% (8/11) of patients. However, three of the six patients with restenosis within 1 month had discordant findings on CTA vs DUS imaging. Patient comorbidities, degree of preoperative stenosis, medical management, balloon size, stent size, lesion characteristics, and predilatation angioplasty did not differ. Patients with restenosis were younger (P = .02), had prior ipsilateral endarterectomy (odds ratio [OR], 6.5; P = .02), had history of neck radiation (OR, 18.3; P = .01), and lower rate of postdilatation angioplasty (OR, 0.11; P = .04), without an increased risk of neurological events. CONCLUSIONS: Although post-TCAR restenosis occurred in 18% of patients, only 3% of patients had critical restenosis and required reintervention. Patient factors associated with restenosis were younger age, prior endarterectomy, and history of neck radiation. Although early restenosis may be mitigated by improved technique, the only technical factor associated with restenosis was less use of postdilatation angioplasty. Balancing neurological risk, this factor may have increased application in appropriate patients. Diagnosis of restenosis was inconsistent between imaging modalities; current surveillance paradigms and diagnostic thresholds may warrant reconsideration.
Asunto(s)
Estenosis Carotídea , Accidente Cerebrovascular , Humanos , Estenosis Carotídea/diagnóstico por imagen , Estenosis Carotídea/cirugía , Constricción Patológica/complicaciones , Resultado del Tratamiento , Factores de Riesgo , Arterias , Estudios Retrospectivos , Stents/efectos adversos , Accidente Cerebrovascular/etiología , Medición de RiesgoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The effective management of pulmonary embolism (PE) necessitates coordinated care among physicians from diverse specialties within a time-sensitive framework. Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERTs) have been developed as a strategic approach to optimize and expedite treatment by integrating and coordinating different specialties. This multidisciplinary paradigm facilitates prompt risk assessment, formulation of treatment strategy, and resource mobilization, enhancing PE outcomes. METHODS: A de-identified REDCap survey was disseminated to vascular surgeons, with collected data submitted to the Vascular Surgery Collaborative (VASC) database. RESULTS: A total of 139 vascular surgeons with an average of 10.6 years of practice experience responded to the VASC PERT audit. The majority (70.5%) practice in academic settings and only 24.5% currently perform PE interventions in their practice. While nearly half of respondents (52.5%) reported the existence of PERT in their institutions, only a fraction (23.3%) was actively involved in the PERT. Notably, a significant proportion in our cohort (38.1%) expressed dissatisfaction with the representation of vascular surgeons in multidisciplinary teams managing venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and PE. Vascular surgery representation in PERT was only 34.2%, with pulmonology (60.3%), interventional radiology (57.5%), interventional cardiology (57.5%), and critical care (50.7%) being the most represented specialties. The primary barriers to vascular surgery participation in PERT were competing interests from other specialties and logistical scheduling challenges. Figure 1 visually summarizes the study's key findings in a visual abstract. CONCLUSIONS: The audit shows a global deficit in the integration of vascular surgery expertise within PERT frameworks. Primary barriers include exclusion due to competing interests from other specialties and challenges in the logistical coordination of PERT calls.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically altered the medical landscape. Various strategies have been employed to preserve hospital beds, personal protective equipment, and other resources to accommodate the surges of COVID-19 positive patients, hospital overcapacities, and staffing shortages. This has had a dramatic effect on vascular surgical practice. The objective of this study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical delays and adverse outcomes for patients with chronic venous disease scheduled to undergo elective operations. METHODS: The Vascular Surgery COVID-19 Collaborative (VASCC) was founded in March 2020 to evaluate the outcomes of patients with vascular disease whose operations were delayed. Modules were developed by vascular surgeon working groups and tested before implementation. A data analysis of outcomes of patients with chronic venous disease whose surgeries were postponed during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 2020 through February 2021 was performed for this study. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients from 12 institutions in the United States were included in the study. Indications for venous intervention were: 85.3% varicose veins, 10.7% varicose veins with venous ulceration, and 4.0% lipodermatosclerosis. One hundred two surgeries had successfully been completed at the time of data entry. The average length of the delay was 91 days, with a median of 78 days. Delays for venous ulceration procedures ranged from 38 to 208 days. No patients required an emergent intervention due to their venous disease, and no patients experienced major adverse events following their delayed surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions may be safely delayed for patients with venous disease requiring elective surgical intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic. This finding supports the American College of Surgeons' recommendations for the management of elective vascular surgical procedures. Office-based labs may be safe locations for continued treatment when resources are limited. Although the interventions can be safely postponed, the negative impact on quality of life warrants further investigation.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: To measure the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of patients with carotid artery stenosis. METHODS: We prospectively collected data from 25 centers (19 centers in the United States and 6 centers internationally) on postponed carotid artery operations between March 2020 and January 2022. We describe the characteristics of these patients and their planned operations, along with outcomes including mortality and neurological deterioration during the period of operative delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 1,220 vascular operations were postponed during the pandemic, of them 96 patients presented with significant carotid stenosis (median stenosis of 71%; interquartile range; 70-80) and 80% of them were planned for carotid endarterectomy. Most patients were asymptomatic (69%), and 31% of patients were symptomatic (16% of patients had a stroke, 15% of patients had a transient ischemic attack, and 1% of patients experienced amaurosis fugax). The median length of surgical delay was 71 days (interquartile range: 45.5, 115.5). At the data entry time, 62% of patients had their carotid operations postponed and successfully completed. Most postponements (72%) were due to institutional policies aimed at resource conservation. During the delay, no patient decompensated or required an urgent operation. A total of 5 patients (5%) with carotid stenosis died while awaiting operations due to COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Our study of a cohort of patients with carotid artery stenosis who underwent a median delay of 71 days during the COVID-19 pandemic showed a disparate operation delay between US regions and internationally, most postponements were due to hospital policy, and none of the patients deteriorated or required an emergency surgery during the delay.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Estenosis Carotídea , Endarterectomía Carotidea , Ataque Isquémico Transitorio , Accidente Cerebrovascular , Humanos , Estenosis Carotídea/diagnóstico por imagen , Estenosis Carotídea/cirugía , Estenosis Carotídea/epidemiología , Pandemias , Resultado del Tratamiento , Endarterectomía Carotidea/efectos adversos , Accidente Cerebrovascular/epidemiología , Arterias CarótidasRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters act in preventing pulmonary embolisms (PE). Various complications have been reported with their use. However, a credible urological complication rate, filter characteristics, and clinical presentation has yet to be summarized. Thus, we reported these complications in the form of a systematic review. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A search strategy was designed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE on February 10th, 2022. The design of this search strategy did not include any language restrictions. The key words (and wildcard terms) used in the search strategy were urolog*, ureter*, bladder, kidney coupled with filter, inferior vena cava, and cava*. Inclusion criteria were: patients older than 18, with previous IVC filter placement, and urologic complication reported. Exclusion criteria were: patients younger than 18, no IVC filter placement, and no urologic complication reported. Other case series and reviews were excluded to avoid patient duplication. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Thirty-five articles were selected for full-text screening. Thirty-seven patient cases were reviewed, and the median age was 53 (range: 21-92 years old). Abdominal and or flank pain was reported in 16 (43%) patients, hematuria was seen in eight (22%) and two (5%) patients died due to acute renal failure resulting from the urologic complications of the IVC filter. Indications for IVC filter placement were recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE), contraindication to or noncompliance with anticoagulant therapy. The IVC filters were infrarenal in 29 (78.4%) patients, suprarenal in five (13.5%) patients, not reported in two patients, and misplaced into the right ovarian vein in one patient. Three or more imaging modalities were obtained in 19 patients (51%) for planning. IVC filter removal was not performed in 17 (45.9%) patients, endovascular retrieval occurred in nine (24.3%) patients, and open removal was performed in seven (18.9%) patients, and tissue interposition was performed in two (5.4%) patients. One patient did not have the management reported. CONCLUSIONS: Urological complications caused by IVC filters although rare, are likely underreported, require extensive workup, and pose surgical challenges. Due to their complex management, filter retrieval should be planned for as soon as feasible, and plans should be made as early as during the IVC filter implant. For those that do develop complications, clinical judgement must be exercised in management, and open surgical, endovascular or even conservative management strategies can be viable options and should be discussed in a multidisciplinary setting.
Asunto(s)
Embolia Pulmonar , Filtros de Vena Cava , Filtros de Vena Cava/efectos adversos , Humanos , Anciano , Femenino , Embolia Pulmonar/etiología , Embolia Pulmonar/prevención & control , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Masculino , Hematuria/etiología , Adulto Joven , Remoción de Dispositivos , Factores de Riesgo , Vena Cava Inferior/diagnóstico por imagen , Vena Cava Inferior/cirugía , Enfermedades Urológicas/etiología , Enfermedades Urológicas/terapiaRESUMEN
Despite advances in open and endovascular management of trauma, vascular injuries remain a source of devastating outcomes. This narrative review of the literature between 2018 and 2023 explored recent advances in abdominopelvic and lower extremity vascular injury management. New conduit choices, use of temporary intravascular shunts, and advances in endovascular management of vascular trauma were reviewed. Although endovascular techniques are being applied more frequently, there is a paucity of reporting on long-term outcomes. Open surgery is durable and effective and remains the gold standard for repairing most abdominal, pelvic, and lower extremity vascular injuries. Vascular reconstruction conduit options are currently limited to the autologous vein, prosthetic grafts, and cryopreserved cadaveric xenografts; each type has its own application challenges. The temporary intravascular shunts can be used to restore early perfusion to ischemic limbs and increase the chances of limb salvage, or when transfer of care is needed. Resuscitative balloon occlusion of the inferior vena cava has been a research-heavy topic to investigate the possible implications in patients with trauma. Early diagnosis, appropriate use of technology, and time-sensitive management can make all the difference in the lives of patients with vascular trauma. Endovascular management of vascular trauma is evolving and gaining wider acceptance for treatment of vascular injuries. Computed tomography angiography is widely available and is the current gold standard for diagnosis. Autologous vein remains the gold standard for conduit with the future promise of new innovative conduits. Vascular surgeons have an important role in vascular trauma management.
Asunto(s)
Procedimientos Endovasculares , Traumatismos de la Pierna , Lesiones del Sistema Vascular , Humanos , Lesiones del Sistema Vascular/diagnóstico por imagen , Lesiones del Sistema Vascular/etiología , Lesiones del Sistema Vascular/cirugía , Angiografía , Procedimientos Endovasculares/efectos adversos , Extremidad Inferior/irrigación sanguínea , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
Atherectomy as an endovascular modality to treat peripheral arterial disease has gained traction over the past 10 years. Unlike most other available technologies, atherectomy works by physically debulking atherosclerotic plaque via a variety of mechanisms being the femoropopliteal segment the most targeted one. The aims of this review were to detail the types of atherectomy available, existing evidence available for atherectomy use in the femoropopliteal segment as compared to other interventions, critical appraisal of its current use and the possible influences on its indication. Future steps regarding atherectomy usage and data presentation are also described.
Asunto(s)
Angioplastia de Balón , Enfermedad Arterial Periférica , Humanos , Grado de Desobstrucción Vascular , Resultado del Tratamiento , Arteria Femoral/diagnóstico por imagen , Arteria Femoral/cirugía , Enfermedad Arterial Periférica/diagnóstico por imagen , Enfermedad Arterial Periférica/cirugía , Aterectomía/efectos adversos , Arteria Poplítea/diagnóstico por imagen , Arteria Poplítea/cirugía , Angioplastia de Balón/efectos adversosRESUMEN
The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected health care delivery. In addition to the significant morbidity and mortality associated with acute illness from COVID-19, the indirect impact has been far-reaching, including substantial disruptions in chronic disease care. As a result of pandemic disruptions in health care, vulnerable and minority populations have faced health inequalities. The aim of this review was to investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted vulnerable populations with limb-threatening peripheral artery disease and diabetic foot infections.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus , Pie Diabético , Enfermedad Arterial Periférica , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/complicaciones , Pandemias , Pie Diabético/diagnóstico , Pie Diabético/epidemiología , Pie Diabético/cirugía , Enfermedad Arterial Periférica/diagnóstico , Enfermedad Arterial Periférica/epidemiología , Enfermedad Arterial Periférica/cirugía , Amputación QuirúrgicaRESUMEN
Vascular research questions can be answered using various study designs. Observational studies are used frequently to address a wide range of clinical questions when randomized clinical trials are not feasible or practical. One of the powerful vascular research tools is the cohort study. The cohort study is a reliable observational study design in which individuals who share a common characteristic (a cohort) are followed over time and their outcomes are assessed at various intervals. This review focuses on the essential characteristics, design, implementation, bias, validity, and clinical significance of cohort studies and provides illustrative examples. A cohort study can be either a prospective or a retrospective study, depending on whether the outcome occurred before or after the enrollment of the cohort. Each type has its advantages and disadvantages. Confounding, selection, and information biases can all occur in cohort studies. Applications of the cohort study design include studying the natural history of a disease, describing a condition's frequency, and investigating multiple outcomes simultaneously.