Comparison of academic productivity and funding support between United States and international medical graduate vascular surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: The demand for vascular surgeons in the United States stands to far exceed the current supply. International medical graduates (IMGs) are not only vital to meeting the country's growing health care needs, but also help to advance clinical research and medical education in the field of vascular surgery. Nearly 17% of practicing vascular surgeons in the United States are IMGs, yet little is known about their relative contributions to academic vascular surgery. Our study aims to compare the academic profiles and funding support for IMG vascular surgeons to that of their US medical graduate (USMG) counterparts. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed on all IMG and USMG academic vascular surgeons practicing in US-based hospitals with vascular surgery residency and/or fellowship programs. In addition to the baseline surgeon characteristics, academic profiles and research output were also collected. Furthermore, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) research reporting tool and open payments database were queried for any funding/payments to surgeons in both groups. Matching for year of vascular surgery training program graduation was performed where appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 908 academic vascular surgeons were included; 759 (83.6%) were USMGs and 149 (16.4%) were IMGs. The median year of graduation was comparable between the two groups, but USMGs had a significantly higher proportion of female surgeons (23.6% vs 10.7%; P = .0003). There were no significant differences in the academic profiles and leadership positions between the two groups. Although research productivity is similar between the two groups, IMG surgeons were more likely to have first or senior-authorship papers (47.1% vs 37.5%; P < .001). Additionally, faculty departments chaired/cheifed by a USMG were less likely to be staffed with IMG vascular surgeons (1.6 surgeons vs 3.1 surgeons; P < .0001). Following grant analysis, USMG surgeons received more NIH R01 grants (5.7% vs 1.3%; P = .026). R01-funded surgeons had significantly greater research output by number of publications (121.0 vs 47.5), citations (3872 vs 938), H-index (32.0 vs 17.5), and average journal impact factor (>10: 86.7% vs 33.3%) (all P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The efforts to further diversify vascular surgery are vital to better serving an increasingly diverse US population, amid growing disparities in health care. Although IMGs account for a minority of academic vascular surgeons, and contribute significantly to their published research, they had less NIH R01 funding, warranting further investigation.

The effects of major depression disorder on neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome surgery outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS) is a group of disorders caused by impingement of the neurovascular structures at the thoracic outlet. Neurogenic TOS (nTOS), which is thought to be caused by a compression of the brachial plexus, accounts for more than 90% of the cases. Although treatment for nTOS is successful through physiotherapy and/or surgical decompression, little is known about the impact of psychosocial factors, namely, major depressive disorder (MDD), on postoperative outcomes such as non-routine discharge (NRD). Here, we assess whether MDD predicts the type of discharge following nTOS surgical intervention. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the National Inpatient Sample database from the years 2005-2018 was performed. Using the International Classification of Diseases Clinical Modification, Ninth and Tenth revisions, patients who underwent a surgical intervention for nTOS were identified. Our primary outcome was to investigate the effects of MDD on nTOS patient disposition status after surgical management; secondary outcomes included analysis of total hospital charges and length of stay. NRD was defined as anything beyond discharge home without healthcare services. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess MDD and other potential independent predictors of NRD and prolonged hospital stay (> 2 days) following surgical intervention. RESULTS: A total of 6099 patients were identified: 596 (9.77%) patients with MDD and 5503 (90.23%) without MDD. On average, patients with MDD were older (39.6 ± 12.0 years vs. 36.0 ± 13.0 years; p < 0.001), female (80.7% vs. 63.5%; p < 0.001), white (89.6% vs. 85.6%; p = 0.030), and on Medicare (9.6% vs 5.2%; p < 0.001). Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models identified MDD as an independent risk factor associated with a higher risk of NRD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-2.2). Additionally, chronic kidney disease (aOR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4), postoperative complications (aOR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.2-2.9), and Medicare (aOR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.9-4.7) were statistically significant predictors for higher risk of NRD. However, MDD was not associated with prolonged hospital stay (aOR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.8-1.2) or higher median of total charges (MDD group: $27,867 vs. non-MDD group: $28,123; p = 0.799). CONCLUSION: Comorbid MDD was strongly associated with higher NRD rates following nTOS surgical intervention. MDD had no significant impact on length of hospital stay or total hospital charges. Additional prospective research is necessary in order to better evaluate the impact of MDD in patients with nTOS.

A systematic review of routine post operative screening duplex ultrasound after thermal and non-thermal endovenous ablation.

OBJECTIVE: The Society of Vascular Surgery and the American Venous Forum recommend duplex ultrasound (DUS) following endovenous ablation. However, this screening may not be cost-effective or clinically indicated. The most common abnormal finding, endovenous heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT level 1-2), represents extension of thrombus from the saphenous <50% across the femoral or popliteal vein, which is thought to have a benign course regardless of intervention. The likelihood of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after thermal and non-thermal ablations was explored to determine the utility of routine postoperative DUS. METHODS: This is an updated and expanded systematic review including data from randomized trials and large observational studies (≥150 patients) of thermal and non-thermal ablations, examining the incidence of VTE. Using PubMed and EMBASE, 4584 publications were screened from 2000 through 2020. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 72 studies were included. Random effects DerSimonian-Laird method was conducted to obtain the pooled incidence. We calculated the number of tests needed to detect one VTE, and the cost was derived from Center for Medicare Services tables. RESULTS: A total of 31,663 patients were included. The pooled incidence of EHIT II-IV, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE) was 1.32% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75%-2.02%); DVT (excluding EHIT), 0.20% (95% CI, 0.0%-0.2%); EHIT (I-IV), 2.51% (95% CI, 1.54%-3.68%); and EHIT (II-IV), 1.00% (95% CI, 0.51%-1.61%). There was no mortality. There was a lower DVT rate in thermal vs non-thermal ablations (0.23% vs 0.43%; P = .02); however, for all VTE (EHIT I-IV + DVT + PE), thermal techniques had more thrombosis (2.5% vs 0.5%; P <.001). When clinical significance is defined as DVT + EHIT (II-IV), 175 studies are needed to identify one VTE, costing $21,813 per "significant VTE." Patients receiving pharmacological prophylaxis had less EHIT I-IV compared with those who did not (3.04% vs 1.63%; P < .001); those who received DUS during the first post-op week had three times higher EHIT incidence compared with those whose first DUS was >7 days postoperative (6.6% vs 2.4%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: For thermal and non-thermal endovenous ablations, the incidence of VTE diagnosed with routine DUS is small and without clear clinical significance but caries a high cost. The Society of Vascular Surgery and the American Venous Forum recommendation to perform DUS within 72 hours is not justified by these data. We recommend a more targeted post-ablation scanning protocol including symptomatic patients and those at high risk.