Comparison of Complications and Cost for Transfemoral Versus Transcarotid Stenting of Carotid Artery Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Options for endovascular treatment of carotid artery disease have been developed to compliment with carotid endarterectomy, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) and a hybrid approach with transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). We sought to capture endpoints outside of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and death involved with each procedure at our institution as well as evaluate cost. METHODS: Carotid stent procedures performed from 2014 to 2020 at our institution underwent comparative analysis based upon access site and type of stent procedure performed, TFCAS versus TCAR. Procedural details and outcomes were captured prospectively and included in the National Cardiovascular Data Peripheral Vascular Intervention Registry (NCDR-PVI). Further retrospective review was performed to evaluate endpoints beyond stroke, MI, and death. Total in-hospital cost, including administrative, capital and utilities (fixed cost), and labor and supplies (variable cost) were also evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-seven patients were reviewed. Seventy-seven were treated with TFCAS and 60 with TCAR. The mean age was 74 years, predominantly male (68%) and Caucasian (90%). Patients undergoing TFCAS were more likely to be symptomatic compared to those receiving TCAR (81.8% vs. 50.0%, P = <0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in event rates, including mortality, recurrent cerebrovascular accident / transient ischemic attack, or bleeding. Complications not captured in the NCDR-PVI database were more frequent in the TCAR group (21.7% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.004) and included pneumothorax (n = 2), neck hematoma (n = 8), and common carotid artery stenosis or injury (n = 3). Rates of complications in the TFCAS group (n = 4) were lower and limited to groin hematoma (n = 2), central retinal artery occlusion causing vision loss and a case of postoperative dysphagia. Geographic miss of initial stent placement was identified in 15.0% of TCAR patients and 2.6% (P = 0.008) of TFCAS patients. Restenosis rates on duplex ultrasound were similar between the two groups (14.6% of patients) and were not associated with symptoms. The mean follow-up interval was similar for both groups of 31.8 months for TCAR and 30.7 months for TFCAS (P = 0.797). There was a statistically significant difference in total cost with TCAR being more expensive ($22,315 vs. $11,001) driven by direct costs that included devices, imaging, and extended length of stay in the TCAR group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between stroke free survival (91.1% vs. 88.6%, P = 0.69) and mortality (78.1% vs. 85.2%, P = 0.677) at 3 years follow-up between TCAR and TFCAS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both TFCAS and TCAR provide similar 3-year stroke and mortality risk/benefit and are distinctly different procedures. Both should be evaluated independently with analysis of variables beyond stroke, death, and MI. TFCAS is more cost-effective than TCAR in this single institution study.

The influence of a Vascular Surgery Hospitalist program on physician and patient satisfaction, resident education, and resource utilization.

A number of surgery practice models have been developed to address general and trauma surgeon workforce shortages and on-call issues and to improve surgeon satisfaction. These include the creation of acute or urgent care surgery services and "surgical hospitalist" programs. To date, no practice models corresponding to those developed for general and trauma surgeons have been proposed to address these same issues among vascular surgeons or other surgical subspecialists. In 2003, our practice established a Vascular Surgery Hospitalist program. Since its inception nearly a decade ago, it has undergone several modifications. We reviewed hospital administrative databases and surveys of faculty, residents, and patients to evaluate the program's impact. Benefits of the Vascular Surgery Hospitalist program include improved surgeon satisfaction, resource utilization, timeliness of patient care, communication among referring physicians and ancillary staff, and resident teaching/supervision. Elements of this program may be applicable to a variety of surgical subspecialty settings.

Outcome of the use of stent grafts to salvage failed arteriovenous accesses.

BACKGROUND: Since elements of the Dialysis Outcome Quality Initiative (K/DOQI) were implemented a decade ago, there has been a reduction in mortality for patients on hemodialysis. As patient longevity has increased, AV access site preservation by salvaging failed arteriovenous (AV) accesses has become increasingly important. However, efforts to salvage an AV access must be balanced against futile and expensive procedures. The Viabahn Endoprosthesis is a self-expandable stent graft (SG) that can be used to treat vein rupture or fibrotic lesions with significant elastic recoil following balloon angioplasty. The literature comprising the outcome of the use of SGs in salvaging failed AV accesses is limited. The purpose of this study is to determine the outcome of failed AV accesses treated with SGs and to identify patient or graft factors predictive of success. METHODS: The vascular access database and office, hospital, and dialysis unit records were retrospectively reviewed to identify all patients who underwent placement of an SG for the treatment of a thrombosed AV access between September 2004 and December 2007. Mean patient follow-up was 6 months. The K/DOQI goal for patency following a surgical intervention (6 months or later) was used to determine procedure success or failure. Kaplan-Meier life-table analysis was used to determine patency. Patient demographics and graft factors (location, diameter, length) were analyzed to identify predictors of success. RESULTS: Fifty-five SGs were placed in 48 patients (males, 29%; mean age, 61 years; diabetes mellitus, 47%) with a failed AV access. The indications were to treat significant elastic recoil or vein rupture following balloon angioplasty (47 patients) and to treat an AV graft seroma (1 patient). Cost for the VE ranged from $2337 to $3367 per patient. The procedure was deemed successful (patent at 6 months) in 29 + or - 7% of cases. Procedure success was not influenced by AV access location, endoprosthesis size (diameter or length), or patient demographic factors (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Use of the SG to salvage AV accesses falls short of the current K/DOQI clinical outcome goals for successful surgical intervention in the majority of cases. Given these results and the cost of the SG, its use is indicated in cases where AV access salvage will have an impact on long-term survival such as for patients in whom there are few options for new access placement. Further studies are needed to compare the SG to less costly options, such as angioplasty alone or angioplasty with the use of bare metal stents.