National Institutes of Health funding among vascular surgeons is rare.

BACKGROUND: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is an essential source of funding for vascular surgeons conducting research. NIH funding is frequently used to benchmark institutional and individual research productivity, help determine eligibility for academic promotion, and as a measure of scientific quality. We sought to appraise the current scope of NIH funding to vascular surgeons by appraising the characteristics of NIH-funded investigators and projects. In addition, we also sought to determine whether funded grants addressed recent Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) research priorities. METHODS: In April 2022, we queried the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) database for active projects. We only included projects that had a vascular surgeon as a principal investigator. Grant characteristics were extracted from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results database. Principal investigator demographics and academic background information were identified by searching institution profiles. RESULTS: There were 55 active NIH awards given to 41 vascular surgeons. Only 1% (41/4037) of all vascular surgeons in the United States receive NIH funding. Funded vascular surgeons are an average of 16.3 years out of training; 37% (n = 15) are women. The majority of awards (58%; n = 32) were R01 grants. Among the active NIH-funded projects, 75% (n = 41) are basic or translational research projects, and 25% (n = 14) are clinical or health services research projects. Abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease are the most commonly funded disease areas and together accounted for 54% (n = 30) of projects. Three SVS research priorities are not addressed by any of the current NIH-funded projects. CONCLUSIONS: NIH funding of vascular surgeons is rare and predominantly consists of basic or translational science projects focused on abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease research. Women are well-represented among funded vascular surgeons. Although the majority of SVS research priorities receive NIH funding, three SVS research priorities are yet to be addressed by NIH-funded projects. Future efforts should focus on increasing the number of vascular surgeons receiving NIH grants and ensuring all SVS research priorities receive NIH funding.

Early findings and strategies for successful implementation of SIMPL workplace-based assessments within vascular surgery residency and fellowship programs.

OBJECTIVE: As medical education systems increasingly move toward competency-based training, it is important to understand the tools available to assess competency and how these tools are utilized. The Society for Improving Medical Professional Learning (SIMPL) offers a smart phone-based assessment system that supports workplace-based assessment of residents' and fellows' operative autonomy, performance, and case complexity. The purpose of this study was to characterize implementation of the SIMPL app within vascular surgery integrated residency (0+5) and fellowship (5+2) training programs. METHODS: SIMPL operative ratings recorded between 2018 and 2022 were collected from all participating vascular surgery training institutions (n = 9 institutions with 5+2 and 0+5 programs; n = 4 institutions with 5+2 program only). The characteristics of programs, trainees, faculty, and SIMPL operative assessments were evaluated using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Operative assessments were completed for 2457 cases by 85 attendings and 86 trainees, totaling 4615 unique operative assessment ratings. Attendings included dictated feedback in 52% of assessments. Senior-level residents received more assessments than junior-level residents (postgraduate year [PGY]1-3, n = 439; PGY4-5, n = 551). Performance ratings demonstrated increases from junior to senior trainees for both resident and fellow cohorts with "performance-ready" or "exceptional performance" ratings increasing by nearly two-fold for PGY1 to PGY5 residents (28.1% vs 40.6%), and from first- to second-year fellows (PGY6, 46.7%; PGY7, 60.3%). Similar gains in autonomy were demonstrated as trainees progressed through training. Senior residents were more frequently granted autonomy with "supervision only" than junior residents (PGY1, 8.7%; PGY5, 21.6%). "Supervision only" autonomy ratings were granted to 21.8% of graduating fellows. Assessment data included a greater proportion of complex cases for senior compared with junior fellows (PGY6, 20.9% vs PGY7, 26.5%). Program Directors felt that faculty and trainee buy-in were the main barriers to implementation of the SIMPL assessment app. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first description of the SIMPL app as an operative assessment tool within vascular surgery that has been successfully implemented in both residency and fellowship programs. The assessment data demonstrates expected progressive gains in trainees' autonomy and performance, as well as increasing case complexity, across PGY years. Given the selection of SIMPL as the assessment platform for required American Board of Surgery and Vascular Surgery Board Entrustable Professional Activities assessments, understanding facilitators and barriers to implementation of workplace-based assessments using this app is imperative, particularly as we move toward competency-based medical education.

The measurable impact of a diversity, equity, and inclusion editor on diversifying content, authorship, and peer review participation in the Journal of Vascular Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Women and minorities remain under-represented in academic vascular surgery. This under-representation persists in the editorial peer review process which may contribute to publication bias. In 2020, the Journal of Vascular Surgery (JVS) addressed this by diversifying the editorial board and creating a new Editor of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). The impact of a DEI editor on modifying the output of JVS has not yet been examined. We sought to determine the measurable impact of a DEI editor on diversifying perspectives represented in the journal, and on contributing to changes in the presence of DEI subject matter across published journal content. METHODS: The authorship and content of published primary research articles, editorials, and special articles in JVS were examined from November 2019 through July 2022. Publications were examined for the year prior to initiation of the DEI Editor (pre), the year following (post), and from September 2021 to July 2022, accounting for the average 47-week time period from submission to publication in JVS (lag). Presence of DEI topics and women authorship were compared using χ2 tests. RESULTS: During the period examined, the number of editorials, guidelines, and other special articles dedicated to DEI topics in the vascular surgery workforce or patient population increased from 0 in the year prior to 4 (16.7%) in the 11-month lag period. The number of editorials, guidelines, and other special articles with women as first or senior authors nearly doubled (24% pre, 44.4% lag; P = .31). Invited commentaries and discussions were increasingly written by women as the study period progressed (18.7% pre, 25.9% post, 42.6% lag; P = .007). The number of primary research articles dedicated to DEI topics increased (5.6% pre, 3.3% post, 8.1% lag; P = .007). Primary research articles written on DEI topics were more likely to have women first or senior authors than non-DEI specific primary research articles (68.0% of all DEI vs 37.5% of a random sampling of non-DEI primary research articles; P < .001). The proportion of distinguished peer reviewers increased (from 2.8% in 2020 to 21.9% in 2021; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a DEI editor to JVS significantly impacted the diversification of topics, authorship of editorials, special articles, and invited commentaries, as well as peer review participation. Ongoing efforts are needed to diversify subject matter and perspective in the vascular surgery literature and decrease publication bias.

Pre- Versus Post-Procedure Health Care Resource Utilization in Patients Undergoing Commercial Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the real-world impact of transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) on hospitalizations and Medicare costs pre- versus post-TMVR. BACKGROUND: TMVR is effective in degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) and appropriately selected patients with functional MR with high surgical risk. METHODS: Patients undergoing TMVR in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry from 2013 to 2018 were linked to Medicare claims data. Rates of hospitalizations, hospitalized days, and Medicare costs were compared 1-year pre-TMVR to 1-year post-TMVR. RESULTS: Across 246 sites, 4,970 patients with a median age of 83 years (interquartile range: 77 to 87 years) were analyzed. The TMVR indication was degenerative MR in 77.5% and functional MR in 16.7%. From pre- to post-TMVR, heart failure (HF) hospitalization rates (479 vs. 370 hospitalizations/1,000 person-years; rate ratio [RR]: 0.77) and cardiovascular hospitalizations (838 vs. 632; RR: 0.75) decreased significantly (p < 0.001 for all). Similarly, the rates of hospitalized days decreased for HF and cardiovascular causes (p < 0.05 for all). Following TMVR, the odds of having no Medicare costs for HF hospitalizations increased (69% vs. 79%; odds ratio: 1.67; p < 0.001). However, the average total Medicare costs per day alive among patients with any HF hospitalizations after TMVR increased significantly (p < 0.001). The HF hospitalization rates decreased for patients with functional MR (683 vs. 502; RR: 0.74) and those with degenerative MR (431 vs. 337; RR: 0.78) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: TMVR is associated with a decrease in cardiovascular and HF hospitalizations and a greater likelihood of having no HF Medicare costs in the year after TMVR, regardless of MR etiology. Further work is necessary to elucidate the reasons for increased costs among patients with HF hospitalizations post-TMVR.

Objective Assessment of the Early Stages of the Learning Curve for the Senhance Surgical Robotic System.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this research is to study the early stages of the Senhance learning curve to report how force feedback impacts learning rate. This serves as an exploratory investigation into assumptions that fellows and faculty will adjust faster to the Senhance in comparison with residents, and that force feedback will not hinder skill acquisition. DESIGN: In this study, participants completed the peg transfer and precision cutting task from the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) manual skills assessment five times each using the Senhance while instrument motion was tracked. SETTING: This study took place in the Surgical Education and Activities Laboratory at Duke University Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS: Participants for this study were residents, fellows, and faculty from Duke University Medical Center in general surgery and gynecology specialties (N = 16). RESULTS: Postulated linear mixed effects models with participant level random effects showed significant improvement with additional attempts for the peg transfer task after adjusting for surgical experience and force feedback respectively for the primary FLS score metric. The secondary metric of total instrument path length also showed improvement (significant decreases) in path length with additional attempts after respectively adjusting for surgical experience and force feedback. CONCLUSIONS: This study investigates the early stages of the learning curve of the Senhance. Exploratory modeling indicates that residents, fellows, and faculty surgeons rapidly adapt to the controls of the Senhance regardless of experience level and force feedback engagement. The results from this study may serve as motivation for future prospective studies that achieve sufficient statistical power with a larger sample size and strict experimental design.

Implications of blood group on lung transplantation rates: A propensity-matched registry analysis.

BACKGROUND: Blood type O lung allografts may be allocated to blood type identical (type O) or compatible (non-O) candidates. We tested the hypothesis that the current organ allocation schema in the United States-based on the Lung Allocation Score-prejudices against the allocation of allografts to type O candidates, given that the pool of potential donors is smaller. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort review of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network of Organ Sharing registry from May 2005 to March 2017 for adult candidates on the waiting list for first-time isolated lung transplantation. Demographic data were compiled and described, and 1:1 nearest-neighbor propensity score matching was used to adjust for age and Lung Allocation Score at listing. RESULTS: A total of 26,396 candidates met inclusion criteria: 14,329 type non-O and candidates and 12,068 type O candidates. After matching, 11,951 candidates were included in each group. Of these, 77.0% of type non-O underwent lung transplantation vs 73.1% type O (p < 0.001). At 1 year, the waiting list mortality was higher for type O candidates (12.5%) than for non-O candidates (10.1%, p < 0.001). Of those undergoing transplantation, 5-year survival rates were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Type O candidates experience lower rates of transplantation and higher rates of waiting list mortality compared with matched type non-O candidates. Further evaluation of regional sharing of allografts to increase transplantation rates for type O candidates may be warranted to optimize equity in access to transplants.

Validation of the Omni: A Novel, Multimodality, and Longitudinal Surgical Skills Assessment.

OBJECTIVE: The breadth of technical skills included in general surgery training continues to expand. The current competency-based training model requires assessment tools to measure acquisition, learning, and mastery of technical skill longitudinally in a reliable and valid manner. This study describes a novel skills assessment tool, the Omni, which evaluates performance in a broad range of skills over time. DESIGN: The 5 Omni tasks, consisting of open bowel anastomosis, knot tying, laparoscopic clover pattern cut, robotic needle drive, and endoscopic bubble pop, were developed by general surgery faculty. Component performance metrics assessed speed, accuracy, and quality, which were scaled into an overall score ranging from 0 to 10 for each task. For each task, ANOVAs with Scheffé's post hoc comparisons and Pearson's chi-squared tests compared performance between 6 resident cohorts (clinical years (CY1-5) and research fellows (RF)). Paired samples t-tests evaluated changes in performance across academic years. Cronbach's alpha coefficient determined the internal consistency of the Omni as an overall assessment. SETTING: The Omni was developed by the Department of Surgery at Duke University. Annual assessment and this research study took place in the Surgical Education and Activities Lab. PARTICIPANTS: All active general surgery residents in 2 consecutive academic years spanning 2015 to 2017. RESULTS: A total of 62 general surgery residents completed the Omni and 39 (67.2%) of those residents completed the assessment in 2 consecutive years. Based on data from all residents' first assessment, statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed among CY cohorts for bowel anastomosis, robotic, and laparoscopic task metrics. By pair-wise comparisons, mean bowel anastomosis scores distinguished CY1 from CY3-5 and CY2 from CY5. Mean robotic scores distinguished CY1 from RF, and mean laparoscopic scores distinguished CY1 from RF, CY3, and CY5 in addition to CY2 from CY3. Mean scores in performance on the knot tying and endoscopic tasks were not significantly different. Statistically significant improvement in mean scores was observed for all tasks from year 1 to year 2 (all p < 0.02). The internal consistency analysis revealed an alpha coefficient of 0.656. CONCLUSIONS: The Omni is a novel composite assessment tool for surgical technical skill that utilizes objective measures and scoring algorithms to evaluate performance. In this pilot study, 3 tasks demonstrated discriminative ability of performance by CY, and all 5 tasks demonstrated construct validity by showing longitudinal improvement in performance. Additionally, the Omni has adequate internal consistency for a formative assessment. These results suggest the Omni holds promise for the evaluation of resident technical skill and early identification of outliers requiring intervention.

Improved survival in simultaneous lung-liver recipients and candidates in the modern era of lung allocation.

BACKGROUND: Liver-lung transplantation (LLT) is a rare procedure performed for patients with end-stage liver and lung disease. The lung allocation score (LAS), introduced in 2005, guides lung allocation including those receiving LLT. However, the impact of the LAS on outcomes in LLT is currently unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The OPTN/United Network for Organ Sharing STAR file was queried for LLT candidates and recipients from 1988 to 2016. Demographic characteristics before (historic) and after (modern) the LAS were compared. Survival was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. RESULTS: In total, 167 candidates were listed for LLT, and 62 underwent LLT. The historic cohort had a higher FEV1% (48.22% versus 29.82%, P = 0.014), higher creatinine (1.22 versus 0.72, P < 0.001), and a higher percentage with pulmonary hypertension as the indication for transplantation (40% versus 0%, P = 0.003) compared with the modern cohort. LLT candidates in the historic cohort had a lower rate of transplant per 100 candidates (10.87 versus 33.33, P < 0.0001) and worse waitlist survival (1 y: 69.6% versus 80.9%, 3 y: 39.1% versus 66.8%, P = 0.004). Post-transplant survival was significantly lower in the historic cohort (1 y: 50.0% versus 82.7%, 5 y: 40.0% versus 69.0%, 10 y: 20.0% versus 55.5%, P = 0.0099). CONCLUSIONS: Most analyses of LLT have included patients before and after the introduction of the LAS. Our study shows that LLT candidates and recipients before the modern allocation system had distinct baseline characteristics and worse overall survival. Although many factors contributed to recent improved outcomes, these cohorts are significantly different and should be treated as such in future studies.

The Role of Extent of Surgical Resection and Lymph Node Assessment for Clinical Stage I Pulmonary Lepidic Adenocarcinoma: An Analysis of 1991 Patients.

BACKGROUND: This study examined the association of extent of lung resection, pathologic nodal evaluation, and survival for patients with clinical stage I (cT1-2N0M0) adenocarcinoma with lepidic histologic features in the National Cancer Data Base. METHODS: The association between extent of surgical resection and long-term survival for patients in the National Cancer Data Base with clinical stage I lepidic adenocarcinoma who underwent lobectomy or sublobar resection was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. RESULTS: Of the 1991 patients with cT1-2N0M0 lepidic adenocarcinoma who met the study criteria, 1544 underwent lobectomy and 447 underwent sublobar resection. Patients treated with sublobar resection were older, more likely to be female, and had higher Charlson/Deyo comorbidity scores, but they had smaller tumors and lower T status. Of the patients treated with lobectomy, 6% (n = 92) were upstaged because of positive nodal disease, with a median of seven lymph nodes sampled (interquartile range 4-10). In an analysis of the entire cohort, lobectomy was associated with a significant survival advantage over sublobar resection in univariate analysis (median survival 9.2 versus 7.5 years, p = 0.022, 5-year survival 70.5% versus 67.8%) and after multivariable adjustment (hazard ratio = 0.81, 95% confidence interval: 0.68-0.95, p = 0.011). However, lobectomy was no longer independently associated with improved survival when compared with sublobar resection (hazard ratio = 0.99, 95% confidence interval: 0.77-1.27, p = 0.905) in a multivariable analysis of a subset of patients in which only those patients who had undergone a sublobar resection including lymph node sampling were compared with patients treated with lobectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons treating patients with stage I lung adenocarcinoma with lepidic features should cautiously utilize sublobar resection rather than lobectomy, and they must always perform adequate pathologic lymph node evaluation.