Managing central venous access during a health care crisis.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, central venous access line teams were implemented at many hospitals throughout the world to provide access for critically ill patients. The objective of this study was to describe the structure, practice patterns, and outcomes of these vascular access teams during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, self-reported study of central venous access line teams in hospitals afflicted with the COVID-19 pandemic. To participate in the study, hospitals were required to meet one of the following criteria: development of a formal plan for a central venous access line team during the pandemic; implementation of a central venous access line team during the pandemic; placement of central venous access by a designated practice group during the pandemic as part of routine clinical practice; or management of an iatrogenic complication related to central venous access in a patient with COVID-19. RESULTS: Participants from 60 hospitals in 13 countries contributed data to the study. Central venous line teams were most commonly composed of vascular surgery and general surgery attending physicians and trainees. Twenty sites had 2657 lines placed by their central venous access line team or designated practice group. During that time, there were 11 (0.4%) iatrogenic complications associated with central venous access procedures performed by the line team or group at those 20 sites. Triple lumen catheters, Cordis (Santa Clara, Calif) catheters, and nontunneled hemodialysis catheters were the most common types of central venous lines placed by the teams. Eight (14%) sites reported experience in placing central venous lines in prone, ventilated patients with COVID-19. A dedicated line cart was used by 35 (59%) of the hospitals. Less than 50% (24 [41%]) of the participating sites reported managing thrombosed central lines in COVID-19 patients. Twenty-three of the sites managed 48 iatrogenic complications in patients with COVID-19 (including complications caused by providers outside of the line team or designated practice group). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a dedicated central venous access line team during a pandemic or other health care crisis is a way by which physicians trained in central venous access can contribute their expertise to a stressed health care system. A line team composed of physicians with vascular skill sets provides relief to resource-constrained intensive care unit, ward, and emergency medicine teams with a low rate of iatrogenic complications relative to historical reports. We recommend that a plan for central venous access line team implementation be in place for future health care crises.

Cost-effectiveness of repeated interventions on failing arteriovenous fistulas.

OBJECTIVE: Arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) used for hemodialysis commonly undergo multiple percutaneous and open interventions to maintain functional patency, but it is unclear whether this strategy is cost-effective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of performing repeated interventions vs starting a new AVF. METHODS: We reviewed all patients with mature radiocephalic, brachiocephalic, and brachiobasilic AVFs at a single academic institution between 2007 and 2015 and assessed the clinical effectiveness of each open and percutaneous intervention to maintain functional patency after the fistula was created. These data were used to parameterize a Markov simulation model to determine the cost-effectiveness for performing an open or percutaneous intervention vs creating an AVF at a new anatomic location. This model compared strategies of creating a new AVF after the first to fourth reintervention within a 1-year time window, with the reference being creation of a new AVF on the fourth reintervention. Costs were measured from Medicare's perspective, and effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and time in functional access. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated by taking the ratio of the difference in cost and the difference in effectiveness between two strategies. RESULTS: A total of 720 AVFs that were created during the 8-year period reached maturity, and 407 (56%) underwent at least one intervention to maintain functional patency, with the median (interquartile range) time to first reintervention of 12.6 (10-17) months. For the strategies of creating a new AVF after the first versus the fourth reintervention, payer costs ranged from $3519 to $3922 for open procedures and $2134 to $3922 for percutaneous procedures. The ICERs for open interventions on failing AVFs were $357,143/QALY after the first reintervention and $95,876/QALY after the second reintervention. The ICERs for percutaneous interventions on failing AVFs ranged from $1,522,078/QALY after the first reintervention to $443,243/QALY after the third reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas the clinical effectiveness of performing percutaneous interventions on failing AVFs diminishes after each reintervention, they are nevertheless less costly than creating a new AVF. In comparison, our data show that creating a new AVF is cost-effective after the second open reintervention procedure.

Preoperative frailty assessment predicts loss of independence after vascular surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Frailty, a clinical syndrome associated with loss of metabolic reserves, is prevalent among patients who present to vascular surgery clinics for evaluation. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a rapid assessment method shown to be highly specific for identifying frail patients. In this study, we sought to evaluate whether the preoperative CFS score could be used to predict loss of independence after major vascular procedures. METHODS: We identified all patients living independently at home who were prospectively assessed using the CFS before undergoing an elective major vascular surgery procedure (admitted for >24 hours) at an academic medical center between December 2015 and December 2017. Patient- and procedure-level clinical data were obtained from our institutional Vascular Quality Initiative registry database. The composite outcome of discharge to a nonhome location or 30-day mortality was evaluated using bivariate and multivariate regression models. RESULTS: A total of 134 independent patients were assessed using the CFS before they underwent elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (8%), endovascular aneurysm repair (26%), thoracic endovascular aortic repair (6%), suprainguinal bypass (6%), infrainguinal bypass (16%), carotid endarterectomy (19%), or peripheral vascular intervention (20%). Among 39 (29%) individuals categorized as being frail using the CFS, there was no significant difference in age or American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status compared with nonfrail patients. However, frail patients were significantly more likely to need mobility assistance after surgery (62% frail vs 22% nonfrail; P < .01) and to be discharged to a nonhome location (22% frail vs 6% nonfrail; P = .01) or to die within 30 days after surgery (8% frail vs 0% nonfrail; P < .01). Preoperative frailty was associated with a >12-fold higher risk (odds ratio, 12.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.17-66.96; P < .01) of 30-day mortality or loss of independence, independent of the vascular procedure undertaken. CONCLUSIONS: The CFS is a practical tool for assessing preoperative frailty among patients undergoing elective major vascular surgery and can be used to predict likelihood of requiring discharge to a nursing facility or death after surgery. The identification of frail patients before major surgery can help manage postoperative expectations and optimize transitions of care.

Comparative effectiveness of one-stage versus two-stage basilic vein transposition arteriovenous fistulas.

OBJECTIVE: Basilic vein transposition (BVT) fistulas may be performed as either a one-stage or two-stage operation, although there is debate as to which technique is superior. This study was designed to evaluate the comparative clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of one-stage vs two-stage BVT. METHODS: We identified all patients at a single large academic hospital who had undergone creation of either a one-stage or two-stage BVT between January 2007 and January 2015. Data evaluated included patient demographics, comorbidities, medication use, reasons for abandonment, and interventions performed to maintain patency. Costs were derived from the literature, and effectiveness was expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We analyzed primary and secondary functional patency outcomes as well as survival during follow-up between one-stage and two-stage BVT procedures using multivariate Cox proportional hazards models and Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank tests. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used to determine cost savings. RESULTS: We identified 131 patients in whom 57 (44%) one-stage BVT and 74 (56%) two-stage BVT fistulas were created among 8 different vascular surgeons during the study period that each performed both procedures. There was no significant difference in the mean age, male gender, white race, diabetes, coronary disease, or medication profile among patients undergoing one- vs two-stage BVT. After fistula transposition, the median follow-up time was 8.3 months (interquartile range, 3-21 months). Primary patency rates of one-stage BVT were 56% at 12-month follow-up, whereas primary patency rates of two-stage BVT were 72% at 12-month follow-up. Patients undergoing two-stage BVT also had significantly higher rates of secondary functional patency at 12 months (57% for one-stage BVT vs 80% for two-stage BVT) and 24 months (44% for one-stage BVT vs 73% for two-stage BVT) of follow-up (P < .001 using log-rank test). However, there was no significant difference between groups in use of interventions (58% for one-stage BVT vs 51% for two-stage BVT; P = .5) to maintain patency. These findings were confirmed in multivariate analysis, in which two-stage BVTs were associated with a significantly lower rate of failure (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-0.8; P < .05) than one-stage BVTs after controlling for confounding variables. Finally, the two-stage BVT was more cost-effective (3.74 QALYs for two-stage BVT vs 3.32 QALYs for one-stage BVT) during 5 years, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4681 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that two-stage BVTs are more durable and cost-effective than one-stage procedures, with significantly higher patency and lower rates of failure among comparable risk-stratified patients. These findings suggest that additional upfront costs and resources associated with creating two-stage BVTs are justified by their long-term outcomes.

Rapid Methods for Routine Frailty Assessment during Vascular Surgery Clinic Visits.

BACKGROUND: Frailty assessment can help vascular surgeons predict perioperative risk and long-term mortality for their patients. Unfortunately, comprehensive frailty assessments take too long to integrate into clinic workflow. This study was designed to evaluate 2 rapid methods for assessing frailty during vascular clinics-a short patient-reported survey and a provider-reported frailty scale. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 159 patients presenting to an academic medical center vascular surgery clinic between May and November 2016. Patients underwent frailty assessment using 2 rapid methods: (1) the Frail Nondisabled (FiND) survey (5 questions) and (2) the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS; 9-point scale from robust to severely frail). These were followed by administering the Fried Index, a validated frailty assessment method with 5 measures (weight loss, exhaustion, grip strength, walking speed, and activity level). The correlation between Fried scores (reference standard) with frailty diagnoses derived from FiND and CFS was analyzed using the Spearman-rank test, Cohen's kappa, sensitivity/specificity tests, and receiver operating curves. RESULTS: The evaluated cohort included 87 (55%) females, a mean age of 61 years, 126 (79%) preoperative patients, and 32 (20%) categorized as frail using the Fried Index criteria. The FiND survey was very sensitive (91%) but less specific for diagnosing frailty. In comparison, the CFS was highly specific (96%) for diagnosing frailty and exhibited high inter-rater reliability between surgeon and medical assistant scores (kappa: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.72-0.87; P < 0.001). There was moderate correlation between frailty assigned using the Fried Index and the CFS (rho: 0.41-0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty can be quickly and effectively assessed during vascular surgery clinic using a combination of patient-reported (FiND) and provider-reported (CFS) methods to improve diagnostic accuracy. Implementing routine frailty assessment into clinic workflow can be a valuable tool for risk prediction and surgical decision-making.