Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Complications after Insertion by Surgeons, Radiologists, or Nephrologists.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative aims to increase rates of utilization of peritoneal dialysis (PD) in the United States. One of the first steps to PD is successful catheter placement, which can be performed by surgeons, interventional radiologists, or nephrologists. We examined the association between operator subspecialty and risk of needing a follow-up procedure in the first 90 days after initial PD catheter implantation. Overall, we found that 15.5% of catheters required revision, removal, or a second catheter placement within 90 days. The odds of requiring a follow-up procedure was 36% higher for interventional radiologists and 86% higher for interventional nephrologists compared with general surgeons. Further research is needed to understand how to optimize the function of catheters across different operator types. BACKGROUND: The US government has implemented incentives to increase the use of PD. Successful placement of PD catheters is an important step to increasing PD utilization rates. Our objective was to compare initial outcomes after PD catheter placement by different types of operators. METHODS: We included PD-naïve patients insured by Medicare who had a PD catheter inserted between 2010 and 2019. We examined the association between specialty of the operator (general surgeon, vascular surgeon, interventional radiologist, or interventional nephrologist) and odds of needing a follow-up procedure, which we defined as catheter removal, replacement, or revision within 90 days of the initial procedure. Mixed logistic regression models clustered by operator were used to examine the association between operator type and outcomes. RESULTS: We included 46,973 patients treated by 5205 operators (71.1% general surgeons, 17.2% vascular surgeons, 9.7% interventional radiologists, 2.0% interventional nephrologists). 15.5% of patients required a follow-up procedure within 90 days of the initial insertion, of whom 2.9% had a second PD catheter implanted, 6.6% underwent PD catheter removal, and 5.9% had a PD catheter revision within 90 days of the initial insertion. In models adjusted for patient and operator characteristics, the odds of requiring a follow-up procedure within 90 days were highest for interventional nephrologists (HR, 1.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.56 to 2.22) and interventional radiologists (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.58) followed by vascular surgeons (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.14) compared with general surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: The probability of needing a follow-up procedure after initial PD catheter placement varied by operator specialty and was higher for interventionalists and lowest for general surgeons.

Improved long-term functional outcomes and mortality of patients with vascular-related amputations utilizing the lower extremity amputation pathway.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery pathways lead to improve perioperative outcomes for patients with vascular-related amputations; however, long-term data and functional outcomes are lacking. This study evaluated patients treated by the lower extremity amputation pathway (LEAP) and identified predictors of ambulation. METHODS: A retrospective review of LEAP patients who underwent major amputation from 2016 to 2022 for Wound, Ischemia, and foot Infection stage V disease was performed. LEAP patients were matched 1:1 with retrospective controls (NOLEAP) by hospital, need for guillotine amputation, and final amputation type (above knee vs below knee). The primary end point was the Medicare Functional Classification Level (K level) (functional classification of patients with amputations) at the last follow-up. RESULTS: We included 126 patients with vascular-related amputations (63 LEAP and 63 NOLEAP). Seventy-one percent of the patients were male and 49% were Hispanic with a mean state Area Deprivation Index of 9/10. There were no differences in baseline demographics or comorbidities. All patients had a K level of >0 (ambulatory) before amputation and an average Modified Frailty Index of 4. The median follow-up was 270 days (interquartile range, 84-1234 days) in the NOLEAP group and 369 days (interquartile range, 145-481 days) in the LEAP group. Compared with NOLEAP patients, LEAP patients were more likely to receive a prosthesis (86% vs 44%;P > .001). LEAP patients were more likely to have a K level of >0 (60% vs 25%; P = .003). On multivariable logistic regression, participation in LEAP increased the odds of a K level of >0 at follow-up by 5.8-fold (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.5-13.6). Patients with a K level of >0 had significantly higher survival at 4 years (93% vs 59%; P = .001). In a Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for demographics, comorbidities and amputation level, a K level of >0 at follow-up was associated with an 88% decrease in the risk of mortality compared with a K level of 0. CONCLUSIONS: LEAP leads to improved ambulation with a prosthesis in a socioeconomically disadvantaged and frail patient population. Patients with a K level of >0 (ambulatory) have significantly improved mortality.

Community-wide feasibility of the Lower Extremity Amputation Protocol amongst vascular amputees.

BACKGROUND: The Lower Extremity Amputation Protocol (LEAP) is a multidisciplinary enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for vascular amputees. The objective of this study was to examine feasibility and outcomes of community-wide implementation of LEAP. METHODS: LEAP was implemented at three safety net hospitals for patients with peripheral artery disease or diabetes requiring major lower extremity amputation. Patients who underwent LEAP (LEAP) were matched 1:1 with retrospective controls (NOLEAP) on hospital location, need for initial guillotine amputation, and final amputation type (above- vs below-knee). Primary endpoint was postoperative hospital length of stay (PO-LOS). RESULTS: A total of 126 amputees (63 LEAP and 63 NOLEAP) were included with no difference between baseline demographics and co-morbidities between the groups. After matching, both groups had the same prevalence of amputation level (76% below-knee vs 24% above-knee). LEAP patients had shorter duration of postamputation bed rest (P = .003) and were more likely to receive limb protectors (100% vs 40%; P ≤ .001), prosthetic counseling (100% vs 14%; P ≤ .001), perioperative nerve blocks (75% vs 25%; P ≤ .001), and postoperative gabapentin (79% vs 50%; P ≤ .001). Compared with NOLEAP, LEAP patients were more likely to be discharged to an acute rehabilitation facility (70% vs 44%; P = .009) and less likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility (14% vs 35%; P = .009). The median PO-LOS for the overall cohort was 4 days. LEAP patients had a shorter median PO-LOS (3 [interquartile range, 2-5] vs 5 [interquartile range, 4-9] days; P < .001). On multivariable logistic regression, LEAP decreased the odds of a PO-LOS of ≥4 days by 77% (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.63). Overall, LEAP patients were significantly less likely to have phantom limb pain (5% vs 21%; P = .02) and were more likely to receive a prosthesis (81% vs 40%; P ≤ .001). In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, LEAP was associated with an 84% reduction in time to receipt of prosthesis (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.085-0.303; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Community wide implementation of LEAP significantly improved outcomes for vascular amputees demonstrating that utilization of core ERAS principles in vascular patients leads to decreased PO-LOS and improved pain control. LEAP also affords this socioeconomically disadvantaged population a greater opportunity to receive a prosthesis and return to the community as a functional ambulator.

Patient Frailty and Functional Use of Hemodialysis Vascular Access: A Retrospective Study of the US Renal Data System.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Despite the high prevalence of frailty among dialysis patients, it is unknown whether frailty is associated with dialysis vascular access failure. This study examined the association between frailty and functional use of vascular access. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Patients who initiated hemodialysis through a tunneled catheter in the US Renal Data System database from 2012 through 2017 and underwent subsequent creation of an arteriovenous fistula or graft. PREDICTORS: The "claims-based frailty indicator" (CFI) was calculated using a validated claims-based disability status model anchored to a well-described frailty phenotype. OUTCOMES: Time to functional use for fistulas and grafts defined as the time from initiation of hemodialysis to treatments using the index vascular access with 2 needles. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Fine and Gray competing risk models separately examining fistula and graft outcomes. Patient survival was modeled for the entire cohort using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: A total of 41,471 patients met inclusion criteria, including 33,212 who underwent fistula creation and 8,259 who underwent graft placement. Higher CFI quartiles were associated with a greater rate of mortality. Patients in the highest CFI quartile had more than 2 times the rate of mortality compared with patients in the lowest CFI quartile (hazard ratio [HR], 2.49 [95% CI, 2.41-2.58]). In multivariable analyses, the highest CFI quartile was significantly associated with longer time to functional use of fistulas (HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.62-0.69]) and grafts (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.79-0.98]). LIMITATIONS: Generalizability may be limited by the requirement of 12 months of Medicare claims availability before initiation of dialysis. There were no data on patient anatomic characteristics or surgeon characteristics and limited patient-specific sociodemographic data. CONCLUSIONS: Higher degrees of frailty are associated with longer times to vascular access functional use. Frailty may be useful for informing clinical decision-making regarding choice of vascular access.

Professionalism in (vascular) surgery: What does it mean?

A publication in the August 2020 issue of the Journal of Vascular Surgery, "Prevalence of unprofessional social media content among young vascular surgeons," brought the concept of professionalism in the vascular surgery community to the forefront. In response to the methodology used in the article, and the definitions of professionalism, a global backlash from health care providers and lay people ensued. The article has since been retracted; however, its publication highlighted the need to reexamine current definitions and philosophies surrounding professionalism in medicine and surgery that may be discriminatory and exclusive. The term professionalism has no standard definition as evidenced by varying definitions among different societies and organizations. The lack of a structured, universally accepted definition of professionalism in the medical and surgical communities has resulted in no standard by which to measure the actions of physicians and surgeons. The definition of professionalism need not be complex and should not vary among specialties and societies. In its most simplistic form, the core definition of "professionalism" embedded in the volumes of publications, guidelines, and charters that exist on the subject of professionalism in medicine is respect. We propose a tiered approach to define professionalism in medicine that builds on fundamental principles of respect and inclusivity, and includes actionable steps at three levels: (1) individual, (2) organizational, and (3) societal. Through this approach, any physician, regardless of specialty, practice type or location, can apply these concepts to ensure they consistently embody what it means to be "professional."

Quantifying The Costs of Creating and Maintaining Hemodialysis Access in An All-Payer Rate-Controlled Health System.

OBJECTIVES: The creation and maintenance of durable hemodialysis access is critically important for reducing patient morbidity and controlling overall costs within health systems. Our objective was to quantify the costs associated with hemodialysis access creation and its maintenance over time within a rate-controlled health system where charges equate to payments. METHODS: The Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission administrative claims database was used to identify patients who underwent first-time access creation from 2012-2020. Patients were identified using CPT codes for access creation, and costs were accrued for the initial encounter and all subsequent outpatient access-related encounters. T-tests and Wilcoxon tests were used to compare reinterventions and access-related costs ($USD) between arteriovenous fistulae (AVF) and arteriovenous grafts (AVG). Multivariable modeling was used to quantify the association of access type with charge variation. RESULTS: Overall, 12,716 patients underwent first-time access creation (69.3% AVF vs. 30.7% AVG). There was no difference in freedom from reintervention between the two access types at any point following creation (HR: 1.03, 95%CI: 0.97-1.10); however, AVF were associated with a lower number of cumulative reinterventions (1.50 vs. 2.24) compared to AVG (P<0.0001). AVF was associated with lower overall costs in the year of creation ($9,388 vs. $13,539, P<0.0001), a difference that remained significant over the subsequent 3 years. The lower costs associated with AVF were present both in the costs associated with creation and subsequent maintenance. On multivariable analysis, AVF was associated with a $3,557 reduction in total access-related costs versus AVG (95%CI -$3828, -3287). CONCLUSION: AVF require fewer interventions and are associated with lower costs at placement and over the first three years of maintenance compared to AVG. The use of AVF for first-time hemodialysis access represents an opportunity for healthcare savings in appropriately selected patients with a high preoperative likelihood of AVF maturation.

Contemporary outcomes of traumatic popliteal artery injury repair from the popliteal scoring assessment for vascular extremity injury in trauma study.

OBJECTIVE: Traumatic popliteal artery injuries are associated with the greatest risk of limb loss of all peripheral vascular injuries, with amputation rates of 10% to 15%. The purpose of the present study was to examine the outcomes of patients who had undergone operative repair for traumatic popliteal arterial injuries and identify the factors independently associated with limb loss. METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective review of all patients with traumatic popliteal artery injuries from 2007 to 2018 was performed. All the patients who had undergone operative repair of popliteal arterial injuries were included in the present analysis. The patients who had required a major lower extremity amputation (transtibial or transfemoral) were compared with those with successful limb salvage at the last follow-up. The significant predictors (P < .05) for amputation on univariate analysis were included in a multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 302 patients from 11 institutions were included in the present analysis. The median age was 32 years (interquartile range, 21-40 years), and 79% were men. The median follow-up was 72 days (interquartile range, 20-366 days). The overall major amputation rate was 13%. Primary repair had been performed in 17% of patients, patch repair in 2%, and interposition or bypass in 81%. One patient had undergone endovascular repair with stenting. The overall 1-year primary patency was 89%. Of the patients who had lost primary patency, 46% ultimately required major amputation. Early loss (within 30 days postoperatively) of primary patency was five times more frequent for the patients who had subsequently required amputation. On multivariate regression, the significant perioperative factors independently associated with major amputation included the initial POPSAVEIT (popliteal scoring assessment for vascular extremity injury in trauma) score, loss of primary patency, absence of detectable immediate postoperative pedal Doppler signals, and lack of postoperative antiplatelet therapy. Concomitant popliteal vein injury, popliteal injury location (P1, P2, P3), injury severity score, and tibial vs popliteal distal bypass target were not independently associated with amputation. CONCLUSIONS: Traumatic popliteal artery injuries are associated with a significant rate of major amputation. The preoperative POPSAVEIT score remained independently associated with amputation after including the perioperative factors. The lack of postoperative pedal Doppler signals and loss of primary patency were highly associated with major amputation. The use of postoperative antiplatelet therapy was inversely associated with amputation, perhaps indicating a protective effect.

Popliteal scoring assessment for vascular extremity injuries in trauma study.

OBJECTIVE: Traumatic popliteal vascular injuries are associated with the highest risk of limb loss of all peripheral vascular injuries. A method to evaluate the predictors of amputation is needed because previous scores could not be validated. In the present study, we aimed to provide a simplified scoring system (POPSAVEIT [popliteal scoring assessment for vascular extremity injuries in trauma]) that could be used preoperatively to risk stratify patients with traumatic popliteal vascular injuries for amputation. METHODS: A review of patients sustaining traumatic popliteal artery injuries was performed. Patients requiring amputation were compared with those with limb salvage at the last follow-up. Of these patients, 80% were randomly assigned to a training group for score generation and 20% to a testing group for validation. Significant predictors of amputation (P < .1) on univariate analysis were included in a multivariable analysis. Those with P < .05 on multivariable analysis were assigned points according to the relative value of their odds ratios (ORs). Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated to determine low- vs high-risk scores. An area under the curve of >0.65 was considered adequate for validation. RESULTS: A total of 355 patients were included, with an overall amputation rate of 16%. On multivariate regression analysis, the risk factors independently associated with amputation in the final model were as follows: systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg (OR, 3.2; P = .027; 1 point), associated orthopedic injury (OR, 4.9; P = .014; 2 points), and a lack of preoperative pedal Doppler signals (OR, 5.5; P = .002; 2 points [or 1 point for a lack of palpable pedal pulses if Doppler signal data were unavailable]). A score of ≥3 was found to maximize the sensitivity (85%) and specificity (49%) for a high risk of amputation. The receiver operating characteristic curve for the validation group had an area under the curve of 0.750, meeting the threshold for score validation. CONCLUSIONS: The POPSAVEIT score provides a simple and practical method to effectively stratify patients preoperatively into low- and high-risk major amputation categories.

The Society for Vascular Surgery Alternative Payment Model Task Force report on opportunities for value-based reimbursement in care for patients with peripheral artery disease.

The Society for Vascular Surgery Alternative Payment Model (APM) Taskforce document explores the drivers and implications for developing objective value-based reimbursement plans for the care of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). The APM is a payment approach that highlights high-quality and cost-efficient care and is a financially incentivized pathway for participation in the Quality Payment Program, which aims to replace the traditional fee-for-service payment method. At present, the participation of vascular specialists in APMs is hampered owing to the absence of dedicated models. The increasing prevalence of PAD diagnosis, technological advances in therapeutic devices, and the increasing cost of care of the affected patients have financial consequences on care delivery models and population health. The document summarizes the existing measurement methods of cost, care processes, and outcomes using payor data, patient-reported outcomes, and registry participation. The document also evaluates the existing challenges in the evaluation of PAD care, including intervention overuse, treatment disparities, varied clinical presentations, and the effects of multiple comorbid conditions on the cost potentially attributable to the vascular interventionalist. Medicare reimbursement data analysis also confirmed the prolonged need for additional healthcare services after vascular interventions. The Society for Vascular Surgery proposes that a PAD APM should provide patients with comprehensive care using a longitudinal approach with integration of multiple key medical and surgical services. It should maintain appropriate access to diagnostic and therapeutic advancements and eliminate unnecessary interventions. It should also decrease the variability in care but must also consider the varying complexity of the presenting PAD conditions. Enhanced quality of care and physician innovation should be rewarded. In addition, provisions should be present within an APM for high-risk patients who carry the risk of exclusion from care because of the naturally associated high costs. Although the document demonstrates clear opportunities for quality improvement and cost savings in PAD care, continued PAD APM development requires the assessment of more granular data for accurate risk adjustment, in addition to largescale testing before public release. Collaboration between payors and physician specialty societies remains key.

Defining the 90-day cost structure of lower extremity revascularization for alternative payment model assessment.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. healthcare system is undergoing a broad transformation from the traditional fee-for-service model to value-based payments. The changes introduced by the Medicare Quality Payment Program, including the establishment of Alternative Payment Models, ensure that the practice of vascular surgery is likely to face significant reimbursement changes as payments transition to favor these models. The Society for Vascular Surgery Alternative Payment Model taskforce was formed to explore the opportunities to develop a physician-focused payment model that will allow vascular surgeons to continue to deliver the complex care required for peripheral arterial disease (PAD). METHODS: A financial analysis was performed based on Medicare beneficiaries who had undergone qualifying index procedures during fiscal year 2016 through the third quarter of 2017. Index procedures were defined using a list of Healthcare Common Procedural Coding (HCPC) procedure codes that represent open and endovascular PAD interventions. Inpatient procedures were mapped to three diagnosis-related group (DRG) families consistent with PAD conditions: other vascular procedures (codes, 252-254), aortic and heart assist procedures (codes, 268, 269), and other major vascular procedures (codes, 270-272). Patients undergoing outpatient or office-based procedures were included if the claims data were inclusive of the HCPC procedure codes. Emergent procedures, patients with end-stage renal disease, and patients undergoing interventions within the 30 days preceding the index procedure were excluded. The analysis included usage of postacute care services (PACS) and 90-day postdischarge events (PDEs). PACS are defined as rehabilitation, skilled nursing facility, and home health services. PDEs included emergency department visits, observation stays, inpatient readmissions, and reinterventions. RESULTS: A total of 123,180 cases were included. Of these 123,180 cases, 82% had been performed in the outpatient setting. The Medicare expenditures for all periprocedural services provided at the index procedure (ie, professional, technical, and facility fees) were higher in the inpatient setting, with an average reimbursement per index case of $18,755, $34,600, and $25,245 for DRG codes 252 to 254, DRG codes 268 and 269, and DRG codes 270 to 272, respectively. Outpatient facility interventions had an average reimbursement of $11,458, and office-based index procedures had costs of $11,533. PACS were more commonly used after inpatient index procedures. In the inpatient setting, PACS usage and reimbursement were 58.6% ($5338), 57.2% ($4192), and 55.9% ($5275) for DRG codes 252 to 254, DRG codes 268 and 269, and DRG codes 270 to 272, respectively. Outpatient facility cases required PACS for 13.7% of cases (average cost, $1352), and office-based procedures required PACS in 15% of cases (average cost, $1467). The 90-day PDEs were frequent across all sites of service (range, 38.9%-50.2%) and carried significant costs. Readmission was associated with the highest average PDE expenditure (range, $13,950-$18.934). The average readmission Medicare reimbursement exceeded that of the index procedures performed in the outpatient setting. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of PAD interventions extends beyond the index procedure and includes relevant spending during the long postoperative period. Despite the analysis challenges related to the breadth of vascular procedures and the site of service variability, the data identified potential cost-saving opportunities in the management of costly PDEs. Because of the vulnerability of the PAD patient population, alternative payment modeling using a bundled value-based approach will require reallocation of resources to provide longitudinal patient care extending beyond the initial intervention.

Higher Surgeon Procedure Volume Is Associated with Improved Hemodialysis Vascular Access Outcomes.

The objective of this study was to examine the association between surgeon characteristics, procedural volume, and short-term outcomes of hemodialysis vascular access. A retrospective cohort study was performed using Medicare Part A and B data from 2007 through 2014 merged with American Medical Association Physician Masterfile surgeon data. A total of 29,034 procedures met the inclusion criteria: 22,541 (78%) arteriovenous fistula (AVF) and 6,493 (22%) arteriovenous graft (AVG). Of these, 13,110 (45.2%) were performed by vascular surgeons, 9,398 (32.3%) by general surgeons, 2,313 (8%) by thoracic surgeons, 1,517 (5.2%) by other specialties, and 2,696 (9.3%) were unknown. Every 10-year increase in years in practice was associated with a 6.9 per cent decrease in the odds of creating AVF versus AVG (P = 0.02). Surgeon characteristics were not associated with the likelihood of vascular access failure. Every 10-procedure increase in cumulative procedure volume was associated with a 5 per cent decrease in the odds of vascular access failure (P = 0.007). There was no association of provider characteristics or procedure volume with survival free of repeat AVF/AVG or TC placement at 12 months. A significant portion of the variability in likelihood of creating AVF versus AVG is attributable to the provider-level variation. Increase in procedure volume is associated with decreased odds of vascular access failure.