Feasibility and Evaluation of Surgical Simulation with Developed Crisis Scenarios: A Comparison of Performance by Vascular Surgery Training Paradigms.

OBJECTIVES: Surgical simulation is an integral component of training and has become increasingly vital in the evaluation and assessment of surgical trainees. Simulation proficiency determination has been traditionally based on accuracy and time to completion of various simulated tasks, but we were interested in assessing clinical judgment during a simulated crisis scenario. This study assessed the feasibility of creating a crisis simulator station for vascular surgery and evaluated the performance of vascular surgery integrated residents (0+5) and vascular surgery fellows (5+2) during a technical testing with an integrated crisis scenario. METHODS: A Modified Delphi method was used to create vascular surgery crisis simulation stations containing a clinical scenario in conjunction with either an open or endovascular simulator. Senior level vascular surgery trainees from both integrated residencies (0+5) and traditional vascular surgery fellowships (5+2) were then evaluated on two simulation stations: 1) Elective carotid endarterectomy (CEA) where the crisis is a postoperative stroke and 2) Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA). Each simulation had a crisis scenario incorporated into the procedure. Assessment was completed using a performance assessment tool containing a Likert scale. Total score was calculated as a percentage. Scores were also sub-divided in the following four categories: Situation Recognition and Decision-making, Procedural Flow, Technical Skills, and Interpretation and Use of Imaging Skills. Student's t-test was used for analysis. RESULTS: 40 senior-level trainees were evaluated (27 fellows and 13 integrated residents) completing 80 simulations. The CEA crisis simulation yielded similar results between both groups (0+5 vs. 5+2, p = 1.00). The 0+5 residents in vascular surgery were graded to be more proficient in the EVAR for rAAA crisis simulation and demonstrated significant differences in Total Score (p = 0.04), Procedural Flow (p=0.03), and Interpretation and Use of Imaging Skills (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The creation of crisis-based simulation for trainees in vascular surgery is feasible and actionable. Integrated 0+5 residents performed similarly to 5+2 fellows on an open carotid endarterectomy (CEA) crisis simulation, but 0+5 residents scored significantly higher compared to traditional 5+2 fellows in an endovascular rAAA crisis simulation. Crisis simulation may offer better educational experiences and improved value compared to routine simulation. Further studies using different procedural models and clinical scenarios are needed to assess the validity of crisis simulation in vascular surgery and to better understand the performance disparities found between these training paradigms.

Readmission and Utilization After Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has emerged as a less invasive alternative to open repair for ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms (rAAA), but comparisons to traditional open rAAA repair and late complications leading to readmission are limited. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Hospitalizations for patients undergoing repair for rAAA were selected from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD). In-hospital mortality, complications, 30-day readmission, readmission diagnoses, and charges were evaluated. Design-adjusted chi-square, Wilcoxon test, and logistic regression were used for analysis. RESULTS: During 2014-2016, 3,629 open rAAA and 5,037 EVAR were identified. The index mortality rate was 21.4% for EVAR vs. 33.5% for open (p < .0001). Median index length of stay (LOS) was 4.9 days for EVAR vs. 8.6 days for open repair (p < 0.001). All-cause 30-day readmission after rAAA was higher following EVAR (18.9%) than open (14.3%, p = .007). Time to readmission and charges for readmission stays did not differ between procedure groups. Respiratory complications were more common following open repair than EVAR (20.4% vs 11.4%, respectively; p = .008). Patients who underwent open repair suffered more infectious complications than patients treated with EVAR during readmission (49.2% vs 39.8%, respectively; p = 0.054). In multivariable analysis, factors associated with readmission included having EVAR during the index stay (Odds ratio [OR] = 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.88; p = .003), increased length of index stay (OR = 1.01; 95% CI 1.01-1.02; p = 0.002), chronic kidney disease (OR = 1.51; 95% CI 1.18-1.94; p = .001), and coronary artery disease (OR = 1.32; 95% CI 1.02-1.71; p = .034). Aggregate readmission charges totaled $79 million. Readmissions were most often infectious complications for both repair types. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR was used more often than open repair for rAAA. In-hospital mortality and length of the index stay were significantly lower following EVAR. After multivariable adjustment, the odds of readmission were 1.5 times higher after EVAR, costing the health system more over time when prevalence and readmission are considered. Coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, and index length of stay were also associated with 30-day readmission. Further investigation into reasons why a less invasive procedure, EVAR, has a higher readmission rate and understanding post-discharge infectious complications may help lower overall health care utilization after rAAA.

Modified frailty index as an indicator for outcomes, discharge status, and readmission after lower extremity bypass surgery for critical limb ischemia.

Frailty has been associated with poor postoperative outcomes. This study evaluated the 5-factor modified frailty index (mFI-5) to assess complications, mortality, discharge disposition, and readmission in patients undergoing lower extremity (LE) bypass for critical limb ischemia (CLI).The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program vascular module (2011-2017) was utilized to identify patients undergoing LE bypass for CLI. Adverse events included infectious complications, bleeding complications, prolonged ventilation, amputation, readmission, and death. Patients were divided into groups based on mFI-5 scores: mFI1 (0), mFI2 (0.2), mFI3 (0.4), and mFI4 (0.6-1). Data were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic for general association and multivariable logistic regression. About 11,530 patients undergoing bypass for CLI were identified (42% rest pain and 58% tissue loss; 23% mFI1, 31% mFI2, 27% mFI3, and 19% mFI4; 64% men and 36% women). An increase in mFI-5 was associated with higher 30-day mortality (mFI1 = 0.62%; mFI12 = 1.45%; mFI13 = 1.35%; and mFI14 = 3.09%; P < .0001). After adjustment for age, mFI4 was associated with increased mortality compared with mFI1 (odds ratio, 3.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.69-8.54). Increased mFI-5 was associated with bleeding complications, wound infections, urinary tract infections, prolonged ventilation, sepsis, unplanned reoperations, and discharge to nonhome destination (all P < .01). Compared with mFI1 (13.5%), mFI4 was associated with increased 30-day readmission (24.8%, P < .0001). In patients undergoing LE bypass for CLI, higher mFI-5 was associated with increased postoperative complications, in-hospital and 30-day mortality, nonhome discharge, and 30-day readmission. The mFI-5 as an easily calculated tool can identify patients at high risk for inferior outcomes. It should be incorporated into discharge planning after LE bypass for CLI.