Impact of COVID-19 on patients undergoing scheduled procedures for chronic venous disease.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically altered the medical landscape. Various strategies have been employed to preserve hospital beds, personal protective equipment, and other resources to accommodate the surges of COVID-19 positive patients, hospital overcapacities, and staffing shortages. This has had a dramatic effect on vascular surgical practice. The objective of this study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical delays and adverse outcomes for patients with chronic venous disease scheduled to undergo elective operations. METHODS: The Vascular Surgery COVID-19 Collaborative (VASCC) was founded in March 2020 to evaluate the outcomes of patients with vascular disease whose operations were delayed. Modules were developed by vascular surgeon working groups and tested before implementation. A data analysis of outcomes of patients with chronic venous disease whose surgeries were postponed during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 2020 through February 2021 was performed for this study. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients from 12 institutions in the United States were included in the study. Indications for venous intervention were: 85.3% varicose veins, 10.7% varicose veins with venous ulceration, and 4.0% lipodermatosclerosis. One hundred two surgeries had successfully been completed at the time of data entry. The average length of the delay was 91 days, with a median of 78 days. Delays for venous ulceration procedures ranged from 38 to 208 days. No patients required an emergent intervention due to their venous disease, and no patients experienced major adverse events following their delayed surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions may be safely delayed for patients with venous disease requiring elective surgical intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic. This finding supports the American College of Surgeons' recommendations for the management of elective vascular surgical procedures. Office-based labs may be safe locations for continued treatment when resources are limited. Although the interventions can be safely postponed, the negative impact on quality of life warrants further investigation.

Large-Diameter Fenestrated Endograft Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Is Not Associated With Medium-Term Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Recent data suggests that infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) endovascular repair (EVAR) with large diameter grafts (LGs) may have a higher risk of endoleak and reintervention. However, this has not been studied extensively for fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (fEVAR). We, therefore, sought to evaluate the outcomes of patients undergoing fEVAR with large-diameter endografts. METHODS: Patients from the national Vascular Quality Initiative registry who underwent fEVAR for intact juxtarenal AAA were identified. Patients with genetic causes for aneurysms, those with prior aortic surgery, and those undergoing repair for symptomatic or ruptured aneurysms were excluded. Rates of endoleaks and reintervention at periprocedural and long-term follow-up timepoints (9-22 mo) were analyzed in grafts 32 mm or larger (LG) and were compared to those smaller than 32 mm (small diameter graft). RESULTS: A total of 693 patients (22.8% LG) were identified. Overall, demographic variables were comparable except LG exhibited a more frequent history of coronary artery disease (32.9% versus 25.4%, P = 0.037). There were no significant differences in the rates of endoleak at procedural completion. Overall survival at 5 y was no different. The rate of reintervention at 1 y was also no different (log-rank P = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: While graft size appears to have an association with outcomes in infrarenal aneurysm repair, the same does not appear to be true for fEVAR. Further studies should evaluate the long-term outcomes associated with LG which could alter the approach to repair of AAA with large neck diameters traditionally treated with standard infrarenal EVAR.

Perioperative outcomes of carotid endarterectomy and transfemoral and transcervical carotid artery stenting in radiation-induced carotid lesions.

OBJECTIVE: Limited data are available to guide the choice of intervention for patients with radiation-induced carotid stenosis (RICS), either transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), or carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The purpose of the present study was to evaluate patients who had undergone these carotid artery interventions for RICS and the associated outcomes. METHODS: Patients in the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) carotid artery stenting surveillance project registry and the SVS VQI CEA modules who had undergone carotid artery intervention (TCAR, TFCAS, or CEA) for RICS were included. Those aged >90 years and those with concomitant interventions (eg, coronary bypass) were excluded. A composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke was the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included death, MI, stroke, cranial nerve injury (CNI), and other local and systemic complications. Multivariable logistic regression controlling for presenting symptomatic status and comorbid medical conditions was conducted for the outcome variables, except for death, which was analyzed using Cox regression modeling. RESULTS: A total of 1927 patients with RICS had undergone CEA (n = 1172), TCAR (n = 253), or TFCAS (n = 502). The CEA group had a higher rate of diabetes (31% vs 25% for TCAR and 25% for TFCAS; P = .01), hypertension (85% vs 82% for TCAR and 79% for TFCAS; P < .01), and peripheral vascular disease (8% vs 4% for TCAR and 4% for TFCAS; P < .01). The TCAR and TFCAS groups had higher rates of coronary artery disease (21% for CEA vs 30% for TCAR and 29% for TFCAS; P < .01). The patients who had undergone TFCAS were more likely to have had symptomatic lesions (57% for TFCAS vs 47% for CEA and 41% for TCAR; P < .01) and prior stroke (55% for TFCAS vs 47% for CEA and 40% for TCAR; P < .001). The composite outcome occurred in 3.2% of TCAR patients, 11.2% of TFCAS patients, and 11.1% of CEA patients (P < .01) with an odds ratio of 0.27 for TCAR, 0.91 for TFCAS, and 1.00 for CEA. However, no differences in the individual outcomes were noted for any procedure. TCAR exhibited the lowest odds ratio for CNI (0.15) compared with TFCAS at 0.9, both relative to CEA (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: RICS patients treated by TCAR in the SVS VQI had the lowest risk of the composite of stroke, death, and MI and CNI. Therefore, TCAR might be the preferred treatment modality. Further comparative studies are needed to evaluate the long-term outcomes in this population and to elucidate the relationship of these procedures to the individual outcomes of stroke, MI, and death.

Gender disparities in academic vascular surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have identified significant gender discrepancies in grant funding, leadership positions, and publication impact in surgical subspecialties. We investigated whether these discrepancies were also present in academic vascular surgery. METHODS: Academic websites from institutions with vascular surgery training programs were queried to identify academic faculty, and leadership positions were noted. H-index, number of citations, and total number of publications were obtained from Scopus and PubMed. Grant funding amounts and awards data were obtained from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Society for Vascular Surgery websites. Industry funding amount was obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Nonsurgical physicians and support staff were excluded from this analysis. RESULTS: We identified 177 female faculty (18.6%) and 774 male faculty (81.4%). A total of 41 (23.2%) female surgeons held leadership positions within their institutions compared with 254 (32.9%) male surgeons (P = .009). Female surgeons held the rank of assistant professor 50.3% of the time in contrast to 33.9% of men (P < .001). The rank of associate professor was held at similar rates, 25.4% vs 20.7% (P = .187), respectively. Fewer women than men held the full professor rank, 10.7% compared with 26.2% (P < .001). Similarly, women held leadership positions less often than men, including division chief (6.8% vs 13.7%; P < .012) and vice chair of surgery (0% vs 2.2%; P < .047), but held more positions as vice dean of surgery (0.6% vs 0%; P < .037) and chief executive officer (0.6% vs 0%; P < .037). Scientific contributions based on the number of each surgeon's publications were found to be statistically different between men and women. Women had an average of 42.3 publications compared with 64.8 for men (P < .001). Female vascular surgeons were cited an average of 655.2 times, less than half the average citations of their male counterparts with 1387 citations (P < .001). The average H-index was 9.5 for female vascular surgeons compared with 13.7 for male vascular surgeons (P < .001). Correcting for years since initial board certification, women had a higher H-index per year in practice (1.32 vs 1.02; P = .005). Female vascular surgeons were more likely to have received NIH grants than their male colleagues (9.6% vs 4.0%; P = .017). Although substantial, the average value of NIH grants awarded was not statistically significant between men and women, with men on average receiving $915,590.74 ($199,119.00-$2,910,600.00) and women receiving $707,205.35 ($61,612.00-$4,857,220.00; P = .416). There was no difference in the distribution of Society for Vascular Surgery seed grants to women and men since 2007. Industry payments made publicly available according to the Sunshine Act for the year 2018 were also compared, and female vascular surgeons received an average of $2155.28 compared with their male counterparts, who received almost four times as much at $8452.43 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although there is certainly improved representation of women in vascular surgery compared with several decades ago, a discrepancy still persists. Women tend to have more grants than men and receive less in industry payments, but they hold fewer leadership positions, do not publish as frequently, and are cited less than their male counterparts. Further investigation should be aimed at identifying the causes of gender disparity and systemic barriers to gender equity in academic vascular surgery.