ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Pulsatile Abdominal Mass, Suspected Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: 2023 Update.

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is defined as abnormal dilation of the infrarenal abdominal aortic diameter to 3.0 cm or greater. The natural history of AAA consists of progressive expansion and potential rupture. Although most AAAs are clinically silent, a pulsatile abdominal mass identified on physical examination may indicate the presence of an AAA. When an AAA is suspected, an imaging study is essential to confirm the diagnosis. This document reviews the relative appropriateness of various imaging procedures for the initial evaluation of suspected AAA. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Sudden Onset of Cold, Painful Leg: 2023 Update.

Acute onset of a cold, painful leg, also known as acute limb ischemia, describes the sudden loss of perfusion to the lower extremity and carries significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Acute limb ischemia requires rapid identification and the management of suspected vascular compromise and is inherently driven by clinical considerations. The objectives of initial imaging include confirmation of diagnosis, identifying the location and extent of vascular occlusion, and preprocedural/presurgical planning. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Status Report on the Integrated and Independent IR Residencies: Origins and Projections for the Future.

The field of interventional radiology (IR) has undergone a historic transformation since 2014, marked by the approval of the IR residency program. This paradigm shift has revolutionized the traditional training pathway, which previously comprised a 1-year vascular and IR fellowship after diagnostic radiology residency. The introduction of integrated and independent IR residencies, including the option for Early Specialization in Interventional Radiology (ESIR), has reshaped the landscape of IR training. The implementation of the IR residency has been exceptionally successful, with the IR residency continuing to be one of the most sought-after residencies for medical students. Additionally, the option for IR training in diagnostic radiology has been retained, accommodating both ESIR and non-ESIR residents. With the continuous growth of accredited programs and rising popularity of IR as a specialty, the future of IR appears limitless.

Pre-operative uterine artery embolization before hysterectomy or myomectomy: a single-center review of 53 patients.

PURPOSE: To assess outcomes of planned pre-operative uterine artery embolization (UAE) in patients with uterine fibroids at high risk for bleeding prior to hysterectomy or myomectomy. MATERIALS & METHODS: A retrospective review of 53 consecutive patients who underwent planned UAE followed by surgery from 2004 to 2019 was performed in a subset of patients deemed high risk for bleeding by the referring surgeon due to bulky fibroids and/or adhesions. Characteristics of the largest fibroid, total number of fibroids, embolic agents, estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, and other factors were collected. RESULTS: 53 patients (mean age = 41) had an elective UAE prior to a hysterectomy 24 (45%) or myomectomy 29 (55%). Median interval between UAE & surgery was 21.6 h (range 1.75 h-57 days). Of the myomectomies, 13 (45%) were open, 15 (52%) hysteroscopic and 1 laparoscopic. Mean number of fibroids/patient was 4.1 (SD 1.3), mean fibroid volume was 328 cm3 (range 11-741), and the mean fibroid diameter in longest dimension was 7.4 cm (range 3.2-15). Mean EBL was 90 (SD 99.5 mL). Three (10%) myomectomy patients required blood transfusion. All hysterectomies were via a laparotomy. Mean fibroid volume was 1699 cm3 (range 93-9099 cm3) with a mean maximum diameter of 16.2 cm (range 6.5-29.6) and an average of 2.4 (SD 1.7) fibroids. Mean EBL was 352 (SD 220 mL). Four (17%) hysterectomy patients required an intra- or post-operative blood transfusion. At a mean 1-year follow-up (range 1 month-14 years), 70% of UAE-myomectomy patients and 74% of UAE-hysterectomy patients reported symptom resolution. Three (6%) patients were readmitted: one for osteodiscitis, one wound dehiscence, and one for an infected retained fibroid after myomectomy. CONCLUSION: Planned pre-operative UAE resulted in intraoperative blood loss similar to "all-comer" myomectomy and hysterectomy patients in the literature. Further studies may elucidate which patients would be the best candidates for this staged treatment paradigm.

Prediction of in-hospital deterioration in normotensive pulmonary embolism remains elusive: external validation of the calgary acute pulmonary embolism score.

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a frequently diagnosed condition. Prediction of in-hospital deterioration is challenging with current risk models. The Calgary Acute Pulmonary Embolism (CAPE) score was recently derived to predict in-hospital adverse PE outcomes but has not yet been externally validated. Retrospective cohort study of normotensive acute pulmonary embolism cases diagnosed in our emergency department between 2017 and 2019. An external validation of the CAPE score was performed in this population for prediction of in-hospital adverse outcomes and a secondary outcome of 30-day all-cause mortality. Performance of the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) and Bova score was also evaluated. 712 patients met inclusion and exclusion criteria, with 536 patients having a sPESI score of 1 or more. Among this population, the CAPE score had a weak discriminative power to predict in-hospital adverse outcomes, with a calculated c-statistic of 0.57. In this study population, an external validation study found weak discriminative power of the CAPE score to predict in-hospital adverse outcomes among normotensive PE patients. Further efforts are needed to define risk assessment models that can identify normotensive PE patients at risk for in hospital deterioration. Identification of such patients will better guide intensive care utilization and invasive procedural management of PE.

Adverse Clinical Outcomes Among Patients With Acute Low-risk Pulmonary Embolism and Concerning Computed Tomography Imaging Findings.

Importance: Most patients presenting to US emergency departments (EDs) with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) are hospitalized, despite evidence from multiple society-based guidelines recommending consideration of outpatient treatment for those with low risk stratification scores. One barrier to outpatient treatment may be clinician concern regarding findings on PE-protocol computed tomography (CTPE), which are perceived as high risk but not incorporated into commonly used risk stratification tools. Objective: To evaluate the association of concerning CTPE findings with outcomes and treatment of patients in the ED with acute, low-risk PE. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used a registry of all acute PEs diagnosed in the adult ED of an academic medical center from October 10, 2016, to December 31, 2019. Acute PE cases were divided into high- and low-risk groups based on PE Severity Index (PESI) class alone or using a combination of PESI class and biomarker results. The low-risk group was further divided based on the presence of concerning CTPE findings: (1) bilateral central embolus, (2) right ventricle-to-left ventricle ratio greater than 1.0, (3) right ventricle enlargement, (4) septal abnormality, or (5) pulmonary infarction. Data analysis was conducted from June to October 2022. Main Outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 7 and 30 days. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization, length of stay, need for intensive care, use of echocardiography and/or bedside ultrasonography, and activation of the PE response team (PERT) . Results: Of 817 patients (median [IQR] age, 58 [47-71] years; 417 (51.0%) female patients; 129 [15.8%] Black and 645 [78.9%] White patients) with acute PEs, 331 (40.5%) were low risk and 486 (59.5%) were high risk by PESI score. Clinical outcomes were similar for all low-risk patients, with no 30-day deaths in the low-risk group with concerning CTPE findings (0 of 151 patients) vs 4 of 180 (2.2%) in the low-risk group without concerning CTPE findings and 88 (18.1%) in the high-risk group (P < .001). Low-risk patients with concerning CTPE findings were less frequently discharged from the ED than those without concerning CTPE findings (3 [2.0%] vs 14 [7.8%]; P = .01) and had more frequent echocardiography (87 [57.6%] vs 49 [27.2%]; P < .001) and PERT activation for consideration of advanced therapies (34 [22.5%] vs 11 [6.1%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this single-center study, CTPE findings widely believed to confer high risk were associated with increased hospitalization and resource utilization in patients with low-risk PE but not short-term adverse clinical outcomes.

Predicting the Safety and Effectiveness of Inferior Vena Cava Filters (PRESERVE): Outcomes at 12 months.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and effectiveness of vena cava filters (VCFs). METHODS: A total of 1429 participants (62.7 ± 14.7 years old; 762 [53.3% male]) consented to enroll in this prospective, nonrandomized study at 54 sites in the United States between October 10, 2015, and March 31, 2019. They were evaluated at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months following VCF implantation. Participants whose VCFs were removed were followed for 1 month after retrieval. Follow-up was performed at 3, 12, and 24 months. Predetermined composite primary safety (freedom from perioperative serious adverse events [AEs] and from clinically significant perforation, VCF embolization, caval thrombotic occlusion, and/or new deep vein thrombosis [DVT] within 12-months) and effectiveness (composite comprising procedural and technical success and freedom from new symptomatic pulmonary embolism [PE] confirmed by imaging at 12-months in situ or 1 month postretrieval) end points were assessed. RESULTS: VCFs were implanted in 1421 patients. Of these, 1019 (71.7%) had current DVT and/or PE. Anticoagulation therapy was contraindicated or had failed in 1159 (81.6%). One hundred twenty-six (8.9%) VCFs were prophylactic. Mean and median follow-up for the entire population and for those whose VCFs were not removed was 243.5 ± 243.3 days and 138 days and 332.6 ± 290 days and 235 days, respectively. VCFs were removed from 632 (44.5%) patients at a mean of 101.5 ± 72.2 days and median 86.3 days following implantation. The primary safety end point and primary effectiveness end point were both achieved. Procedural AEs were uncommon and usually minor, but one patient died during attempted VCF removal. Excluding strut perforation greater than 5 mm, which was demonstrated on 31 of 201 (15.4%) patients' computed tomography scans available to the core laboratory, and of which only 3 (0.2%) were deemed clinically significant by the site investigators, VCF-related AEs were rare (7 of 1421, 0.5%). Postfilter, venous thromboembolic events (none fatal) occurred in 93 patients (6.5%), including DVT (80 events in 74 patients [5.2%]), PE (23 events in 23 patients [1.6%]), and/or caval thrombotic occlusions (15 events in 15 patients [1.1%]). No PE occurred in patients following prophylactic placement. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of VCFs in patients with venous thromboembolism was associated with few AEs and with a low incidence of clinically significant PEs.

Predicting the Safety and Effectiveness of Inferior Vena Cava Filters (PRESERVE): Outcomes at 12 months.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and effectiveness of vena cava filters (VCFs). METHODS: A total of 1429 participants (62.7 ± 14.7 years old; 762 [53.3% male]) consented to enroll in this prospective, nonrandomized study at 54 sites in the United States between October 10, 2015, and March 31, 2019. They were evaluated at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months following VCF implantation. Participants whose VCFs were removed were followed for 1 month after retrieval. Follow-up was performed at 3, 12, and 24 months. Predetermined composite primary safety (freedom from perioperative serious adverse events [AEs] and from clinically significant perforation, VCF embolization, caval thrombotic occlusion, and/or new deep vein thrombosis [DVT] within 12-months) and effectiveness (composite comprising procedural and technical success and freedom from new symptomatic pulmonary embolism [PE] confirmed by imaging at 12-months in situ or 1 month postretrieval) end points were assessed. RESULTS: VCFs were implanted in 1421 patients. Of these, 1019 (71.7%) had current DVT and/or PE. Anticoagulation therapy was contraindicated or had failed in 1159 (81.6%). One hundred twenty-six (8.9%) VCFs were prophylactic. Mean and median follow-up for the entire population and for those whose VCFs were not removed was 243.5 ± 243.3 days and 138 days and 332.6 ± 290 days and 235 days, respectively. VCFs were removed from 632 (44.5%) patients at a mean of 101.5 ± 72.2 days and median 86.3 days following implantation. The primary safety end point and primary effectiveness end point were both achieved. Procedural AEs were uncommon and usually minor, but one patient died during attempted VCF removal. Excluding strut perforation greater than 5 mm, which was demonstrated on 31 of 201 (15.4%) patients' computed tomography scans available to the core laboratory, and of which only 3 (0.2%) were deemed clinically significant by the site investigators, VCF-related AEs were rare (7 of 1421, 0.5%). Postfilter, venous thromboembolic events (none fatal) occurred in 93 patients (6.5%), including DVT (80 events in 74 patients [5.2%]), PE (23 events in 23 patients [1.6%]), and/or caval thrombotic occlusions (15 events in 15 patients [1.1%]). No PE occurred in patients following prophylactic placement. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of VCFs in patients with venous thromboembolism was associated with few AEs and with a low incidence of clinically significant PEs.

Aortic septotomy to optimize landing zones during thoracic endovascular aortic repair for chronic type B aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVE: The role of thoracic endovascular aortic repair for chronic type B aortic dissection remains controversial. Clinical outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with recently implemented aortic septotomy strategy were compared with stand-alone thoracic endovascular aortic repair. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2020, 88 patients with chronic type B aortic dissection and degenerative aortic aneurysm underwent a thoracic endovascular aortic repair with or without adjunctive aortic septotomy, consisting of 36 (41%) with de novo chronic type B aortic dissection and 52 (59%) with residual chronic type B aortic dissection after type A aortic dissection repair. RESULTS: Aortic septotomy was performed in 31 patients (35%) to optimize the proximal (3/31;10%) and distal (31/31;100%) landing zones. The aortic septotomy techniques comprised laser aortic septotomy in 16 patients (52%) and cheese wire septotomy in 15 patients (48%) with a 97% overall technical success rate. The median time interval between aortic dissection occurrence and thoracic endovascular aortic repair was 1.2 years. During follow-up, there were 12 (21%) sudden deaths and 17 (30%) combined aorta-related and sudden deaths in the nonaortic septotomy group, whereas there were no deaths in the septotomy group (P < .001). Patients without aortic septotomy required aortic reinterventions more frequently than those with aortic septotomy (30% vs 7%; P = .014), and 77% of these procedures were related to residual retrograde false lumen flow. Positive aortic remodeling was confirmed in 90% and 37% in the aortic septotomy and nonseptotomy groups, respectively (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Stand-alone thoracic endovascular aortic repair outcomes without adjunctive procedures for chronic type B aortic dissection remain unfavorable. In contrast, landing zone optimization using aortic septotomy resulted in a remarkably higher positive aortic remodeling rate. Routine aortic septotomy strategy may positively affect long-term chronic type B aortic dissection survival and expand thoracic endovascular aortic repair candidacy.

Stroke Following Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: Determinants, Short and Long Term Impact.

We performed a contemporary assessment of clinical and radiographic factors of stroke after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Patients undergoing TEVAR from 2006 to 2017 were identified. We assessed clinical and radiographic data, including preoperative head and neck computed tomography, Doppler ultrasonography, and intraoperative angiography. Our primary outcome was stroke after TEVAR. Four hundred seventy-nine patients underwent TEVAR, mean age 68.1 ± 19.5 years, 52.6% male. Indications for TEVAR included aneurysms (n = 238, 49.7%) or dissections (n = 152, 31.7%). Ishimaru landing zones were Zone 2 (n = 225, 47.0%), Zone 3 (n = 151, 31.5%), or Zone 4 (n = 103, 21.5%). Stroke occurred in 3.8% (n = 18) of patients, with 1.9% (8) major events (modified Rankin Scale >3). Pathophysiology was predominantly embolic (n = 14), and occurred in posterior (n = 6), anterior (n = 6), or combined circulation (n = 4), and in the left hemisphere (n = 10) or bilateral (n = 6). Univariate analysis suggested use of lumbar drain (33.3% versus 57.2%, P = 0.04), inability to revascularize the left subclavian artery (16.7% vs 5.2%, P = 0.04) and number of implanted components (2.5 ± 1.2 vs 2.0 ± 0.97, P = 0.03) were associated with stroke. Multivariable analysis identified number of implanted components (OR 1.7, 95%CI 1.17-2.67 P = 0.00) and inability to revascularize the left subclavian artery as independent predictors of stroke. Stroke was associated with a higher perioperative mortality (27.8% vs 3.9%, P < 0.01). Stroke after TEVAR is primarily embolic in nature and related to both anatomic and procedural factors. This may have important implications for device development in the era of endovascular arch repair.

Iliocaval Reconstruction: Review of Technique, Challenges, and Outcomes.

Iliocaval thrombosis is a major source of morbidity for patients, with a range of clinical presentations, including recurrent lower extremity deep venous thrombosis and postthrombotic syndrome. Endovascular reconstruction of chronic iliocaval occlusion has been demonstrated to be a technically feasible procedure that provides long-lasting symptom relief in combination with antithrombotic therapy and close clinical monitoring. Herein, we describe the etiologies of iliocaval thrombosis, patient assessment, patient management prior to and after intervention, procedural techniques, and patient outcomes.

Mechanical aspiration thrombectomy for the treatment of pulmonary embolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: There are no randomized trials studying the outcomes of mechanical aspiration thrombectomy (MAT) for management of pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing literature to evaluate the safety and efficacy of MAT in the setting of PE. Inclusion criteria were as follows: studies reporting more than five patients, study involved MAT, and reported clinical outcomes and pulmonary artery pressures. Studies were excluded if they failed to separate thrombectomy data from catheter-directed thrombolysis data. Databases searched include PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science until April, 2021. RESULTS: Fourteen case series were identified, consisting of 516 total patients (mean age 58.4 ± 13.6 years). Three studies had only high-risk PE, two studies had only intermediate-risk PE, and the remaining nine studies had a combination of both high-risk and intermediate-risk PE. Six studies used the Inari FlowTriever device, five studies used the Indigo Aspiration system, and the remaining three studies used the Rotarex or Aspirex suction thrombectomy system. Four total studies employed thrombolytics in a patient-specific manner, with seven receiving local lysis and 17 receiving systemic lysis, and 40 receiving both. A random-effects meta-analyses of proportions of in-hospital mortality, major bleeding, technical success, and clinical success were calculated, which yielded estimate pooled percentages [95% CI] of 3.6% [0.7%, 7.9%], 0.5% [0.0%, 1.8%], 97.1% [94.8%, 98.4%], and 90.7% [85.5%, 94.3%]. CONCLUSION: There is significant heterogeneity in clinical, physiologic, and angiographic data in the currently available data on MAT. RCTs with consistent parameters and outcomes measures are still needed.

Antithrombotic Therapy after Deep Venous Intervention.

Chronic deep venous disease (CVD) can result in significant morbidity and impact on quality of life due to a spectrum of symptoms, including lower extremity edema, venous claudication, and venous ulcers. CVD can be secondary to both thrombotic and nonthrombotic disease processes, including postthrombotic syndrome from prior deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or iliac vein compression syndrome. Endovascular therapy has become a mainstay therapy for CVD patients, with venous stent placement frequently performed. However, the management of anticoagulation following venous stent placement is not well-studied, with no large trials or consensus guidelines establishing an optimal regimen. The current knowledge gap in antithrombotic therapy is magnified by heterogeneity in practice and data collection, along with incomplete reporting in available studies. Furthermore, most published datasets are antiquated in the setting of rapid evolution in technique and technology available for deep venous intervention. Herein, we summarize the current available literature and offer an approach to anticoagulation and antiplatelet management following deep venous intervention for CVD.

A Brief Review of Thrombolytics for Venous Interventions.

Anticoagulation continues to be the mainstay of therapy for the management of venous thromboembolism. However, anticoagulation does not lead to the breakdown or dissolving of the thrombus. In an acute pulmonary embolism, extensive thrombus burden can be associated with a high risk for early decompensation, and in acute deep venous thrombosis, it can be associated with an increased risk for phlegmasia. In addition, residual thrombosis can be associated with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension and postthrombotic syndrome in a chronic setting. Thrombolytic therapy is a crucial therapeutic choice in treating venous thromboembolism for thrombus resolution. Historically, it was administered systemically and was associated with high bleeding rates, particularly major bleeding, including intracranial bleeding. In the last two decades, there has been a significant increase in catheter-based therapies with and without ultrasound, where lower doses of thrombolytic agents are utilized, potentially reducing the risk for major bleeding events and improving the odds of reducing the thrombus burden. In this article, we provide an overview of several thrombolytic therapies, including delivery methods, doses, and outcomes.

Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and Thrombectomy for Massive Pulmonary Embolism.

Massive pulmonary embolism (PE) is associated with high mortality rates. Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) collaboration with prompt access to veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) during mechanical or aspiration thrombectomy for massive PE can be life-saving; ECMO stand-by should be considered for high-risk cases. We describe a case of massive PE treated with intraprocedural VA ECMO during the catheter-directed intervention.

Antithrombotic Therapy After Venous Interventions: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Interventions for thrombotic and nonthrombotic venous disorders have increased with technical advances and more trained venous specialists. Antithrombotic therapy is essential to clinical and procedural success; however, postprocedural therapeutic regimens exhibit significant heterogeneity due to limited prospective randomized data and incomplete mechanistic understanding of the critical factors driving long-term patency. Postinterventional antithrombotic therapy for thrombotic venous disorders should adhere to existing venous thromboembolism management guidelines, which include 3-6 months of therapeutic anticoagulation at minimum and consideration of extended therapy in patients with higher risk of thrombosis because of procedural or patient factors. The added benefit of antiplatelet agents in the acute and intermediate period is unknown, having shown improved long-term stent patency in some retrospective studies. Dual- and/or triple-agent therapy should be limited based on individual risks of thrombosis and bleeding. The treatment of nonthrombotic disorders is more heterogeneous, though patients with limited flow, extensive stent material, or underlying prothrombotic states such as malignancy or chronic inflammation may benefit from single-agent or multiagent antithrombotic therapy. However, the agent, dose, and duration of therapy remain indeterminate. Future prospective studies are warranted to improve patient risk stratification and standardize postprocedural anti-thrombotic therapy in patients receiving venous interventions.

Perspective on the New IR Residency Selection Process: 4-year Experience at a Large, Collaborative Training Program.

Interventional Radiology (IR) was officially approved by the American Board of Medical Specialties in 2012 and the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education as a unique, integrated residency in 2014. Its establishment and distinction from diagnostic radiology was compelled by the increasing emphasis on clinical care delivery by IRs. The shift in the IR training paradigm, as exemplified in the Integrated IR residency programs, appeals to a distinct cohort of applicants, prompting the need to re-evaluate the recruitment and selection process. This article discusses selection criteria for identifying ideal candidates for the new IR training model (focusing on Integrated IR residency training), highlights the importance of collaboration between the IR and DR selection committees, and illustrates the changes made at a single institution over the course of 4 selection cycles prior to the COVID-19 pandemic as well as significant changes in the current climate of the global pandemic.

Maximizing Educational Engagement and Program Exposure for Recruitment to the Integrated and Independent Interventional Radiology Programs in a Virtual Environment.

Interventional Radiology residency training programs experienced significant impacts secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospective resident recruitment and resident education were particularly affected due to limitations on in-person gatherings in effort to curb exposure. Finding ways to mitigate the pandemic's effect on recruitment and education was a challenge faced by residency programs across the nation. This article discusses a single Interventional Radiology program's approach to adapting to the reality of limited interpersonal interaction as well as efforts to maintain engagement for resident recruitment and education in a virtual setting.

Optimal Medical Therapy Following Deep Venous Interventions: Proceedings from the Society of Interventional Radiology Foundation Research Consensus Panel.

The optimal medical management of patients following endovascular deep venous interventions remains ill-defined. As such, the Society of Interventional Radiology Foundation (SIRF) convened a multidisciplinary group of experts in a virtual Research Consensus Panel (RCP) to develop a prioritized research agenda regarding antithrombotic therapy following deep venous interventions. The panelists presented the gaps in knowledge followed by discussion and ranking of research priorities based on clinical relevance, overall impact, and technical feasibility. The following research topics were identified as high priority: 1) characterization of biological processes leading to in-stent stenosis/rethrombosis; 2) identification and validation of methods to assess venous flow dynamics and their effect on stent failure; 3) elucidation of the role of inflammation and anti-inflammatory therapies; and 4) clinical studies to compare antithrombotic strategies and improve venous outcome assessment. Collaborative, multicenter research is necessary to answer these questions and thereby enhance the care of patients with venous disease.