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.

Identification and characterization of new candidates for abdominal aortic aneurysm screening in patients outside of current accepted guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have identified groups of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) that fall outside of currently accepted screening guidelines. Population-based studies have found AAA screening would be cost-effective at a prevalence of 0.5% to 1.0%. The goal of this study was to determine the prevalence of AAA in patients that fall outside of the current screening guidelines. In addition, we analyzed outcomes of the groups with a prevalence of greater than 1%. METHODS: Using the TriNetX Analytics Network, several patient cohorts were abstracted with a diagnosis of ruptured or unruptured AAA based on previously identified groups with a potentially high risk for AAA that fall outside of currently accepted screening guidelines. Groups were also stratified by sex. For groups found to have a prevalence of greater than 1%, the unruptured patients were further analyzed for long-term rates of rupture and included male ever-smokers aged 45 to 65, male never-smokers aged 65 to 75, male never-smokers aged greater than 75, and female ever-smokers aged 65 or greater. Long-term mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction rates were compared in patients with treated and untreated AAA after propensity score matching. RESULTS: We identified 148,279 patients across the four groups with a prevalence of AAA of greater than 1% with female ever-smokers aged 65 or older being the most prevalent (2.73%). In each of the four groups, the rate of AAA rupture increased every 5 years and all had rupture rates of greater than 1% at 10 years. Meanwhile, controls for each of these four subgroups without a previous AAA diagnosis had rupture rates between 0.090% and 0.013% at 10 years. Those who underwent repair of their AAA had decreased incidence of mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Specifically, male ever-smokers aged 45 to 64 had a significant difference in incidence of mortality and myocardial infarction at 5 years and stroke at 1 and 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests male ever-smokers aged 45 to 65, male never-smokers aged 65 to 75, male never-smokers aged greater than 75, and female ever-smokers aged 65 or greater have a more than 1% prevalence of AAA and, therefore, may benefit from screening. Outcomes were significantly worse compared with well-matched controls in these groups.

Incidence of Procedure-Related Complications in Patients Treated With Atherectomy in the Femoropopliteal and Tibial Vessels in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

PURPOSE: To compare procedural complications in patients undergoing atherectomy plus angioplasty (A+A) and plain balloon angioplasty (POBA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry undergoing first-time peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) were included. Those undergoing aortoiliac or pedal interventions, primary stenting, or hybrid procedures were excluded. Patients were stratified by lesion location (femoropopliteal [FP] or tibial [TIB]). The primary outcomes were target vessel dissection, distal embolization, and provisional stent placement. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and the need for subsequent interventions. RESULTS: 12 499 patients undergoing FP (49.6% A+A) and 6736 patients undergoing TIB (17.0% A+A) interventions were identified. In the FP group, A+A was associated with greater intraoperative target vessel dissection (4.5% vs 2.6%, p<0.001), distal embolization (1.5% vs 0.7%, p =0.001), and provisional stent placement (1.5% vs 0%, p<0.001); and greater postoperative target vessel dissection (4.2% vs 2.0%, p<0.001) and distal embolization (0.9% vs 0.4%, p=0.034). In the TIB group, A+A was associated with fewer intraoperative vessel dissection (0.8% vs 2.3%, p=0.011) but greater provisional stent placement (0.3% vs 0%, p<0.001). TIB A+A was also associated with higher rates of technical success (97.6% vs 95.1%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Atherectomy was associated with increased procedural-related complications in femoropopliteal, but not in tibial vessels. Future studies addressing lesion morphology, device design, and technique may help define its role in peripheral vascular interventions.

Acute Kidney Injury Risk and Contrast Volume in Intact Versus Ruptured Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Renal impairment after repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm has been associated with post-operative mortality. Acute kidney injury (AKI) risk specifically related to contrast administration in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for intact vs ruptured aneurysms has not been previously described. It was our objective to evaluate the risk of AKI and the association with contrast administration in EVAR for ruptured (rEVAR) and intact (iEVAR) aneurysm repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). METHODS: Adult patients less than 90 years old undergoing EVAR in the VQI without prior abdominal aortic surgery or who were not actively on dialysis preoperatively were included. Patients immediately converted to an open repair were excluded. Patients were grouped by repair urgency, and patient and operative characteristics and outcomes compared. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the primary outcome of AKI. Survival was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Of 38,775 EVAR patients identified, 86.5% underwent elective surgery for an intact aneurysm, 8.4% had urgent surgery for a symptomatic, intact aneurysm, and 5.1% had emergent repair for a ruptured aneurysm. Significant risk factors for AKI included contrast volume, a preoperative eGFR <30 mL/min, procedure urgency, COPD, congestive heart failure (CHF), and total procedure time. The factor most associated with AKI was aneurysm rupture prior to repair (OR 8.6, CI 7.2-10.3, P <.01). The association of contrast volume with the outcome was the least strong with a 4% increase in risk per 25 mL of contrast (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.07). With the development of AKI, postoperative survival was reduced regardless of indication. CONCLUSIONS: Of all factors assessed, aneurysm rupture was the most and contrast volume the least associated with AKI after EVAR. Further studies should evaluate methods of preventing post-EVAR AKI.

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.

Impact of tibial bypass conduit on long-term amputation-free survival and primary patency in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Much research remains focused on tibial bypass conduit selection. We sought to describe long-term amputation-free survival (AFS) and primary patency (PP) of patients undergoing tibial bypass by conduit type and configuration across several permutations in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative. METHODS: Patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry undergoing elective first-time femoral- or popliteal-to-tibial bypass for occlusive disease involving rest pain or tissue loss were identified. Prior ipsilateral infrainguinal bypass or concomitant procedures were excluded. Outcomes of interest included patient AFS at 22 months and PP at 1 year (defined as freedom from revision, thrombectomy, or graft occlusion). RESULTS: A total of 4192 bypasses were identified. The majority utilized great saphenous vein (GSV) (76.2%), followed by polytetrafluoroethylene (10.6%), nonautologous biologic (6.5%), composite (3.3%), arm vein (2.8%), and small saphenous vein (0.6%). Compared with all prosthetic and composite bypasses, vein grafts had the best AFS (76.4%; P < .0001) and PP (68.1%; P = .041). Of the single segment vein conduits, GSV bypasses had the best PP (69.1%) and arm vein the worst (60.2%). AFS and PP were similar between single-segment GSV orientations. Single-segment GSV bypasses exhibited better PP than multiple segment bypasses (69.1% vs 54.6%; P = .0016). PP was significantly better for polytetrafluoroethylene compared with nonautologous biologic (68.4% vs 51.2%; P = .0039). PP did not significantly differ between vein cuff for prosthetic bypass compared with no vein cuff (69.1% vs 59.7%; P = .091). PP was not significantly different between single-segment GSV and prosthetic grafts with vein cuff (69.1% vs 69.1%; P = .51). There were no significant differences in AFS comparing arm vein, prosthetic bypass with vein cuff, or composite grafts (67.2% vs 63.8% vs 59.3%; P = .092), as well as in PP (60.2% vs 69.1% vs 54.8%; P = .14). CONCLUSIONS: Single-segment vein bypass was only marginally the most optimal conduit. Surprisingly, there may be more equipoise among conduit types, particularly in the absence of adequate GSV. Prosthetic grafts overall may not be as disadvantaged in the long term as initially thought, especially when compared with arm vein, as prosthetic bypass with vein cuff did not significantly differ in PP. Similarly, a composite conduit may not impact long-term outcomes. These data suggest that conduit choice may not impact outcomes to the degree previously thought and that other factors may have a greater impact than presumed, especially in conduit limited situations.

Vascular Surgeons as Expert Witnesses in Malpractice Litigation.

BACKGROUND: This study investigates the role of vascular surgeons as expert witnesses in United States' malpractice claims. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the Westlaw database from 1999 through 2014 using the search terms "vascular" and "surgeon". Case defendant, plaintiff, allegation, and verdict were compiled. Surgeon expert witness demographic data including age, practice duration, scholarly impact (H-index) and practice setting were reviewed using faculty websites, state licensing boards, and Scopus database. RESULTS: A total of 785 cases were identified, Three-hundred seventy-seven with a vascular surgeon as the plaintiff or defense expert witness. Vascular surgeons were defense experts in One-hundred thirty one (34.75%) cases, plaintiff experts in One-hundred eighteen (31.3%), both plaintiff and defense experts in Ninty six (25.46%), or unspecified in Thiry two cases (8.29%). Two-hunder eighty three individual expert witnesses were identified. Vascular surgeon experts who testified 4 or more times were likely to be plaintiff experts (32.5% versus 18.7%, P <0.05). Mean years of practice (23.5 versus 24.2, P = 0.10) between plaintiff and defense experts was comparable. Plaintiff experts were more likely in non-academic practice (64.4% versus 52.5%, P <0.05) with lower scholarly impact (H-index 12.8 versus 16.7, P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A small percentage of vascular surgeons were experts in multiple cases, especially as plaintiff witnesses. Vascular surgeons as plaintiff's witnesses have similar years of age, work less in an academics, and have lower scholarly impact than defense witnesses. While national organizations provide guidelines defining expert witness qualifications, the required credentials vary by State. Development of minimum qualifications nationally may improve consistency in expert credentialing and lead to more ethical trial representation.

The current state of vascular surgery presence and educational content in Google and YouTube internet search results.

BACKGROUND: Information on the internet regarding vascular disease has not been extensively assessed. Our goal was to compile and appraise the information available via Google and YouTube searches regarding various topics of interest for vascular surgeons (VS) and related procedures with a focus on the role of the VS. METHODS: The Google and YouTube platforms were independently queried for 25 keywords/phrases relating to common vascular diagnoses and procedures by two separate researchers from March to July 2019. Paid advertisements or a Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) webpage or affiliated video in the first 25 results was documented. Results were reviewed for information regarding the responsible medical specialty and the target audience, and disease-related information (screening, risk factors, risk reduction, diagnostic testing, operative treatment, alternative treatment, follow-up, complications, and recovery). RESULTS: From the Google search, 357 unique domains of 1241 total webpages were identified with 75% directed toward the public. An SVS page was present in 56% of the first-page results and least likely to be present in searches for claudication, gangrene, carotid stent, rib resection, and thrombolysis. VS were mentioned as referral physicians in 56% of the 68% of websites that mentioned a specialty, endovascular specialists/interventional radiology in 20%, and cardiothoracic surgeons in 19%. Only 4% of the websites contained information from all categories, with the greatest number for aortic dissection. Advertisements were present in 18% of all searches (most commonly for "varicose vein," "varicose vein surgery," and "inferior vena cava filter"). From YouTube, 1247 search results (613 unique videos) were evaluated with 64% directed toward the public. An SVS affiliated video was present in 36% of searches. In the 47% of videos where a specialty was mentioned, 56% mentioned VS, interventional radiology in 10%, and cardiothoracic surgeons in 7%. Only 0.24% of the videos contained information from all categories. The greatest number of content categories was in videos related to peripheral arterial disease. Across both platforms, dialysis access searches yielded results with the least number of content categories. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-related information regarding vascular surgical topics is readily available on the internet, but the content is highly variable and not comprehensive. Only half of the searches mention VS as the referral physician of choice or authority for these medical conditions. Further efforts should focus on developing the online presence of vascular surgery, improving the quality of education of vascular disease on the internet, and directing patients to the vascular specialists to treat these conditions.

Perioperative Opioid and Nonopioid Prescribing Patterns in AVF/AVG Creation.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate postoperative opioid prescribing patterns in patients undergoing hemodialysis access creation. METHODS: Operative logs were reviewed to identify patients undergoing creation of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or graft (AVG) from September 2016 to January 2018. Immediate postoperative opioid prescriptions were compared for ambulatory patients versus inpatients. Opioid prescriptions at the time of discharge for inpatients were recorded. Rates of opioid prescribing were standardized by conversion to morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). Opioid use postoperatively and at the time of discharge based on anesthetic technique, general anesthesia versus regional or local anesthesia with sedation were compared. Alternative pain medications administered and pain scores were recorded. Comparisons were made between the percentage of opioid use and doses administered between AVF and AVG patient groups, ambulatory and inpatients, and type of anesthetic technique used. Statistical analysis was performed with chi-square and t-tests. RESULTS: We identified 164 patients undergoing AV access creation but not receiving chronic opioid therapy. A significantly higher percentage of inpatients received opioids in the immediate postoperative period than ambulatory patients (AVF: 72% vs. 19%, P < 0.001; AVG: 62% vs. 25%, P = 0.001). Overall, all AVG patients were more likely to be discharged with an opioid prescription than all AVF patients (37% vs. 8%, P < 0.001). Of AVG patients managed in the ambulatory setting, 48% were discharged with an opioid prescription. The mean total opioid postoperative dose prescribed to inpatients was significantly higher than that prescribed to ambulatory patients for both fistulas (28.73 MMEs vs. 1.27 MMEs, P < 0.001) and grafts (22.11 MMEs vs. 2.16 MMEs, P = 0.005). General anesthesia patient groups were more likely to receive opioids postoperatively than local anesthesia with sedation patients for both AVF (54% vs. 24%, P = 0.027) and AVG creation (61% vs. 17% P < 0.001). Postoperative alternative medication use in the hospital was low with 18% acetaminophen and 1% nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use for AVF patient groups and 24% acetaminophen and 0% nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use for AVG patient groups. The percentage of patients reporting postoperative pain in the recovery room and on the inpatient units was comparable between ambulatory and inpatient settings (AVF: 21% vs. 28%, P = 0.534; AVG: 23% vs. 44%, P = 0.061). CONCLUSIONS: A higher percentage of inpatients undergoing hemodialysis access received opioids when compared with ambulatory patients in the immediate postoperative period. Inpatients were prescribed higher mean doses than ambulatory patients. AVG patient groups were prescribed more opioids than AVF patient groups. Alternative analgesic agent use was low, suggesting an opportunity for improved pain control and opioid reduction. Dialysis access creation represents an opportunity to improve on opioid prescribing patterns.

The Prevalence and Utility of Vascular Surgery Training Programs' and Vascular Societies' Social Media Presence.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of information describing the adoption of social media by the vascular surgery community and social media's effectiveness. We evaluated current trends in social media use by all accredited vascular surgery training programs (VSTPs) in the United States and National and Regional Vascular Societies (NVS) in comparison to hospital/institutions and general surgery programs (GSPs). METHODS: Four major social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube) were individually searched for VSTPs, affiliated hospital/institution, affiliated GSP, and NVS profiles (31 societies). Social media presence was evaluated for quantitative and qualitative variables (likes/followers/posts and content) on each platform. Statistical analysis was performed utilizing a two-sample t-test, exact McNemar's and Fischer's exact test, as appropriate, with alpha set at 0.05. RESULTS: Social media accounts were found for 31% of VSTP. VSTP with both fellowship and integrated positions had a greater social media presence than integrated only (45% vs. 10%, P = 0.042) and fellowship only (45% vs. 26%, P = 0.044) programs. For integrated programs, an increase in residency positions filled in the 2019 match was associated with the use of social media (P = 0.002). VSTP social media presence was largest on Twitter (24%) with 232 total posts and 0.32 posts/day. 52% of NVS had a social media platform, with the highest prevalence on Facebook (42%) and highest utilization on Twitter (1422 posts, 0.47 posts/day). Hashtags were used for postings by 78% of VSTP and 100% of NVS. VSTP had a lower overall social media presence than their institutions and GSP (31% vs. 96% and 65%, P < 0.001). Twitter was used by VSTP significantly less than the institutions and GSP (24% vs. 87% and 57%, P < 0.001). Facebook and Instagram were used less by VSTP than institutions or GSP (10% vs. 93% and 26% P < 0.001, 4% vs. 76% and 24% P < 0.001 respectively). YouTube channels were the least used platform in VSTP compared with institutions (3% vs. 92%, P < 0.001), but comparable to GSP (3% vs. 10%, P = 0.062). Regarding content, VSTP accounts were used for comments on academic activity of residents/physicians, faculty research, patient education, and commendations. CONCLUSIONS: There is relative underuse of social media by VSTP in comparison to their associated institutions and general surgery programs. VSTP may modify their approach to recruitment by utilizing the follower base of institutions, surgery programs, and NVS or by leveraging established institutional marketing programs. Adoption of social media may provide vascular surgery increased exposure for trainee and patient recruitment and specialty brand recognition.

Protamine sulfate use during tibial bypass does not appear to increase thrombotic events or affect short-term graft patency.

OBJECTIVES: While the use of protamine sulfate as a heparin reversal agent has been extensively reviewed in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy and coronary artery bypass grafting, there is a lack of literature on protamine's effects on lower extremity bypasses. The purpose of this study was to determine the risk of protamine sulfate dosing after tibial bypass on thrombotic or bleeding events, including early bypass failure. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of our institutional database for patients undergoing primary distal peripheral bypass from January 2009 through December 2015 (contralateral bypass was considered to be a new primary bypass). Primary endpoints include composite thrombotic events (myocardial infarction, stroke, amputation at 30 days and patency less than 30 days) and composite bleeding events (bleeding or transfusion). RESULTS: A total of 152 tibial or peroneal bypasses in 136 patients with critical limb ischemia were identified. Of these, 78 (57.4%) patients received protamine sulfate intraoperatively and 58 (42.6%) did not. There were no differences in composite thrombotic or hemorrhagic outcomes. Protamine use had no effect on the rates of perioperative MI (9.0% versus 3.5%, p = 0.20), stroke (1.3% versus 1.7%, p = 0.83), or perioperative mortality (5.1% versus 3.5%, p = 0.64). There was no significant difference in composite post-operative bleeding events (20.7% versus 14.1%, p = 0.31) or composite thrombotic events (17.2% versus 18.0%, p = 0.91). Patients who received protamine undergoing bypass with non-autogenous conduit had significantly higher-recorded median operative blood loss (250 mL versus 150 mL, p = 0.0097) and median procedure lengths (265 min versus 201 min, p = 0.0229). No difference in 30-day amputation-free survival was noted (91.0% versus 91.4%, p = 0.94). Follow-up Kaplan-Meier estimation did not demonstrate a difference in 30-day patency (91.7% versus 88.5%, p = 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: Heparin reversal with protamine sulfate after tibial or peroneal bypass grafting is not associated with higher cardiovascular morbidity, bypass thrombosis, amputation, or mortality. Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference in post-operative bleeding or thrombosis complications for patients who did not receive protamine, although the findings are suggestive of a potential difference in a more adequately powered study. Our results suggest that protamine sulfate is safe for intraoperative use without increased risk of thrombotic complications or early tibial bypass graft failure.

Underutilization of Nonopioid Pain Medication in Patients Undergoing Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: With increased focus on the opioid crisis, it was our goal to describe rates and risk factors for postoperative use of opioids in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair as well as identify pain modalities that are underutilized. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed perioperative analgesic prescriptions for endovascular (EVAR) and open AAA repair between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2018. Patients' baseline opioid use, demographics, and medical comorbidities were obtained. The EVAR group was further subdivided into percutaneous (pEVAR) and cutdown (cEVAR) groups. Primary outcomes were postoperative and discharge pain medication prescriptions. Relative rates of opioid prescribing were obtained through the electronic medical record and normalized into morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). RESULTS: Of the 128 patients analyzed in the entire cohort, 21.8% (n = 28) underwent open repair and 78.12% (n = 100) underwent EVAR (46 pEVAR, 54 cEVAR). As expected, open repair had increased postoperative pain reported compared to EVAR (2.67 ± 0.75 vs. 0.96 ± 0.19, P < 0.01). Adjunctive epidural reduced postoperative pain for open repair (0.77 ± 0.48 vs. 3.50 ± 0.96, P < 0.01). EVAR had less postoperative opioid prescriptions compared to open repair (35.0% vs. 77.3%, P < 0.01). In the endovascular group, there was no difference between postoperative opioid prescription based on access, pEVAR versus cEVAR (65.8% vs. 80.1%, P = 0.11). When stratifying patients by number of cutdowns, patients with bilateral cutdown as opposed to a single cutdown received more opioid prescriptions than pEVAR patients (84.44% vs. 65.8%, P = 0.036). Of those receiving opioids, the average MME for open repair was 320.94 mg compared to 28.82 mg for EVAR (P < 0.01). Those undergoing percutaneous repair had significantly less MME use during hospitalization compared to femoral cutdown (17 ± 3.52 vs. 31.90 ± 5.43 mg, P < 0.01). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as ibuprofen and ketorolac, were rarely used in the postoperative period for open or EVAR (8.3% vs 1.1%). Percutaneous EVAR patients reported less pain at discharge compared to cEVAR patients (0.18 ± 0.12 vs. 0.88 ± 0.29, P = 0.036). Open and EVAR had comparable low rates of NSAID and acetaminophen prescriptions at discharge. Open patients had longer postoperative length of stay compared to EVAR patients (9.82 ± 1.27 vs. 3.86 ± 0.47, P < 0.01). pEVAR had a shorter length of postoperative course compared to cEVAR (3.2 ± 0.26 vs. 4.12 ± 0.30, P < 0.01). Patients undergoing EVAR with use of pain medications amounting to <20 MME had a significantly shorter length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: This single institutional retrospective study evaluated pain prescription patterns for patients undergoing AAA repair. AAA patients are predominantly treated with opioid pain medications with few adjunctive therapies. Intraoperative epidural and pEVAR may aid in decreasing the total MME used; however, the total number of opioids prescribed is similar for pEVAR and cEVAR despite the difference in approach. Clinicians must consider alternative nonopioid based pain management strategies.

Extended screening guidelines for the diagnosis of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines are the most widely used criteria for screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). However, when the USPSTF criteria are applied retrospectively to a group of patients who have undergone treatment for AAA, there are many patients who satisfy none of the AAA screening criteria. The more sensitive Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) guidelines have expanded the criteria for screening for AAA with the hope of capturing a greater fraction of those individuals who can undergo treatment for their AAA before presenting with AAA rupture. We sought to identify the number of patients who would have been identified as having criteria for screening for AAA by both the USPSTF and SVS criteria, in a cohort of patients who have undergone treatment for AAA. METHODS: We assessed demographic, comorbidity, and perioperative complication data for all patients undergoing endovascular and open AAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative. Patients meeting each of the screening criteria were identified. Clinical factors and demographic variables were collected. RESULTS: We identified 55,197 patients undergoing AAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative, including 44,602 patients who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and 10,595 patients undergoing open repair. Of these, the USPTF guidelines would have identified fewer than one-third of patients (32% EVAR and 33% open repair). Applying the SVS guidelines increased the number meeting criteria for screening by 6% and 12% for the EVAR and open repair cohorts, respectively. Finally, adoption of the expanded SVS guidelines (including the "weak recommendations") would have identified an additional 34% of EVAR patients and 21% of open AAA repair patients. Use of the expanded criteria would have resulted in 27% of patients undergoing EVAR and 33% of patients undergoing open AAA repair who would not have met any screening criteria. In EVAR patients not meeting the criteria, 52% were younger than 65 years had a history of heavy smoking. Of all those who did not meet screening criteria, ruptured AAA was twice as prevalent as those who met screening criteria (8.5% vs 4.4%; P ≤ .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Expanding established USPSTF screening guidelines to include the expanded SVS criteria may potentially double the number of patients identified with AAA. Smokers under the age of 65, and elderly patients 70 and older with no smoking history, represent two groups with AAA and potentially twice the risk of presenting with rupture.

Malpractice Litigation for Compartment Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze litigation involving compartment syndrome to identify the causes and outcomes of such malpractice suits. A better understanding of such litigation may provide insight into areas where clinicians may make improvements in the delivery of care. METHODS: Jury verdict reviews from the Westlaw database from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2018 were reviewed. The search term "compartment syndrome" was used to identify cases and extract data on the specialty of the physician defendant, the demographics of the plaintiff, the allegation, and the verdict. RESULTS: A total of 124 individual cases involving the diagnosis of compartment syndrome were identified. Medical centers or the hospital was included as a defendant in 51.6% of cases. The most frequent physician defendants were orthopedic surgeons (45.96%) and emergency medicine physicians (20.16%), followed by cardiothoracic/vascular surgeons (16.93%). Failure to diagnose was the most frequently cited claim (71.8% of cases). Most plaintiffs were men, with a mean age of 36.7 years, suffering injuries for an average of 5 years before their verdict. Traumatic compartment syndrome of the lower extremity causing nerve damage was the most common complication attributed to failure to diagnose, leading to litigation. Forty cases (32.25%) were found for the plaintiff or settled, with an average award of $1,553,993.66. CONCLUSIONS: Our study offers a brief overview of the most common defendants, plaintiffs, and injuries involved in legal disputes involving compartment syndrome. Orthopedic surgeons were most commonly named; however, vascular surgeons may also be involved in these cases because of the large number of cases with associated arterial involvement. A significant percentage of cases were plaintiff verdicts or settled cases. Failure to diagnosis or delay in treatment was the most common causes of malpractice litigation. Compartment syndrome is a clinical diagnosis and requires a high level of suspicion for a timely diagnosis. Lack of objective criteria for diagnosis increases the chances of medical errors and makes it an area vulnerable to litigation.

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.

Digital Footprint of Vascular Surgery Training Programs in the United States and Canada.

BACKGROUND: The digital footprint of vascular residency and fellowship programs may have an impact on an applicant's likelihood of selecting a given program. This may include content and accessibility of a particular program's website as well as its social media presence. The goal of this study is to evaluate the online presence of all accredited vascular surgery training programs in the United States and Canada. METHODS: A list of accredited vascular surgery training programs in the United States was obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the Society for Vascular Surgery websites. Canadian program websites were sourced from the Canadian Society for Vascular Surgery website. Each program website was individually queried. A systematic Google search of each program was carried out to determine website accessibility. Thirty-one individual content and quality metrics were used to appraise the websites. Three major social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram) were individually searched for program profiles. RESULTS: A total of 105 independent vascular surgery fellowship programs in the 5 + 2 paradigm and 55 integrated vascular surgery residency programs in the 0 + 5 paradigm were identified in the United States. An additional 10 Canadian programs were also identified, including 10 integrated residency programs and 4 independent fellowships. Ninety-nine percent of integrated residency and fellowship programs were accessible through Google search. Program description was also almost universally available. Significant differences between US and Canadian programs were observed including the mention of salary information (43% vs. 10%, P = 0.039), clinic responsibilities (38% vs. 90%, P = 0.001), teaching responsibilities (34% vs. 100%, P < 0.0001), program director contact information (47% vs. 80%, P = 0.045), mention of journal club (52% vs. 100%, P = 0.003), research requirements (50% vs. 90%, P = 0.014), and past and current research (30% vs. 70%, P = 0.009 and 37% vs. 80%, P = 0.008, respectively). Additionally, there were significant differences in mention of institutions from which trainees came from (48% vs. 10%, P = 0.021), mention of hybrid operating room (42% vs. 100%, P = 0.0003), advertised medical student rotations (25% vs. 90%, P < 0.0001), and finally social media presence (13% vs. 70%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The overall digital footprint of the majority of training programs in the United States was small, unlike their Canadian counterparts. Although the vast majority of websites for vascular surgery training programs were accessible via simple internet searches, they lacked information that could have been important to applicants. Additionally, the significant underuse of social media platforms by American vascular surgery programs indicated a potential missed opportunity to target the millennials who make up most of the applicant pool to these programs.

Jury verdicts and outcomes of malpractice cases involving arteriovenous hemodialysis access.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze malpractice cases involving hemodialysis access to prevent future litigation and improve physician education. METHODS: Jury verdict reviews from the WESTLAW database from 1 January 2005 to 1 January 2015 were reviewed. The search terms "hemodialysis," "dialysis," "graft," "fistula," "AVG," "AVF," "arteriovenous," "catheter," "permacatheter," and "shiley" were used to compile data on the demographics of the defendant, plaintiff, allegation, complication, and verdict. RESULTS: Sixty-six cases involving the litigation pertaining to hemodialysis catheter, arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or arteriovenous grafts (AVGs) were obtained. Of these, 55% involved catheter-based hemodialysis access, 18% involved AVF, and 27% involved AVG. The most frequent physician defendants were vascular surgeons (36%), internists (14%), nephrologists (14%), general surgeons (9%), and interventional radiologists (6%). Of the patients, 38% involved were male and the average patient age was 56.3 (standard deviation (SD) = 20.1) years. Region of injury was 50% in the neck or chest, 42% in the arm, and 8% in the groin. Injury was listed as death in 79% of cases. Of the deaths, 95% involved bleeding at some point in the chain of events. The most common claims related to the cases were failure to perform the surgery or procedure safely (44%), failure to diagnose and treat in a timely manner (30%), and negligent hemodialysis treatment (11%). The most common complications cited were hemorrhage (62%), loss of function of limb (15%), and ischemia due to steal syndrome (11%). A total of 26 cases (39%) were found for the plaintiff or settled. The median award was US$463,000 with a mean of US$985,299 (SD = US$1,314,557). CONCLUSION: While popular opinion may indicate that steal syndrome is a commonly litigated complication, our data reveal that the most common injury litigated is death which may frequently be the result of a hemorrhagic episode. In addition to hemorrhage, the remaining most common complications included steal syndrome and loss of limb function. Therefore, steps to better prevent, diagnose and treat bleeding, nerve injury, and steal syndrome in a timely manner are critical to preventing hemodialysis-access-associated litigation.