Multidisciplinary Approach to Venous Disease: Enhancing Patient Care and Trainee Education Through Collaboration.

The full spectrum of venous disease poses a significant burden on individuals and health-care systems globally. Venous disease can lead to a wide range of symptoms based on the level of disease and underlying pathology. In general, underlying pathologies are due to nonthrombotic (reflux/obstructive) and thrombotic causes. Most conditions are a sequela of the long-term effects of chronic venous insufficiency, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), or nonthrombotic deep vein obstruction. The prevalence of venous disease is substantial, impacting the quality of life of a considerable proportion of the adult population. Untreated and progressive lower extremity venous disease can lead to venous ulceration and other complications. Additionally, poorly recognized and poorly understood venous conditions of the abdomen and pelvis leave many patients "orphaned" in health-care systems that lack expertise in complex venous conditions. Addressing the burden and breadth of venous disease requires comprehensive management approaches, early diagnosis, appropriate treatment interventions, and provider and patient education. Multidisciplinary collaborations and further research are essential to enhance our understanding, develop innovative therapies, and improve patient outcomes in the field of venous disease. In this paper, we highlight the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration and our journey to building an institutional venous team, as well as lessons learned.

Optimal conduit choice for open lower extremity bypass in chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

Open bypass surgery remains a major tool for limb salvage in chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). Although rest pain and tissue loss both fall into the category of CLTI, goals of revascularization are markedly different for each context. Rest pain mandates long-term patency considerations. Tissue loss, however, requires consideration of infection risks and patency enough to heal the wound. Of the major conduit options, autologous saphenous vein graft continues to be the conduit of choice, given both superior patency and low risk of infection. When saphenous vein graft is not available or not available in appropriate length, arm vein, small saphenous vein, and spliced combinations of these have acceptable patency rates. Heparin-bonded polytetrafluoroethylene and Dacron grafts are prosthetic conduits with excellent patency rates when vein is not available. For infected wounds without other options, cryovein continues to provide acceptable patency for limb salvage. Creation of a bypass is only part of CLTI management. Appropriate postoperative surveillance with noninvasive studies, including ankle-brachial index and duplex ultrasound, can alert to impending graft failure, with a drop in ankle-brachial index of 0.15 and velocity ratios of 3 or more suggestive of significant stenoses. Anticoagulation has only been found in limited contexts (such as poor conduit or poor outflow) to offer some patency benefit, however, findings from the VOYAGER PAD (Vascular Outcomes Study of ASA [Acetylsalicylic Acid] Along With Rivaroxaban in Endovascular or Surgical Limb Revascularization for PAD) trial were a major breakthrough, showing a reduction in the composite outcome of major adverse limb, cardiac, and cerebrovascular events in revascularized patients taking low-dose rivaroxaban in conjunction with aspirin, without a substantial increase in bleeding risk.

Balloon dilation strategy does not affect outcomes for transcarotid artery revascularization in prospective trials.

OBJECTIVES: Strategies of balloon dilation during transfemoral carotid artery stenting include prestent dilation only (PRE), post-stent dilation only (POST), or both predilation and postdilation (PRE+POST). Concerns over higher neurological risk have been raised with POST and PRE+POST during transfemoral carotid artery stenting. Whether these concerns are applicable to transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), which uses proximal clamping and cerebral blood flow reversal during stent deployment and balloon angioplasty remains unknown. Our aim is to analyze outcomes of PRE, POST, or PRE+POST balloon dilation strategies during TCAR. METHODS: We analyzed the prospectively collected data from the ROADSTER1 (pivotal), ROADSTER2 (US Food and Drug Administration indicated postmarket), and ROADSTER Extended Access TCAR trials. All trial patients had a high risk anatomic or clinical factors for carotid endarterectomy and were included, unless they did not undergo stent deployment or balloon dilation. For trial inclusion, asymptomatic patients had a carotid stenosis of more than 80%, and symptomatic patients had stenosis of more than 50%. Primary outcome measures were stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI) at 30 days. Data were statistically analyzed with χ2, analysis of variance, and multivariable analysis, as appropriate. RESULTS: There were 851 patients (566 male) who underwent dilation by PRE (n = 216), POST (n = 249), or PRE+POST (n = 386). Patients had carotid stenosis of greater than 70% (n = 828, 97%), and 207 (24%) were symptomatic. Flow reversal times were longer in the PRE+POST group (PRE 10.2 minutes, POST 9.8 minutes, and PRE+POST 13.3 minutes; P < .001). The 30-day stroke rate for the whole cohort was 1.9%, mortality was 0.5%, and MI rate was 0.94%. Stroke rates for the PRE cohort (1.9%), POST cohort (2.0%), and PRE+POST cohort (1.8%; P = .98) were similar. Also, death rates at 30 days, and composite stroke, death, and MI rates were similar in the three cohorts. No significant differences in adverse outcomes were noted among the various dilation strategies for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these prospective trial data, there is no difference in neurological complications owing to balloon dilation strategy during TCAR. The balloon dilation technique best suited to the patient's specific lesion morphology should be used. Further studies are needed to evaluate the relationship of these dilation strategies to long-term outcomes, including stent patency, restenosis, and reintervention.

Paclitaxel-coated peripheral arterial devices are associated with improved overall survival and limb salvage in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Paclitaxel (PTX)-coated peripheral arterial devices have been shown to decrease femoropopliteal artery restenosis and the need for reintervention compared with non-PTX-coated devices. The data regarding PTX efficacy and safety come from randomized controlled trials that almost exclusively enrolled patients with claudication. The outcomes of PTX treatment in patients who present with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) are unknown. This study compares long-term outcomes in patients with CLTI treated with and without PTX. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 983 patients with CLTI treated with femoropopliteal artery angioplasty, atherectomy, stent, or combination between 2011 and 2019. Procedures were performed with additional proximal or distal tibial interventions as needed. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariable Cox-regression analysis compared overall survival (OS), amputation-free survival (AFS), freedom from major amputation (ff-MA), and freedom from target vessel revascularization (ff-TVR) between patients treated with and without PTX. RESULTS: Demographics, comorbidities, and Rutherford class were similar between 574 PTX (58.5%) and 409 non-PTX (41.6%) patients except that non-PTX patients were more likely to be male (56.2% vs 49.7%), dialysis dependent (19.6% vs 14.3%), and have higher average creatinine (2.3 vs 1.8 mg/dL). Through 4-year follow-up, the PTX group demonstrated a significant increase in OS (56.2% vs 43.9%, P = .013), AFS (52.6% vs 36.1%, P < .0001), ff-MA (87.4% vs 78.7%, P = .0007), and ff-TVR (77.6% vs 70.6%, P = .012). Multivariable Cox-regression analysis demonstrated that PTX treatment was associated with improved OS, AFS, ff-MA, and ff-TVR. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CLTI, treatment with a PTX-coated device is associated with improved OS, AFS, ff-MA, and ff-TVR through 4-year follow-up. PTX-coated devices may be especially beneficial in patients who present with CLTI.

Paclitaxel-Coated Peripheral Arterial Devices are Associated with Reduced Mortality in Younger Patients.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel-coated devices have been shown to decrease restenosis when used in the femoropopliteal artery. Recent reports have suggested a possible risk of increased late mortality in patients treated with paclitaxel. It has been suggested that younger patients and those with limited comorbidities may be at higher risk. Our objective was to analyze long-term mortality based on patient age comparing treatment with paclitaxel to uncoated devices. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 1,170 consecutive patients who underwent femoropopliteal percutaneous intervention by angioplasty, atherectomy, stent placement, or combination between 2011 and 2018. Patients were grouped by age at the time of procedure: <60 years old (n = 244, 20.9%), 60-80 years old (n = 635, 54.3%), and >80 years old (n = 291, 24.9%). Within each group, patients were further divided by use of paclitaxel. The primary outcome measure was survival assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Differences between the groups were analyzed with analysis of variance. Multivariable analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Of the 1,170 patients who underwent femoropopliteal percutaneous intervention, 654 (55.9%) received a paclitaxel-coated device during treatment and 516 (44.1%) did not. Mean age of the overall patient cohort was 70.4 ± 12.6 years and 663 (56.7%) were male. When comparing the groups by age we found an increase in age but a decrease in the proportion of patients who smoke. The use of paclitaxel-coated devices was similar across the groups (<60 years old, 56.2%; 60-80 years old, 57.0%; >80 years old, 52.6%; P = 0.45). Demographics and comorbidities were similar between the patients treated with and without paclitaxel within each age group except more males in the <60-year-old group treated without paclitaxel and more patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia in the >80-year-old group treated with paclitaxel. In patients <60 and 60-80 years old paclitaxel use was associated with increased survival at 4 years: <60 (80.7% vs. 64.4%; P = 0.04); 60-80 (63.2% vs. 55.1%; P = 0.04). Survival was similar in the >80-year-old group (46.6% vs. 32.8%; P = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the use of paclitaxel-coated arterial devices is not associated with increased mortality. On the contrary, our data show that younger patients treated with paclitaxel show improved survival compared with those treated without paclitaxel. Paclitaxel-coated devices may be used with continued caution especially in patients at high risk for restenosis.

Anatomic criteria in the selection of treatment modality for atherosclerotic carotid artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: Three procedures are currently available to treat atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis: carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS), and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). Although there is considerable debate evaluating each of these in a head-to-head comparison to determine superiority, little has been mentioned concerning the specific anatomic criteria that make one more appropriate. We conducted a study to define anatomic criteria in relation to inclusion and exclusion criteria and relative contraindications. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of 448 carotid arteries from 224 consecutive patients who underwent a neck and head computed tomography arteriography (CTA) scan before carotid intervention for significant carotid artery stenosis. Occlusion of the internal carotid artery (ICA) occurred in 15, yielding 433 arteries for analysis. Anatomic data were collected from CTA images and demographic and comorbidities from chart review. Eligibility for CEA, TF-CAS, and TCAR was defined on the basis of anatomy, not by comorbidity. RESULTS: CTA analysis revealed that 92 of 433 arteries (21%) were ineligible for CEA because of carotid lesions extending cephalad to the second cervical vertebra. Overall, 26 arteries (6.0%) were not eligible for any type of carotid artery stent because of small ICA diameter (n = 11), heavy circumferential calcium (n = 14), or combination (n = 1). An additional 126 arteries were ineligible for TF-CAS on the basis of a hostile aortic arch (n = 115) or severe distal ICA tortuosity (n = 11), yielding 281 arteries (64.9%) that were eligible. In addition to the 26 arteries ineligible for any carotid stent, TCAR was contraindicated in 39 because of a clavicle to bifurcation distance <5 cm (n = 17), common carotid artery diameter <6 mm (n = 3), or significant plaque at the TCAR sheath access site (n = 20), yielding 368 arteries (85.0%) that were eligible for TCAR. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of patients who present with carotid artery stenosis have anatomy that makes one or more carotid interventions contraindicated or less desirable. Anatomic factors should play a key role in selecting the most appropriate procedure to treat carotid artery stenosis. Determination of superiority for one procedure over another should be tempered until anatomic criteria have been assessed to select the best procedural options for each patient.

Paclitaxel-coated peripheral artery devices are not associated with increased mortality.

OBJECTIVE: Long-term safety concerns have been raised that the use of paclitaxel-coated balloons and stents is linked to excess mortality. Our objective was to compare outcomes in patients treated with paclitaxel vs uncoated devices and to analyze long-term mortality. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single-institution review of 1170 consecutive patients who underwent femoropopliteal percutaneous revascularization by angioplasty, atherectomy, stent placement, or combination between 2011 and 2018. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. Groups were divided into patients who received paclitaxel (n = 652) and those who did not (n = 518). Categorical variables were assessed using χ2 analysis and continuous variables with the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A multivariable analysis was performed using multivariable logistic regression models. Mortality was compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: Demographics, risk factors, and Rutherford class were similar between the groups, except that the paclitaxel group was more likely to have diabetes (60.9% vs 55.0%; P = .04), was less likely to be on dialysis (10.7% vs 14.9%; P = .04), and had lower average creatinine concentration (1.6 ± 1.8 mg/dL vs 2.0 ± 2.3 mg/dL; P = .003). There were no differences in all-cause mortality through 2 years between paclitaxel and no-paclitaxel cohorts (25.5% vs 30.3%; log-rank, P = .098). At 3 years and 3.5 years, mortality was significantly lower in the paclitaxel group: year 3, 32.1% vs 39.4% (log-rank, P = .041); year 3.5, 35.2% vs 43.9% (log-rank, P = .027). Survival rates were not significantly different in examining subgroups by diabetes, chronic kidney disease, presence of chronic limb-threatening ischemia, or paclitaxel-coated balloon manufacturer. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that age, dialysis, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure were independent risk factors for mortality, whereas paclitaxel use was associated with lower mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The use of paclitaxel-coated balloons and stents does not increase mortality compared with uncoated devices out to 3.5 years. Paclitaxel-coated devices can be used with continued caution, especially in patients at increased risk of restenosis. Further long-term studies are needed to determine the risk of late mortality.