Early postoperative outcome after carotid artery endarterectomy with bifurcation advancement.

Background: The aim of this study is to review the single center experience in surgical treatment of carotid artery disease (CAD) using bifurcation advancement carotid endarterectomy (BA-CEA) and compare the in-hospital outcome with one of the largest nationwide carotid endarterectomy (CEA) databases worldwide, the German statutory quality assurance database (GD). Patients and methods: Data of BA-CEA procedures in the period of 2006-2015 were analyzed retrospectively. The primary endpoint was defined as combined stroke and death rate. Secondarily, isolated stroke, TIA, patient death, myocardial infarction, major neck hematoma and cranial nerve injuries were analyzed. Symptomatic and asymptomatic CAD patients were divided into two subgroups. The results were compared to extracted published data from the German database (GD). Results: Of 239 included BA-CEA procedures 188 (78.7%) procedures were carried out in patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. The overall perioperative combined stroke and death rate after BA-CEA was 2.5%. Five (2.1%) patients suffered from a stroke (one minor and four major strokes), of which two hemorrhagic strokes ended fatally. Overall, four (1.7%) patients died perioperatively. The combined stroke and death rate was higher in the symptomatic subgroup (3.2%; 0% in the asymptomatic group). No significant differences were found between the results of BA-CEA and the German database (n=142'074) for combined stroke and death rates and isolated stroke. Significant differences were found among the overall mortality rate (BA-CEA: 1.7% vs. GD: 0.6, p=0.04). The risk of postoperative cranial nerve injuries was also significantly higher after BA-CEA overall (BA-CEA: 5.0% vs. GD: 1.2%, p=<0.0001), in symptomatic CAD patients (BA-CEA: 4.8% vs. GD: 1.2%, p=<0.0001) and in asymptomatic CAD patients (BA-CEA: 5.9% vs. GD: 1.3%, p=0.01). Conclusions: CEA with bifurcation advancement provides comparable perioperative results, focusing on combined stroke and mortality, but seems to have some technical drawbacks, which may lead to more frequent local neurological complications.

Managing central venous access during a health care crisis.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, central venous access line teams were implemented at many hospitals throughout the world to provide access for critically ill patients. The objective of this study was to describe the structure, practice patterns, and outcomes of these vascular access teams during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, self-reported study of central venous access line teams in hospitals afflicted with the COVID-19 pandemic. To participate in the study, hospitals were required to meet one of the following criteria: development of a formal plan for a central venous access line team during the pandemic; implementation of a central venous access line team during the pandemic; placement of central venous access by a designated practice group during the pandemic as part of routine clinical practice; or management of an iatrogenic complication related to central venous access in a patient with COVID-19. RESULTS: Participants from 60 hospitals in 13 countries contributed data to the study. Central venous line teams were most commonly composed of vascular surgery and general surgery attending physicians and trainees. Twenty sites had 2657 lines placed by their central venous access line team or designated practice group. During that time, there were 11 (0.4%) iatrogenic complications associated with central venous access procedures performed by the line team or group at those 20 sites. Triple lumen catheters, Cordis (Santa Clara, Calif) catheters, and nontunneled hemodialysis catheters were the most common types of central venous lines placed by the teams. Eight (14%) sites reported experience in placing central venous lines in prone, ventilated patients with COVID-19. A dedicated line cart was used by 35 (59%) of the hospitals. Less than 50% (24 [41%]) of the participating sites reported managing thrombosed central lines in COVID-19 patients. Twenty-three of the sites managed 48 iatrogenic complications in patients with COVID-19 (including complications caused by providers outside of the line team or designated practice group). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a dedicated central venous access line team during a pandemic or other health care crisis is a way by which physicians trained in central venous access can contribute their expertise to a stressed health care system. A line team composed of physicians with vascular skill sets provides relief to resource-constrained intensive care unit, ward, and emergency medicine teams with a low rate of iatrogenic complications relative to historical reports. We recommend that a plan for central venous access line team implementation be in place for future health care crises.