One-hundred Consecutive Physician-modified Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair of Pararenal and Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms using the Terumo TREO Stent-Graft.

OBJECTIVE: Fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (FEVAR) has been widely applied for the treatment of pararenal (PAA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA). If custom-made devices or off-the-shelf devices are not available, physician-modified endografts (PMEG) are an alternative device option. Several different endograft platforms have been used for PMEG; however, minimal data exists on utilizing the Terumo TREO Abdominal stent-graft system in this setting. The purpose of this study was to evaluate our single-center experience treating PAA and TAAA with a physician-modified FEVAR using the TREO platform. METHODS: A prospective database of consecutive patients with PAA and TAAA treated at a single-center with a FEVAR utilizing a PMEG device between March 2021 and September 2023 was queried for those having a Terumo TREO device implanted. Demographics, operative details, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Rates of technical success, type I or III endoleak, branch vessel status, reintervention, and 2-year survival were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 153 patients who underwent FEVAR with a PMEG device during the study period, 100 had repair using a Terumo TREO stent-graft. The mean age of the cohort was 73.7±7.0years with the majority suffering from hypertension (n=94, 94%), coronary artery disease (n=51, 51%), and COPD (n=40, 40%). Thirty-four patients (34%) had a prior failed EVAR device in place. Mean aneurysm size was 66.0±13.7mm, with 58 (50%) patients classified as PAA and 30 (30%) patients as an extent IV TAAA. Six (6%) patients presented with symptomatic/ruptured aneurysms. The average number of target arteries incorporated per patient was 3.8±0.6. Overall technical success was 99%, procedure time was 218±116 minutes, contrast volume was 82±21mL, and cumulative air kerma was 3,054±1,560mGy. Postoperative complications were present in 20 patients (20%) and 2 patients (2%) died within 30-days. Rates of type I or III endoleak, branch vessel stenosis/occlusion, and reintervention were 2%, 1%, and 7%, respectively. Two-year overall survival was 87%. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of pararenal and extent IV TAAA using a physician-modified fenestrated Terumo TREO endograft is safe and effective. This large, early experience using the Terumo TREO platform supports preferential use of this device in this setting due to the device design and low likelihood of type I or III endoleak.

Endovascular Salvage of Type Ia and Ib Endoleaks Using a Physician-Modified Fenestrated/Branched Endograft and an Iliac Branch Device Via Unilateral Transfemoral Arterial Access.

PURPOSE: This study aims to explore the feasibility and effectiveness of a unilateral transfemoral access endovascular salvage technique for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms with concurrent type Ia and Ib endoleaks following previous endovascular repair. CASE REPORT: A 69-year-old female with multiple comorbidities presented with an extent IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm complicated by type Ia and Ib endoleaks and chronically occluded left iliac endoprosthesis after prior endovascular repair. Given the patient's medical complexities, open explant repair was deemed high risk. The case was successfully managed using a physician-modified fenestrated/branched endograft (PM-F/BEVAR) and an iliac branch device (IBD) deployed through a single percutaneous transfemoral access. CONCLUSION: The presented case demonstrates the safety and efficacy of PM-F/BEVAR with concomitant IBD deployment via unilateral transfemoral access. This innovative approach allows endovascular salvage in cases with restricted iliofemoral access and avoids the complexities associated with upper extremity or aortic arch manipulation. While acknowledging the technical challenges, this technique offers a viable alternative for salvaging failed endovascular repairs, emphasizing the importance of real-time modifications in achieving successful outcomes. Further studies and long-term follow-up are warranted to validate the broader applicability and durability of this approach in the management of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms with multiple endoleaks. CLINICAL IMPACT: Although not the conventional approach, unilateral transfemoral access can be utilized to implant either a physician-modified fenestrated aortic endograft or an iliac branch device. Such an approach avoids complicating issues related to upper extremity access. This innovative technique may be necessary when there is a failed prior EVAR in the setting of significant contralateral iliofemoral occlusive disease. Doing both procedures in the same setting to resolve a type Ia and Ib endoleak is feasible as demonstrated in this case report. Expanding the endovascular armamentarium to address EVAR failure will be increasingly useful in the future, especially given the morbidity profile of EVAR explantation.

Cross-Seal IDE Trial: Prospective, Multicenter, Single-Arm Study of the Cross-Seal Suture-Mediated Vascular Closure Device System.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of interventional procedures require large-sheath technology (>12F) with a favorable outcome with endovascular rather than open surgical access. However, vascular complications are a limitation for the management of these patients. This trial aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of the Cross-Seal suture-mediated vascular closure device in obtaining hemostasis at the target limb access site following interventional procedures using 8F to 18F procedural sheaths. METHODS: The Cross-Seal IDE trial (Investigational Device Exemption) was a prospective, single-arm, multicenter study in subjects undergoing percutaneous endovascular procedures utilizing 8F to 18F ID procedural sheaths. The primary efficacy end point was time to hemostasis at the target limb access site. The primary safety end point was freedom from major complications of the target limb access site within 30 days post procedure. RESULTS: A total of 147 subjects were enrolled between August 9, 2019, and March 12, 2020. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement was performed in 53.7% (79/147) and percutaneous endovascular abdominal/thoracic aortic aneurysm repair in 46.3% (68/147) of subjects. The mean sheath ID was 15.5±1.8 mm. The primary effectiveness end point of time to hemostasis was 0.4±1.4 minutes. An adjunctive intervention was required in 9.2% (13/142) of subjects, of which 2.1% (3/142) were surgical and 5.6% (8/142) endovascular. Technical success was achieved in 92.3% (131/142) of subjects. Freedom from major complications of the target limb access site was 94.3% (83/88). CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients undergoing percutaneous endovascular procedures utilizing 8F to 18F ID procedural sheath, Cross-Seal suture-mediated vascular closure device achieved favorable effectiveness and safety in the closure of the large-bore arteriotomy. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03756558.

Definition and Perception of Autonomy in Vascular Surgery Training.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of data evaluating operative autonomy within vascular surgery. This study aims to determine where discrepancies exist in the definition of autonomy between trainees and attending faculty. METHODS: An Institutional Review Board-approved, anonymous survey was e-mailed to vascular trainees and attending faculty at all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-approved vascular surgery training programs in the United States. Data were compared using chi-square statistical analysis. RESULTS: One-hundred forty-nine responses from vascular surgery trainees (n = 89) and faculty (n = 60) were obtained. The most highly ranked preoperative skill by trainees was Case Planning, at all post-graduate year-levels. Although a majority of trainees believe this skill is expected of them, only 36.1% of attendings responded that they expect all trainee levels to perform this task. Draping/positioning was ranked as the second most important intraoperative task for all post-graduate year-levels by attendings; however, only 32.8% of attendings expect trainees to perform this. Exposure of Critical Structures was ranked as the most important intraoperative task by both trainees and attendings at the Chief and Fellow level. However, responses by both trainees and attendings showed that this is expected <70% of the time. When asked about double-scrubbing independently of other tasks, most trainees assessed double-scrubbing as inherently important to autonomy at all levels of training and within all regions. Only 44.3% of attendings responded that they expect all trainees to double-scrub. Additionally, most trainees in all regions responded that they spend <25% of cases double-scrubbed. CONCLUSIONS: These responses show a discrepancy between the skills that both trainees and attendings deem important to autonomy versus what is being expected of trainees in reality.

Cutdown is Associated with Higher 30-day Unplanned Readmissions and Wound Complications than Percutaneous Access for EVAR.

BACKGROUND: A 2023 Cochrane review showed no difference in bleeding/wound infection complications, short-term mortality and aneurysm exclusion between the percutaneous and cut-down approach for femoral access in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). In contrast, single-center studies have shown bilateral cutdown resulting in higher readmission rates due to higher rates of groin wound infections. Whether 30-day readmission rates vary by type of access during EVAR procedures is unknown. The goal of this study was to ascertain which femoral access approach for EVAR is associated with the lowest risk of 30-day readmission. METHODS: The Targeted Vascular Module from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried to identify patients undergoing EVAR for aortic disease from 2012-2021. All ruptures and other emergency cases were excluded. Cohorts were divided into bilateral cutdown, unilateral cutdown, failed percutaneous attempt converted to open and successful percutaneous access. The primary 30-day outcomes were unplanned readmission and wound complications. Univariate analyses were performed using the Fisher's exact test, Chi-Square test and the Student's t-test. Multivariable analysis was performed using logistic regression. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2021, 14,002 patients met study criteria. Most (7,395 [53%]) underwent completely percutaneous access, 5,616 (40%) underwent bilateral cutdown, 849 (6%) underwent unilateral cutdown, and 146 (1%) had a failed percutaneous access which was converted to open. Unplanned readmissions by access strategy included 7.6% for bilateral cutdown, 7.3% for unilateral cutdown, 7.8% for attempted percutaneous converted to cutdown, and 5.7% for completely percutaneous access (P < 0.001, Figure 1). After multivariable analysis, unplanned readmissions compared to percutaneous access yielded: percutaneous converted to cutdown adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 1.38, 95% CI [0.76-2.53], P = 0.29; unilateral cutdown AOR: 1.18, 95% CI [0.92-1.51], P = 0.20; bilateral cutdown AOR: 1.26, 95% CI [1.09-1.43], P = 0.001. Bilateral cutdown was also associated with higher wound complications compared to percutaneous access (AOR: 4.41, CI [2.86-6.79], P < 0.001), as was unilateral cutdown (AOR: 3.04, CI [1.46-6.32], P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing cutdown for EVAR are at higher risk for 30-day readmission compared to completely percutaneous access. If patient anatomy allows for percutaneous EVAR, this access option should be prioritized.

The Effects of Clopidogrel Duration on Carotid Artery In-Stent Restenosis.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data supporting a specific duration for dual antiplatelet therapy in carotid artery stenting (CAS), and most clinical evidence is derived from studies involving coronary interventions. As a result, the appropriate duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after CAS is yet to be determined. We aimed to elucidate whether the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy played a role in the rate of carotid in-stent restenosis. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent CAS at our institution over a 20-year period (1996-2016) was performed (n = 279). Patients who did not complete their follow-up duplex studies or were not discharged on clopidogrel were excluded from the study. Patients were separated into short-term (<6 weeks, n = 159) and long-term (>6 weeks, n = 112) clopidogrel users based on duration of therapy. We defined clinically significant in-stent restenosis as >50% restenosis (peak systolic velocity = 224 cm/s) in symptomatic patients and >80% restenosis (peak systolic velocity = 325 cm/s) in asymptomatic patients status-post prior CAS based on published velocity criteria. Rates of in-stent restenosis at 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year intervals were analyzed between the 2 groups using chi-squared analysis. RESULTS: Demographic information was largely similar between the 2 groups; however, short-term clopidogrel users were more likely to have a history of atrial fibrillation (9.43% vs. 1.68%, P = 0.008) and were less likely to have a history of coronary artery bypass graft (16.35% vs. 29.41%, P = 0.009), diabetes (33.34% vs. 49.58%, P = 0.006), and coronary artery disease (50.31% vs. 63.03%, P = 0.035). All patients were on long-term aspirin therapy. There was no significant difference between overall rates of in-stent restenosis between the short-term and long-term clopidogrel users (5.03% vs. 9.24%, P = 0.168) within 5 years of the index procedure. Similar results were observed when these groups were evaluated at 1-year (5.61% vs. 3%, P = 0.321), 2-year (2.02% vs. 6.59%, P = 0.072), and 5-year (2.24% vs. 3.57%, P = 0.635) follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant difference was observed in the rate of in-stent restenosis after CAS between short-term and long-term clopidogrel therapy. Patients in whom there is no other indication for longer duration clopidogrel therapy may be considered for shorter duration course of dual antiplatelet therapy following CAS.

A dedicated risk prediction model of 1-year mortality following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair involving the renal-mesenteric arteries.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment goals of prophylactic endovascular aortic repair of complex aneurysms involving the renal-mesenteric arteries (complex endovascular aortic repair [cEVAR]) include achieving both technical success and long-term survival benefit. Mortality within the first year after cEVAR likely indicates treatment failure owing to associated costs and procedural complexity. Notably, no validated clinical decision aid tools exist that reliably predict mortality after cEVAR. The purpose of this study was to derive and validate a preoperative prediction model of 1-year mortality after elective cEVAR. METHODS: All elective cEVARs including fenestrated, branched, and/or chimney procedures for aortic disease extent confined proximally to Ishimaru landing zones 6 to 9 in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative were identified (January 2012 to August 2023). Patients (n = 4053) were randomly divided into training (n = 3039) and validation (n = 1014) datasets. A logistic regression model for 1-year mortality was created and internally validated by bootstrapping the AUC and calibration intercept and slope, and by using the model to predict 1-year mortality in the validation dataset. Independent predictors were assigned an integer score, based on model beta-coefficients, to generate a simplified scoring system to categorize patient risk. RESULTS: The overall crude 1-year mortality rate after elective cEVAR was 11.3% (n = 456/4053). Independent preoperative predictors of 1-year mortality included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic renal insufficiency (creatinine >1.8 mg/dL or dialysis dependence), hemoglobin <12 g/dL, decreasing body mass index, congestive heart failure, increasing age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥IV, current tobacco use, history of peripheral vascular intervention, and increasing extent of aortic disease. The 1-year mortality rate varied from 4% among the 23% of patients classified as low risk to 23% for the 24% classified as high risk. Performance of the model in validation was comparable with performance in the training data. The internally validated scoring system classified patients roughly into quartiles of risk (low, low/medium, medium/high and high), with 52% of patients categorized as medium/high to high risk, which had corresponding 1-year mortality rates of 11% and 23%, respectively. Aneurysm diameter was below Society for Vascular Surgery recommended treatment thresholds (<5.0 cm in females, <5.5 cm in males) in 17% of patients (n = 679/3961), 41% of whom were categorized as medium/high or high risk. This subgroup had significantly increased in-hospital complication rates (18% vs 12%; P = .02) and 1-year mortality (13% vs 5%; P < .0001) compared with patients in the low- or low/medium-risk groups with guideline-compliant aneurysm diameters (≥5.0 cm in females, ≥5.5 cm in males). CONCLUSIONS: This validated preoperative prediction model for 1-year mortality after cEVAR incorporates physiological, functional, and anatomical variables. This novel and simplified scoring system can effectively discriminate mortality risk and, when applied prospectively, may facilitate improved preoperative decision-making, complex aneurysm care delivery, and resource allocation.

Comparative outcomes of physician-modified fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in the setting of prior failed endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysms involving renal-mesenteric arteries, especially in the setting of prior failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) typically requires fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) with a custom-made device (CMD). CMDs are limited to select centers, and physician-modified endografts are an alternative treatment platform. Currently, there is no data on the outcomes of physician-modified F/BEVAR (PM-F/BEVAR) in the setting of failed prior EVAR. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of PM-F/BEVAR in patients with prior failed EVAR. METHODS: A prospective database of consecutive patients treated at a single center with PM-F/BEVAR between March 2021 and November 2022 was retrospectively reviewed. The cohort was stratified by presence of a failed EVAR (type Ia endoleak or aneurysm development proximal to a prior EVAR) prior to PM-F/BEVAR. Demographics, operative details, and postoperative complications were compared between the groups using univariate analysis. One-year survival and freedom from reintervention were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients underwent PM-F/BEVAR during the study period; 27 (26%) were in the setting of prior EVAR. Patients with prior failed EVAR had similar age (75.2 ± 7.7 vs 71.5 ± 8.8 years; P = .058), male gender (n = 24 ; 89% vs n = 57 ; 75%; P = .130), and comorbid conditions except higher incidence of moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 7 ; 26% vs n = 7 ; 9%; P = .047). Overall, aneurysm diameter was 65.5 ± 13.9 mm with aneurysms categorized as juxta-/pararenal in 43% and thoracoabdominal in 57%, with no differences between the groups. Twelve patients (14%) presented with symptomatic/ruptured aneurysms. The average number of target arteries incorporated per patient was 3.8. Four different aortic devices were modified with a greater proportion of Terumo TREO devices used in the failed EVAR group (P = .03). There was no difference in procedure time, radiation dose, or iodinated contrast use between groups. Overall technical success was 99%. Rates of 30-day mortality (n = 0 ; 0% vs n = 3 ; 4%; P = .565) and major adverse events (n = 6 ; 22% vs n = 16 ; 21%; P = 1.0) were similar between groups. For the overall cohort, rates of type 1 or 3 endoleak, branch vessel stenosis/occlusion, and reintervention were 2%, 1%, and 8%, respectively, with no difference between groups. One-year survival (failed EVAR 94% vs no EVAR 82%; P = .756) was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: PM-F/BEVAR is a safe and effective treatment for patients with aneurysms involving the renal-mesenteric arteries in the setting of prior failed EVAR where additional technical challenges may be present. Additional follow-up is warranted to demonstrate long-term efficacy, but early results are encouraging and similar to those using CMDs.

Experimental Analysis of Radiation Protection Offered by a Novel Exoskeleton-Based Radiation Protection System versus Conventional Lead Aprons.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the radiation protection offered by an exoskeleton-based radiation protection system (Stemrad MD) and to compare it with that offered by conventional lead aprons. METHODS: The experimental setup involved 2 anthropomorphic phantoms, an operator, a patient, and a C-arm as the x-ray radiation source. Thermoluminescent detectors were used to measure radiation doses to different radiosensitive body parts on the operator phantom both with the exoskeleton and a conventional lead apron at the left radial and right femoral positions. Detected radiation doses for the exoskeleton and lead apron for different body parts and positions were compared. RESULTS: At the left radial position, the mean radiation dose (mGy) reduction by the exoskeleton compared with that by the lead apron was >90% for the left eye lens (0.22 ± 0.13 vs 5.18 ± 0.08; P < .0001), right eye lens (0.23 ± 0.13 vs 4.98 ± 0.10; P < .0001), left head (0.11 ± 0.16 vs 3.53 ± 0.07; P < .0001), right head (0.27 ± 0.09 vs 3.12 ± 0.10; P < .0001), and left brain (0.04 ± 0.08 vs 0.46 ± 0.07; P < .0001). At the right femoral position, radiation reduction was >90% for the left eye lens (0.14 ± 0.10 vs 4.16 ± 0.09; P < .0001), right eye lens (0.06 ± 0.08 vs 1.90 ± 0.11; P < .0001), left head (0.10 ± 0.08 vs 4.39 ± 0.08; P < .0001), left brain (0.03 ± 0.07 vs 1.44 ± 0.08; P < .0001), right brain (0.00 ± 0.14 vs 0.11 ± 0.13; P = .06), and thyroid (0.04 ± 0.07 vs 0.27 ± 0.09; P < .0001). Protection of the torso was equivalent to that offered by conventional lead aprons. CONCLUSIONS: The exoskeleton-based system provided superior radiation protection to the physician compared with that provided by conventional lead aprons. The effects are particularly impactful for the brain, eye lens, and head areas.

The USMLE® STEP 1 Pass or Fail Era of the Vascular Surgery Residency Application Process: Implications for Structural Bias and Recommendations.

United States Medical Licensing Examination® (USMLE®) STEP 1 score reporting has been changed to a binary pass/fail format since January 26, 2022. The motives behind this change were (1) the questionable validity of using USMLE STEP 1 as a screening tool during the candidate selection process and (2) the negative impact of using standardized examination scores as an initial gatekeeping threshold for the underrepresented in medicine (URiM) candidates applying to graduate medical education programs, given their generally lower mean standardized exams scores compared to non-URiM students. The USMLE administrators justified this change as a tactic to enhance the overall educational experience for all students and to increase the representation of URiM groups. Moreover, they advised the program directors (PDs) to give more attention to other important qualities and components such as the applicant's personality traits, leadership roles and other extracurricular accomplishments, as part of a holistic evaluation strategy. At this early stage, it is unclear how this change will impact Vascular Surgery Integrated residency (VSIR) programs. Several questions are outstanding, most importantly, how VSIR PDs will evaluate applicants absent the variable which heretofore was the primary screening tool. Our previously published survey showed that VSIR PDs will move their attention to other measures such as USMLE STEP 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) and letters of recommendation during the VSIR selection process. Furthermore, more emphasis on subjective measures such as the applicant's medical school rank and extracurricular student activities is expected. Given the expected higher weight of USMLE STEP 2CK in the selection process than ever, many anticipate that medical students will dedicate more of their limited time to its preparation at the expense of both clinical and nonclinical activities. Potentially leaving less time to explore specialty pathways and to determine whether Vascular Surgeons  is the appropriate career for them. The critical juncture in the VSIR candidate evaluation paradigm presents an opportunity to thoughtfully transform the process via current (Standardized Letter of Recommendation, USMLE STEP 2CK, and clinical research) and future (Emotional Intelligence, Structure Interview and Personality Assessment) measures which constitute a framework to follow in the USMLE STEP 1 pass/fail era.

StemRad MD, An Exoskeleton-Based Radiation Protection System, Reduces Ergonomic Posture Risk Based on a Prospective Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: Poor ergonomic posture during interventional procedures might lead to increased physical discomfort and work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Adjunctive equipment such as lead aprons (LAs) has been shown to increase ergonomic posture risk (EPR). The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of StemRad MD (StemRad Ltd., Tel Aviv, Israel), a weightless exoskeleton-based radiation protective ensemble, in reducing EPR on the operator using wearable inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors. METHODS: A prospective, observational study was conducted at an academic hospital. Inertial measurement unit sensors were affixed to the upper back of 9 interventionalists to assess ergonomic risk posture during endovascular procedures while wearing a traditional LA or the StemRad MD radiation protection system. Total fluoroscopy time, procedure type, and ergonomic risk postures were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-one cases were performed with StemRad MD and 30 with LAs. Mean procedure time for the StemRad MD procedures was 48.4±23.3 minutes (range: 24-106 min), and for LA procedures, it was 34.66±25.83 minutes (range: 6-100 min) (p=.060). The operators assumed low-risk ergonomic positions in 96.1% of StemRad MD cases and in 62.9% of LA cases (p=.001), and high-risk ergonomic positions in 0% and 6.2%, respectively (p=.80). Mean EPR score for StemRad MD was 1.16, and for the LA, it was 1.49 (p=.001). CONCLUSIONS: StemRad MD significantly reduces the EPR to the torso compared with a LA-based radiation protection system. CLINICAL IMPACT: Poor ergonomic posture during interventional procedures might leas to work-related musculoskeletal disorders for healthcare workers. StemRad MD, a weightless, exoskeleton-based radiation protection system was shown to significantly reduce ergonomic posture risk to the torso compared to conventional lead aprons. This might lead to reduced physical discomfort for procedure-based specialists.

Cloud-based fusion imaging improves operative metrics during fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular treatment of complex aortic pathology has been associated with increases in procedural-related metrics, including the operative time and radiation exposure. Three-dimensional fusion imaging technology has decreased the radiation dose and iodinated contrast use during endovascular aneurysm repair. The aim of the present study was to report our institutional experience with the use of a cloud-based fusion imaging platform during fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR). METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained aortic database was performed to identify all patients who had undergone FEVAR with commercially available devices (Zenith Fenestrated; Cook Medical Inc, Bloomington, IN) between 2013 and 2020 and all endovascular aneurysm repairs performed using Cydar EV Intelligent Maps (Cydar Medical, Cambridge, UK). The Cydar EV cohort was reviewed further to select all FEVARs performed with overlay map guidance. The patient demographic, clinical, and procedure metrics were analyzed, with a comparative analysis of FEVAR performed without and with the Cydar EV imaging platform. Patients were excluded from comparative analysis if the data were incomplete in the dataset or they had a documented history of prior open or endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. RESULTS: During the 7-year study period, 191 FEVARs had been performed. The Cydar EV imaging platform was implemented in 2018 and used in 124 complex endovascular aneurysm repairs, including 69 consecutive FEVARs. A complete dataset was available for 137 FEVARs. With exclusion to select for de novo FEVAR, a comparative analysis was performed of 53 FEVAR without and 63 with Cydar EV imaging guidance. The cohorts were similar in patient demographics, medical comorbidities, and aortic aneurysm characteristics. No significant difference was noted between the two groups for major adverse postoperative events, length of stay, or length of intensive care unit stay. The use of Cydar EV resulted in nonsignificant decreases in the mean fluoroscopy time (69.3 ± 28 minutes vs 66.2 ± 33 minutes; P = .598) and operative time (204.4 ± 64 minutes vs 186 ± 105 minutes; P = .278). A statistically significant decrease was found in the iodinated contrast volume (105 ± 44 mL vs 83 ± 32 mL; P = .005), patient radiation exposure using the dose area product (1,049,841 mGy/cm2 vs 630,990 mGy/cm2; P < .001) and cumulative air kerma levels (4518 mGy vs 3084 mGy; P = .02) for patients undergoing FEVAR with Cydar EV guidance. CONCLUSIONS: At our aortic center, we have observed a trend toward shorter operative times and significant reductions in both iodinated contrast use and radiation exposure during FEVAR using the Cydar EV intelligent maps. Intelligent map guidance improved the efficiency of complex endovascular aneurysm repair, providing a safer intervention for both patient and practitioner.

Vascular surgery integrated resident selection criteria in the pass or fail era.

OBJECTIVES: Vascular surgery integrated residency (VSIR) programs are highly competitive; however, criteria for resident selection remain opaque and non-standardized. The already unclear selection criteria will be further impacted by the impending transition of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 from numeric scores to a binary pass/fail outcome. The purpose of this study was to investigate the historical and anticipated selection criteria of VSIR applicants. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, nationwide, 59-item survey that was sent to all VSIR program directors (PDs). Data was analyzed using the Fisher exact test if categorical and the Mann-Whitney U test and the Kruskal-Wallis test if ordinal. RESULTS: Forty of 69 PDs (58%) responded to the survey. University-based programs constituted 85% of responders. Most VSIR PDs (65%) reported reviewing between 101 to 150 applications for 1 to 2 positions annually. Forty-two percent of the responding PDs reported sole responsibility for inviting applicants to interview, whereas 50% had a team of faculty responsible for reviewing applications. On a five-point Likert scale, letters of recommendation (LOR) from vascular surgeons or colleagues (a person the PD knows) were the most important objective criteria. Work within a team structure was rated highest among subjective criteria. The majority of respondents (72%) currently use the Step 1 score as a primary method to screen applicants. Regional differences in use of Step 1 score as a primary screening method were: Midwest (100%), Northeast (76%), South (43%), and West (40%) (P = .01). PDs responded that that they will use USMLE Step 2 score (42%) and LOR (10%) to replace USMLE Step 1 score. The current top ranked selection criteria are letters from a vascular surgeon, USMLE Step 1 score and overall LOR. The proposed top ranked selection criteria after transition of USMLE Step 1 to pass/fail include LOR overall followed by Step 2 score. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to evaluate the selection criteria used by PDs for VSIR. The landscape of VSIR selection criteria is shifting and increasing transparency is essential to applicants' understanding of the selection process. The transition of USMLE Step 1 to a pass/fail report will shift the attention to Step 2 scores and elevate the importance of other relatively more subjective criteria. Defining VSIR program selection criteria is an important first step toward establishing holistic review processes that are transparent and equitable.

Vascular trainee perceptions of diversity, equity, and inclusion within United States vascular surgery training programs.

OBJECTIVES: Vascular surgery training programs face multiple pressures, including attracting and retaining trainees. Current knowledge of trainees' views with respect to diversity and equity in vascular training programs is limited. We sought to understand United States vascular surgery trainees' perceptions and expectations regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). METHODS: The Association of Program Directors in Vascular Surgery designed and administered the Annual Training Survey to specifically address DEI and administered it to all trainees (Integrated Residents/Fellows; n = 637) at 122 institutions in August 2020. RESULTS: Of the 637 vascular trainees, 227 (35%) responded. The respondents included 115 male and 62 female trainees, with 50 not disclosing or not answering the question. The majority of respondents (96.9%) believed their programs incorporated a diverse background of trainees. Of the trainees, 89.8% felt that the faculty were similarly comprised of a diverse background. The majority of respondents (63.6%) felt that their training program was both more diverse and focused on inclusion compared with other training programs at their institution. However, 20% of respondents had experienced discrimination. Seventy-three percent (n = 143) of trainees felt empowered to disagree or engage in a discussion should they observe a faculty member make a disparaging remark about a patient's background/race/gender, although 27% (n = 35) trainees expressed fear of retaliation as a reason to not engage. Trainees view their program director (82.6%), faculty mentor (60.9%), and Graduate Medical Education office (52.7%) as potential resources for support. Overall, 83.7% (n = 160) of trainees believe that their program has been open to discussion of race relations within the medical community. CONCLUSIONS: Trainees are committed to multifaceted diversity and inclusion. The perception of trainees regarding DEI issues within vascular surgery training programs appears to be positive; however, trainees did describe discrimination and gender biases in their institutions. This data has the potential to improve institutional education of faculty and trainees about the multidimensional levels of diversity and increased awareness and incorporation of this philosophy can assist in the recruitment of diverse vascular surgeons.

Incidence of Acute and Chronic Renal Failure Following Branched Endovascular Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the incidence of acute kidney injury and chronic renal impairment following branched endovascular aneurysm repair (BEVAR) of complex thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) using the Medtronic Valiant Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm stent graft system (MVM), the physician-modified Visceral Manifold, and Unitary Manifold stent graft systems. The objective was to report the acute and chronic renal function changes in patients following complex TAAA aneurysm repair. METHODS: This is an analysis of 139 patients undergoing branched endovascular repair for complex TAAAs between 2012 and 2020. Patient renal function was evaluated using serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, 48 hr, discharge, 1 month, 6 months, and annually to 2 years. Patients on dialysis prior to the procedure were excluded from data analysis. RESULTS: A total of 139 patients (mean age 71.13; 64.7% male) treated for TAAA with BEVAR met inclusion criteria and were evaluated. A total of 530 visceral vessels were stented. A majority of patients (n = 131, 94.2%) underwent a single procedure while 8 required staged procedures. Thirty-day, 1-year and 2-year all-cause mortality rates were 5.8%, 25.2%, and 32.4%, respectively. Primary and secondary patency rates at a median follow-up of 26.9 months (95% CI; 21.1 - 32.7) were 96.2% and 97.5% for all vessels and 95.4% and 96.9% for renal arteries, respectively. Postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) was identified in 22 (15.8%) patients. At discharge, 16 patients (11.6%) had an increase in CKD stage with 3 requiring permanent dialysis. Five additional patients required permanent dialysis over the 2-year follow-up period for a total of 8 (5.8%). Increasing age (HR = 1.0327, P= 0.0477), hemoglobin < 7 prior to procedure (HR = 2.4812, P= 0.0093), increasing maximum aortic diameter (HR = 1.0189, P= 0.0084), presence of AKI (HR = 2.0757, P= 0.0182), and increase in CKD stage (HR = 1.3520, P= 0.002) at discharge were significantly associated with decreased patient survival. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative AKI and a chronic decline in renal function continue to be problematic in endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms. This study found that BEVAR using the manifold configuration resulted in immediate and mid-term renal function that is comparable to similar analyses of branched and/or fenestrated grafts.