RESUMEN
With the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, restrictions and challenges for elective and emergency vascular surgery as well as worse outcomes were reported. This study aims to compare our single-centre experience with carotid artery surgery during the pandemic and previous years.Our retrospective analysis included all consecutive patients undergoing carotid surgery for symptomatic and asymptomatic stenosis between January 2017 and December 2021. Caseload, operation specific parameters, and demographic data as well as in-hospital outcome were compared during the COVID-19 pandemic versus previous years.A total of 623 consecutive patients were included. The caseload comparison showed an average of 112 carotid artery surgeries per adjusted year (March 16th to December 31st) from 2017 to 2019, prior to the pandemic. The caseload reduction in the first year of the pandemic (2020) was 36.6% (n = 71) and 17.9% (n = 92) in the second year (2021). No rebound effect was observed. There was no significant difference (p = 0.42) in the allocation of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (asymptomatic patients: 37.1% prior vs. 40.8% during the pandemic; symptomatic patients: 62.9 vs. 59.2%). Major adverse event rates in years prior to the pandemic were postoperative bleeding requiring revision: n = 31 (7.1%); stroke in symptomatic patients: n = 9 (3.3%) and stroke in asymptomatic patients: n = 4 (2.5%); symptomatic myocardial infarction (MCI): n = 1 (0.2%); death: n = 2 (0.5%). During the pandemic, major adverse event rates were postoperative bleeding requiring revision: n = 12 (6.5%); stroke in symptomatic patients: n = 1 (0.9%), stroke in asymptomatic patients: n = 1 (1.3%); symptomatic MCI: n = 1 (0.5%); death: n = 1 (0.5%).Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, there has been a significant reduction in carotid artery surgery performed both in symptomatic as well as in asymptomatic patients. There was no worsening of the outcome of carotid surgery performed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and this remained safe and feasible.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: High-fidelity endovascular simulators have demonstrated significant potential in enhancing interventionalists' performance metrics, including procedure time (PT), fluoroscopy time (FT), and contrast volume (CV) usage. However, it is less clear whether trainee performance, when assessed using both multidimensional global and procedure-specific rating scales (PSRS), improves in a manner consistent with these metric parameters. This study aimed to determine whether the structure of the training-conducted in block sessions or weekly intervals-impacts the effectiveness of the training. METHODS: Twenty students were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial. They were randomly divided into block and weekly training groups, each undergoing 6 hrs of supervised endovascular training on a Mentice simulator over a span of 3 weeks. At the outset and conclusion of their training, students performed a predefined peripheral endovascular intervention, which was assessed by an experienced interventionalist. Furthermore, participants were prompted to complete a survey at both the beginning and the end of the study. RESULTS: Both groups exhibited significant improvements in PT, FT, CV usage, global rating scale (GRS) scores, and performance-specific rating scale scores. However, no significant difference was observed between the 2 groups. The simulator training notably boosted the trainee's self-confidence. CONCLUSIONS: Simulator training not only enhances metric performance parameters but also improves performance as assessed by both GRS and PSRS. Whether the training is conducted in block sessions or weekly intervals did not affect its efficacy. As such, the training format can be tailored to best fit the specific circumstances and setting.
RESUMEN
Long-term follow-up data comparing surgical and endovascular revascularization of femoropopliteal lesions is rarely reported. This study presents 4-year results of revascularization for long femoropopliteal lesions (Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus Types C and D) with vein bypass (VBP), polytetrafluorethylene bypass (PTFE), and endovascular intervention with a nitinol stent (NS). Data from a randomized-controlled trial on VBP and NS was compared with a retrospective patient cohort using PTFE with the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. Primary, primary assisted, and secondary patency, as well as changes in Rutherford categories and limb salvage rates, are reported. Between 2016 and 2020, 332 femoropopliteal lesions underwent revascularization. The lesion lengths and basic patient characteristics were similar between the groups. 49% of the patients presented with chronic limb threatening ischemia at the time of revascularization. During the four-year follow-up, primary patency was comparable for all three groups. Primary assisted and secondary patency were significantly higher after VBP, while PTFE and NS had similar results. Clinical improvement was also significantly superior after VBP. After four years of follow-up, patency rates as well as the clinical outcome clearly favor VBP. If no vein is available, NS is as effective as PTFE bypass with regard to patency and clinical outcome.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The VOYAGER PAD trial investigated data on dual pathway inhibition after lower limb revascularization for peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Multiple exclusion criteria were applied. However, neither data on the prevalence of exclusion criteria nor on the total number of patients screened for inclusion was discussed. METHODS: We performed a single-center prospective observational study in unselected PAD patients undergoing lower limb revascularization. Demographic and disease-specific data was collected. RESULTS: One hundred fifty patients were included with only 29 patients (19.3%) as potential candidates for the VOYAGER PAD study medication. Poorly controlled diabetes or severe uncontrolled hypertension (33.3%), major tissue loss (18.7%), acute limb ischaemia within prior 2 weeks (17.3%) and a history of intracranial hemorrhage, stroke or TIA (16%) were amongst the exclusion criteria most frequently met. Compared to VOYAGER PAD study patients, significant differences regarding sex (36.7% female vs. 25.8%), renal insufficiency (29.0% vs. 20.1%), previous myocardial infarction (16.7% vs. 11.1%) and known carotid artery disease (18.7% vs. 8.6%) revealed. Patients presented significantly more frequently with critical limb ischemia (56.7% vs. 30.4%) and a history of previous peripheral revascularization (72.0% vs. 35.9%). Fewer endovascular interventions (52% vs. 65.5%) and more surgeries (58% vs. 34.5%) were performed. CONCLUSIONS: In unselected patients undergoing revascularization for peripheral arterial disease, the majority presents with characteristics that, at present, preclude prescription of rivaroxaban in addition to aspirin. This patient cohort represents a population with higher rates of comorbidities and more complex vascular interventions, but might also benefit from dual pathway inhibition strategy.