Impact of COVID-19 on patients undergoing scheduled procedures for chronic venous disease.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically altered the medical landscape. Various strategies have been employed to preserve hospital beds, personal protective equipment, and other resources to accommodate the surges of COVID-19 positive patients, hospital overcapacities, and staffing shortages. This has had a dramatic effect on vascular surgical practice. The objective of this study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical delays and adverse outcomes for patients with chronic venous disease scheduled to undergo elective operations. METHODS: The Vascular Surgery COVID-19 Collaborative (VASCC) was founded in March 2020 to evaluate the outcomes of patients with vascular disease whose operations were delayed. Modules were developed by vascular surgeon working groups and tested before implementation. A data analysis of outcomes of patients with chronic venous disease whose surgeries were postponed during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 2020 through February 2021 was performed for this study. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients from 12 institutions in the United States were included in the study. Indications for venous intervention were: 85.3% varicose veins, 10.7% varicose veins with venous ulceration, and 4.0% lipodermatosclerosis. One hundred two surgeries had successfully been completed at the time of data entry. The average length of the delay was 91 days, with a median of 78 days. Delays for venous ulceration procedures ranged from 38 to 208 days. No patients required an emergent intervention due to their venous disease, and no patients experienced major adverse events following their delayed surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions may be safely delayed for patients with venous disease requiring elective surgical intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic. This finding supports the American College of Surgeons' recommendations for the management of elective vascular surgical procedures. Office-based labs may be safe locations for continued treatment when resources are limited. Although the interventions can be safely postponed, the negative impact on quality of life warrants further investigation.

Outcomes of vascular trauma associated with an evolution in the use of endovascular management.

OBJECTIVE: The availability of endovascular techniques has led to a paradigm shift in the management of vascular injury. Although previous reports showed trends towards the increased use of catheter-based techniques, there have been no contemporary studies of practice patterns and how these approaches differ by anatomic distributions of injury. The objective of this study is to provide a temporal assessment of the use of endovascular techniques in the management of torso, junctional (subclavian, axillary, iliac), and extremity injury and to evaluate any association with survival and length of stay. METHODS: The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Prospective Observational Vascular Injury Treatment registry (PROOVIT) is the only large multicenter database focusing specifically on the management of vascular trauma. Patients in the AAST PROOVIT registry from 2013 to 2019 with arterial injuries were queried, and radial/ulnar, and tibial artery injuries were excluded. The primary aim was to evaluate the frequency in use of endovascular techniques over time and by body region. A secondary analysis evaluated the trends for junctional injuries and compared the mortality between those treated with open vs endovascular repair. RESULTS: Of the 3249 patients included, 76% were male, and overall treatment type was 42% nonoperative, 44% open, and 14% endovascular. Endovascular treatment increased an average of 2% per year from 2013 to 2019 (range, 17%-35%; R2 = .61). The use of endovascular techniques for junctional injuries increased by 5% per year (range, 33%-63%; R2 = .89). Endovascular treatment was more common for thoracic, abdominal, and cerebrovascular injuries, and least likely in upper and lower extremity injuries. Injury severity score was higher for patients receiving endovascular repair in every vascular bed except lower extremity. Endovascular repair was associated with significantly lower mortality than open repair for thoracic (5% vs 46%; P < .001) and abdominal injuries (15% vs 38%; P < .001). For junctional injuries, endovascular repair was associated with a non-statistically significant lower mortality (19% vs 29%; P = .099), despite higher injury severity score (25 vs 21; P = .003) compared with open repair. CONCLUSIONS: The reported use of endovascular techniques within the PROOVIT registry increased more than 10% over a 6-year period. This increase was associated with improved survival, especially for patients with junctional vascular injuries. Practices and training programs should account for these changes by providing access to endovascular technologies and instruction in the catheter-based skill sets to optimize outcomes in the future.

The Characteristics and Results of Endovascular Devices in Trauma (CREDiT) study: Multi-institutional results.

INTRODUCTION: Endovascular techniques are increasingly used to repair major traumatic vascular injuries, but most endovascular implants are not designed/approved for trauma-specific indications. No inventory guidelines exist for the devices used in these procedures. We aimed to describe the use and characteristics of endovascular implants used for repair of vascular injuries to allow for better inventory management. METHODS: This CREDiT study is a six-year retrospective cohort analysis of endovascular procedures performed for repair of traumatic arterial injuries at five participating US trauma centers. For each treated vessel, procedural and device details were recorded and outcomes assessed with the aim of defining the range of implants and sizes used for these interventions. RESULTS: A total of 94 cases were identified; 58 (61%) were descending thoracic aorta, 14 (15%) axillosubclavian, 5 carotid, 4 abdominal aortic, 4 common iliac, 7 femoropopliteal, and 1 renal. Vascular surgeons performed 54% of cases, trauma surgeons 17%, IR/CT Surgery 29%. Systemic heparin was administered in 68% and procedures were performed a median of 9 h after arrival (IQR 3-24 h). Primary arterial access was femoral in 93% of cases, 49% were bilateral. Brachial/radial access was used primarily in 6 cases, and secondary to femoral in 9. The most common implant was self-expanding stent graft; 18% used >1 stent. Implants ranged in diameter and length based on vessel size. Five of 94 implants underwent reintervention (1 open surgery) at a median of 4d postop (range 2-60d). Two occlusions and 1 stenosis were present at follow-up at a median of 1 month (range 0-72 m). CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular reconstruction of injured arteries requires a broad range of implant types, diameters, and lengths which should be readily available in trauma centers. Stent occlusions/stenoses are rare and can typically be managed by endovascular means.

Risk factors for stroke in penetrating carotid trauma-An analysis from the PROOVIT Registry.

BACKGROUND: Penetrating carotid injuries are associated with an up to 20% risk of stroke. This study evaluated patients in the American Association for Surgery of Trauma PROspective Observational Vascular Injury Trial, with the aim of determining factors associated with stroke and stroke or death. METHODS: Penetrating extracranial carotid injuries in the American Association for Surgery of Trauma PROspective Observational Vascular Injury Trial registry from 2012 to 2020 were queried. Isolated external carotid injuries were excluded. Patients with documented postinjury in-hospital stroke were compared with those without. Significant predictors (p < 0.1) for stroke and stroke or death on univariate analysis were included in multivariate analyses. RESULTS: One hundred two patients from 17 institutions were included. Mean age was 35 ± 18 years, and 80% were male. Average Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score on presentation was 9 ± 5, with an Injury Severity Score [ISS] of 22 ± 13. Operative management occurred in 51% of patients who were significantly more hypotensive (systolic blood pressure: 109 vs. 131 mm Hg; p = 0.015) with a lower initial pH (7.17 vs. 7.31; p = 0.001) and presented with hard signs of vascular injury (74% vs. 26%; p < 0.001). Overall stroke rate was 17% (23% operative vs. 10% nonoperative, p = 0.076). Rate of stroke or death was 27% (64% operative and 36% nonoperative). On multivariate analysis, lower GCS (p = 0.05) and completion angiography (p = 0.04) were associated with stroke. Likewise lower GCS (p = 0.015) and ISS (p = 0.04) were associated with stroke or death. CONCLUSION: Penetrating carotid trauma undergoing operative management had a stroke rate of 23%. Low GCS on arrival and need for completion angiography are independently associated with postinjury in-hospital stroke, whereas low GCS on arrival and ISS were associated with stroke or death. The ideal treatment strategy remains elusive, thus a dedicated multicenter study may help to achieve higher fidelity data on this rare but devastating injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological, Level III.

Gastrobronchial Fistula after Robotic Repair of Traumatic Diaphragmatic Hernia.

Gastrobronchial fistulas are a rare occurrence in the literature. We report a case of a gastrobronchial fistula after robotic repair of a chronic traumatic diaphragmatic hernia. The patient had severe respiratory symptoms with multiple studies that were inconclusive. The fistula was ultimately discovered after an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). The patient underwent a left thoracotomy for takedown of his fistula and eventually recovered. Earlier EGD and a lower threshold for differential that included this diagnosis would have led to an earlier identification and treatment of a rare disease process.