Identification and characterization of new candidates for abdominal aortic aneurysm screening in patients outside of current accepted guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have identified groups of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) that fall outside of currently accepted screening guidelines. Population-based studies have found AAA screening would be cost-effective at a prevalence of 0.5% to 1.0%. The goal of this study was to determine the prevalence of AAA in patients that fall outside of the current screening guidelines. In addition, we analyzed outcomes of the groups with a prevalence of greater than 1%. METHODS: Using the TriNetX Analytics Network, several patient cohorts were abstracted with a diagnosis of ruptured or unruptured AAA based on previously identified groups with a potentially high risk for AAA that fall outside of currently accepted screening guidelines. Groups were also stratified by sex. For groups found to have a prevalence of greater than 1%, the unruptured patients were further analyzed for long-term rates of rupture and included male ever-smokers aged 45 to 65, male never-smokers aged 65 to 75, male never-smokers aged greater than 75, and female ever-smokers aged 65 or greater. Long-term mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction rates were compared in patients with treated and untreated AAA after propensity score matching. RESULTS: We identified 148,279 patients across the four groups with a prevalence of AAA of greater than 1% with female ever-smokers aged 65 or older being the most prevalent (2.73%). In each of the four groups, the rate of AAA rupture increased every 5 years and all had rupture rates of greater than 1% at 10 years. Meanwhile, controls for each of these four subgroups without a previous AAA diagnosis had rupture rates between 0.090% and 0.013% at 10 years. Those who underwent repair of their AAA had decreased incidence of mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Specifically, male ever-smokers aged 45 to 64 had a significant difference in incidence of mortality and myocardial infarction at 5 years and stroke at 1 and 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests male ever-smokers aged 45 to 65, male never-smokers aged 65 to 75, male never-smokers aged greater than 75, and female ever-smokers aged 65 or greater have a more than 1% prevalence of AAA and, therefore, may benefit from screening. Outcomes were significantly worse compared with well-matched controls in these groups.

A comparison of endovascular repair to medical management for acute vs subacute uncomplicated type B aortic dissections.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has emerged as a viable option of treatment for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (UTBAD) due to the potential for inducing favorable aortic remodeling. The aim of this study is to compare outcomes of UTBAD treated medically or with TEVAR in either the acute (1 to 14 days) or subacute period (2 weeks to 3 months). METHODS: Patients with UTBAD between 2007 and 2019 were identified using the TriNetX Network. The cohort was stratified by treatment type (medical management; TEVAR during the acute period; TEVAR during the subacute period). Outcomes including mortality, endovascular reintervention, and rupture were analyzed after propensity matching. RESULTS: Among 20,376 patients with UTBAD, 18,840 were medically managed (92.5%), 1099 patients were in the acute TEVAR group (5.4%), and 437 patients were in the subacute TEVAR group (2.1%). The acute TEVAR group had higher rates of 30-day and 3-year rupture (4.1% vs 1.5%; P < .001; 9.9% vs 3.6%; P < .001) and 3-year endovascular reintervention (7.6% vs 1.6%; P < .001), similar 30-day mortality (4.4% vs 2.9%; P < .068), and lower 3-year survival compared with medical management (86.6% vs 83.3%; P = .041). The subacute TEVAR group had similar rates of 30-day mortality (2.3% vs 2.3%; P = 1), 3-year survival (87.0% vs 88.8%; P = .377) and 30-day and 3-year rupture (2.3% vs 2.3%; P = 1; 4.6% vs 3.4%; P = .388), with significantly higher rates of 3-year endovascular reintervention (12.6% vs 7.8%; P = .019) compared with medical management. The acute TEVAR group had similar rates of 30-day mortality (4.2% vs 2.5%; P = .171), rupture (3.0% vs 2.5%; P = .666), significantly higher rates of 3-year rupture (8.7% vs 3.5%; P = .002), and similar rates of 3-year endovascular reintervention (12.6% vs 10.6%; P = .380) compared with the subacute TEVAR group. There was significantly higher 3-year survival (88.5% vs 84.0%; P = .039) in the subacute TEVAR group compared with the acute TEVAR group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results found lower 3-year survival in the acute TEVAR group compared with the medical management group. There was no 3-year survival benefit found in patients with UTBAD who underwent subacute TEVAR compared with medical management. This suggests the need for further studies looking at the necessity for TEVAR when compared with medical management for UTBAD as it is non-inferior to medical management. Higher rates of 3-year survival and lower rates of 3-year rupture in the subacute TEVAR group compared with the acute TEVAR group suggest superiority of subacute TEVAR. Further investigations are needed to determine the long-term benefit and optimal timing of TEVAR for acute UTBAD.

Incidence of Procedure-Related Complications in Patients Treated With Atherectomy in the Femoropopliteal and Tibial Vessels in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

PURPOSE: To compare procedural complications in patients undergoing atherectomy plus angioplasty (A+A) and plain balloon angioplasty (POBA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry undergoing first-time peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) were included. Those undergoing aortoiliac or pedal interventions, primary stenting, or hybrid procedures were excluded. Patients were stratified by lesion location (femoropopliteal [FP] or tibial [TIB]). The primary outcomes were target vessel dissection, distal embolization, and provisional stent placement. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and the need for subsequent interventions. RESULTS: 12 499 patients undergoing FP (49.6% A+A) and 6736 patients undergoing TIB (17.0% A+A) interventions were identified. In the FP group, A+A was associated with greater intraoperative target vessel dissection (4.5% vs 2.6%, p<0.001), distal embolization (1.5% vs 0.7%, p =0.001), and provisional stent placement (1.5% vs 0%, p<0.001); and greater postoperative target vessel dissection (4.2% vs 2.0%, p<0.001) and distal embolization (0.9% vs 0.4%, p=0.034). In the TIB group, A+A was associated with fewer intraoperative vessel dissection (0.8% vs 2.3%, p=0.011) but greater provisional stent placement (0.3% vs 0%, p<0.001). TIB A+A was also associated with higher rates of technical success (97.6% vs 95.1%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Atherectomy was associated with increased procedural-related complications in femoropopliteal, but not in tibial vessels. Future studies addressing lesion morphology, device design, and technique may help define its role in peripheral vascular interventions.

Does the Hospital Day of Surgery for Endovascular Repair of Symptomatic Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Affect Outcomes?

OBJECTIVE: Symptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms (sAAA) are considered surgically urgent. Recent data suggest delaying surgery allows for medical optimization without affecting outcomes. We investigated the association of the hospital day of surgery with 30 day outcomes. METHODS: Patients with infrarenal sAAA undergoing endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) between 2011 and 2018 in the American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Project database were included. The primary outcome was 30 day mortality. Additional outcomes included myocardial infarction, pulmonary complications, length of stay, and discharge disposition. Days-to-surgery were classified as the day of presentation (D0), day 1, day 2, days 3 and 4, days 5 to 7 (D5), and day 8 or more (D8). RESULTS: A total of 804 patients were identified. D8 patients had higher proportions of dyspnea on exertion, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, and history of dialysis. D0 surgery appeared protective of mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.34, p=0.0132). Each additional day increased the mortality risk (OR 1.23, p<0.001) although not within the first 4 days. There was increased mortality for patients having surgery at D5 (7.7%) and D8 (23.8%) compared with repair earlier (1%-4%, p=0.03). Bivariable analysis revealed no significant differences in secondary outcomes. Multivariable modeling revealed increased mortality for D8 versus D0 (adjusted OR of 6.8, 95% confidence interval 1.7-26.5). CONCLUSIONS: While D0 appears to have the lowest risk of mortality, EVAR for sAAA up to 4 days may not be associated with increased mortality. Further research should determine delay etiologies and whether they improve operative planning and optimization without impacting morbidity and mortality.

Safety and Efficacy of Percutaneous Translumbar Inferior Vena Cava Catheters: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: To examine the reported adverse events associated with inferior vena cava (IVC) catheterization and investigate the reasons for discrepancies between reports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cochrane Library trials register, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were systematically searched for studies that included any terms of IVC and phrases related to catheters or central access. Of the 5,075 searched studies, 137 were included in the full-text evaluation. Of these, 37 studies were included in the systematic review, and the adverse events reported in 16 of these 37 identified studies were analyzed. An inverse-variance random-effects model was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Outcomes were summarized by the incidence rate (IR) and 95% CI. RESULTS: Compared with that of catheters <10 F in size (IR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03-0.12), the incidence of catheter-related infections per 100 catheter days was 0.2 more for catheters ≥10 F in size (IR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.25-0.31). In addition, dual-lumen catheters showed 0.13 more malfunction per 100 catheter days (IR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16-0.37) than that shown by single-lumen catheters (IR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.09-0.19). Both differences were statistically significant. Other adverse events were malposition (IR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.04-0.05), fracture (IR, 0.01; 95% CI, 0.00-0.02), kinking (IR, 0.01; 95% CI, 0.00-0.01), replaced catheter (IR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.1-0.31), removal (IR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.1-0.16), IVC thrombosis (IR, 0.01; 95% CI, 0.00-0.03), and retroperitoneal hematoma (IR, 0.01; 95% CI, 0.00-0.01), all per 100 catheter days. CONCLUSIONS: Translumbar IVC access is an option for patients with exhausted central veins. Small-caliber catheters cause fewer catheter-related infections, and single-lumen catheters function longer.

Perioperative outcomes of carotid endarterectomy and transfemoral and transcervical carotid artery stenting in radiation-induced carotid lesions.

OBJECTIVE: Limited data are available to guide the choice of intervention for patients with radiation-induced carotid stenosis (RICS), either transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), or carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The purpose of the present study was to evaluate patients who had undergone these carotid artery interventions for RICS and the associated outcomes. METHODS: Patients in the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) carotid artery stenting surveillance project registry and the SVS VQI CEA modules who had undergone carotid artery intervention (TCAR, TFCAS, or CEA) for RICS were included. Those aged >90 years and those with concomitant interventions (eg, coronary bypass) were excluded. A composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke was the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included death, MI, stroke, cranial nerve injury (CNI), and other local and systemic complications. Multivariable logistic regression controlling for presenting symptomatic status and comorbid medical conditions was conducted for the outcome variables, except for death, which was analyzed using Cox regression modeling. RESULTS: A total of 1927 patients with RICS had undergone CEA (n = 1172), TCAR (n = 253), or TFCAS (n = 502). The CEA group had a higher rate of diabetes (31% vs 25% for TCAR and 25% for TFCAS; P = .01), hypertension (85% vs 82% for TCAR and 79% for TFCAS; P < .01), and peripheral vascular disease (8% vs 4% for TCAR and 4% for TFCAS; P < .01). The TCAR and TFCAS groups had higher rates of coronary artery disease (21% for CEA vs 30% for TCAR and 29% for TFCAS; P < .01). The patients who had undergone TFCAS were more likely to have had symptomatic lesions (57% for TFCAS vs 47% for CEA and 41% for TCAR; P < .01) and prior stroke (55% for TFCAS vs 47% for CEA and 40% for TCAR; P < .001). The composite outcome occurred in 3.2% of TCAR patients, 11.2% of TFCAS patients, and 11.1% of CEA patients (P < .01) with an odds ratio of 0.27 for TCAR, 0.91 for TFCAS, and 1.00 for CEA. However, no differences in the individual outcomes were noted for any procedure. TCAR exhibited the lowest odds ratio for CNI (0.15) compared with TFCAS at 0.9, both relative to CEA (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: RICS patients treated by TCAR in the SVS VQI had the lowest risk of the composite of stroke, death, and MI and CNI. Therefore, TCAR might be the preferred treatment modality. Further comparative studies are needed to evaluate the long-term outcomes in this population and to elucidate the relationship of these procedures to the individual outcomes of stroke, MI, and death.

Outcomes of acute limb ischemia in COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: The inflammatory cascade caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection may result in arterial thrombosis and acute limb ischemia (ALI) with devastating consequences. The aims of this study were to compare outcomes of ALI in the lower extremities in patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and to determine if ALI development in the context of COVID-19 portends a worse prognosis compared with COVID-19 without ALI. METHODS: Queries were built on TriNetX, a federated network of health care organizations across the United States that provides de-identified patient data. International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision diagnostic codes were used to identify patients with acute limb ischemia of the lower extremities and COVID-19. The study timeframe was defined as January 20, 2020 to May 20, 2021. Statistical analyses, including propensity-score matching, were done through TriNetX's internal software. Outcomes looked at are rates of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, major adverse limb events, re-intervention, respiratory failure, sepsis, mental health complications, and acute renal failure. Baseline cohort characteristics were also collected. RESULTS: Patients with ALI with COVID-19 (ALI C19+; n = 526) were significantly less likely than patients with ALI without COVID-19 (ALI; n = 14,131) to have baseline comorbidities, including nicotine dependence (18% vs 33%; P < .0001). In contrast, ALI C19+ patients had significantly more comorbidities than hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without ALI (n = 275,903), including nicotine dependence (18% vs 10%; P < .0001). After propensity matching was performed, ALI C19+ patients had significantly higher rates of mortality (24.9% vs 9.2%; P < .0001), major adverse limb events (5.8% vs 2.9%; P = .0223), and acute renal failure (22.2% vs 14.9%; P = .0025) than patients with ALI. Compared with hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without ALI, ALI C19+ patients had higher propensity-matched rates of respiratory failure and being placed on assisted ventilation (32.9% vs 27%; P = .0369), sepsis (16.9% vs 12.2%; P = .0288), acute renal failure (22.1% vs 14.6%; P = .0019), and mortality (24.7% vs 14.4%; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who developed ALI following COVID-19 present with significantly different demographics and comorbidities from those who develop ALI without COVID-19. After controlling for these variables, higher rates of major adverse limb events, acute renal failure, and mortality in patients with ALI with COVID-19 suggest that not only may COVID-19 precipitate ALI, but it may also exacerbate ALI sequelae. Furthermore, development of ALI in COVID-19 portends worse prognosis compared with patients with COVID-19 without ALI.

Impact of tibial bypass conduit on long-term amputation-free survival and primary patency in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Much research remains focused on tibial bypass conduit selection. We sought to describe long-term amputation-free survival (AFS) and primary patency (PP) of patients undergoing tibial bypass by conduit type and configuration across several permutations in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative. METHODS: Patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry undergoing elective first-time femoral- or popliteal-to-tibial bypass for occlusive disease involving rest pain or tissue loss were identified. Prior ipsilateral infrainguinal bypass or concomitant procedures were excluded. Outcomes of interest included patient AFS at 22 months and PP at 1 year (defined as freedom from revision, thrombectomy, or graft occlusion). RESULTS: A total of 4192 bypasses were identified. The majority utilized great saphenous vein (GSV) (76.2%), followed by polytetrafluoroethylene (10.6%), nonautologous biologic (6.5%), composite (3.3%), arm vein (2.8%), and small saphenous vein (0.6%). Compared with all prosthetic and composite bypasses, vein grafts had the best AFS (76.4%; P < .0001) and PP (68.1%; P = .041). Of the single segment vein conduits, GSV bypasses had the best PP (69.1%) and arm vein the worst (60.2%). AFS and PP were similar between single-segment GSV orientations. Single-segment GSV bypasses exhibited better PP than multiple segment bypasses (69.1% vs 54.6%; P = .0016). PP was significantly better for polytetrafluoroethylene compared with nonautologous biologic (68.4% vs 51.2%; P = .0039). PP did not significantly differ between vein cuff for prosthetic bypass compared with no vein cuff (69.1% vs 59.7%; P = .091). PP was not significantly different between single-segment GSV and prosthetic grafts with vein cuff (69.1% vs 69.1%; P = .51). There were no significant differences in AFS comparing arm vein, prosthetic bypass with vein cuff, or composite grafts (67.2% vs 63.8% vs 59.3%; P = .092), as well as in PP (60.2% vs 69.1% vs 54.8%; P = .14). CONCLUSIONS: Single-segment vein bypass was only marginally the most optimal conduit. Surprisingly, there may be more equipoise among conduit types, particularly in the absence of adequate GSV. Prosthetic grafts overall may not be as disadvantaged in the long term as initially thought, especially when compared with arm vein, as prosthetic bypass with vein cuff did not significantly differ in PP. Similarly, a composite conduit may not impact long-term outcomes. These data suggest that conduit choice may not impact outcomes to the degree previously thought and that other factors may have a greater impact than presumed, especially in conduit limited situations.

Physician-Modified Endografts Versus Chimney/Snorkel for Ruptured and Symptomatic Juxtarenal and Paravisceral Aneurysms in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVES: Ruptured and symptomatic juxtarenal and paravisceral aneurysms present technical challenges during endovascular repair. We sought to compare physician modification and fenestrated (PMEG) versus chimney/periscope/snorkel (CHIMPS) repair techniques for the treatment of ruptured and symptomatic paravisceral and juxtarenal aortic aneurysms (r/sPJAA). METHODS: Patients in the thoracic and complex endovascular aneurysm module of the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) national registry undergoing CHIMPS and PMEG for r/sPJAA were included. Patients who underwent thoracic aneurysm repair with only celiac intervention or who had coverage or occlusion only of one renal or visceral branch vessel were excluded. One-year mortality was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included peri- and postoperative endoleak, hospital and ICU length of stay, reintervention, and other local and systemic complications. RESULTS: A total of 81 CHIMPS and 47 PMEG patients were identified. Patients undergoing PMEG were more frequently symptomatic, had a history of CHF and were taking aspirin, statin and P2Y12 antiplatelet medications. Patients undergoing CHIMPS presented more frequently with rupture. There was no significant survival advantage for CHIMPS over PMEG patients (P = 0.5). There were no apparent long-term differences in the numbers of endoleaks or in the rates of subsequent reinterventions between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: It does not appear that the procedure type (CHIMPS versus PMEG) is associated with postoperative survival in patients with r/sPJAA. Not surprisingly, survival is associated with postoperative complications, particularly myocardial infarction and intestinal ischemia. Further research should evaluate reasons for failure to rescue from and the impact of postoperative complications on the postoperative survival after endovascular repair of r/sPJAA.

Early experience with arterial thromboembolic complications in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the arterial complications and hypercoagulability associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We sought to characterize our experience with arterial thromboembolic complications in patients with hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: All patients admitted from March 1 to April 20, 2020, and who underwent carotid, upper, lower and aortoiliac arterial duplex, computed tomography angiogram or magnetic resonance angiography for suspected arterial thrombosis were included. A retrospective case control study design was used to identify, characterize and evaluate potential risk factors for arterial thromboembolic disease in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. Demographics, characteristics, and laboratory values were abstracted and analyzed. RESULTS: During the study period, 424 patients underwent 499 arterial duplex, computed tomography angiogram, or magnetic resonance angiography imaging studies with an overall 9.4% positive rate for arterial thromboembolism. Of the 40 patients with arterial thromboembolism, 25 (62.5%) were SARS-CoV-2 negative or admitted for unrelated reasons and 15 (37.5%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive. The odds ratio for arterial thrombosis in COVID-19 was 3.37 (95% confidence interval, 1.68-6.78; P = .001). Although not statistically significant, in patients with arterial thromboembolism, patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive compared with those testing negative or not tested tended to be male (66.7% vs 40.0%; P = .191), have a less frequent history of former or active smoking (42.9% vs 68.0%; P = .233) and have a higher white blood cell count (14.5 vs 9.9; P = .208). Although the SARS-CoV-2 positive patients trended toward a higher the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (8.9 vs 4.1; P = .134), creatinine phosphokinase level (359.0 vs 144.5; P = .667), C-reactive protein level (24.2 vs 13.8; P = .627), lactate dehydrogenase level (576.5 vs 338.0; P = .313), and ferritin level (974.0 vs 412.0; P = .47), these differences did not reach statistical significance. Patients with arterial thromboembolic complications and SARS-CoV-2 positive when compared with SARS-CoV-2 negative or admitted for unrelated reasons were younger (64 vs 70 years; P = .027), had a significantly higher body mass index (32.6 vs 25.5; P = .012), a higher d-dimer at the time of imaging (17.3 vs 1.8; P = .038), a higher average in hospital d-dimer (8.5 vs 2.0; P = .038), a greater distribution of patients with clot in the aortoiliac location (5 vs 1; P = .040), less prior use of any antiplatelet medication (21.4% vs 62.5%; P = .035), and a higher mortality rate (40.0% vs 8.0%; P = .041). Treatment of arterial thromboembolic disease in COVID-19 positive patients included open thromboembolectomy in six patients (40%), anticoagulation alone in four (26.7%), and five (33.3%) did not require or their overall illness severity precluded additional treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with SARS-CoV-2 are at risk for acute arterial thromboembolic complications despite a lack of conventional risk factors. A hyperinflammatory state may be responsible for this phenomenon with a preponderance for aortoiliac involvement. These findings provide an early characterization of arterial thromboembolic disease in SARS-CoV-2 patients.

Aortic Neck Dilatation Following Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become a mainstay of treatment for a variety of thoracic aortic pathologies. Expansion of the proximal aortic neck after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms has been demonstrated; however, dilatation of the proximal aortic neck after TEVAR has not been well described. We sought to describe remodeling of the proximal neck following TEVAR. METHODS: This is a retrospective, single institution review of patients who underwent TEVAR for thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) and dissection with aneurysmal degeneration from 2010 to 2019. Postoperative computed tomography scans were reviewed and aortic diameter was measured in orthogonal planes using 3-dimensional centerline reconstruction software. The primary outcome was change in aortic diameter at the proximal aortic neck as compared to the initial postoperative computed tomography scan. Clinical and operative data were analyzed to identify factors associated with significant neck dilatation. RESULTS: Of 87 patients who underwent TEVAR during the study period, 30 met inclusion criteria. Median follow up was 20.5 months. Median age was 67 years, and 15 patients (50%) were female. The proximal aortic neck experienced an overall increase over time in aortic diameter. Five mm distal to the graft showed the greatest rate of expansion, with a median increase of 1.3, 2.9, and 6.2 mm at one year, two years, and three years, respectively. When comparing patients who had mean expansion at this location of >2.0 mm/year to patients who did not, a higher percentage had dissection pathology (81.8% vs. 31.6%, P = 0.008), had graft placement at aortic landing zone 2 (36.4% vs. 5.3%, P = 0.028), and were smokers (100% vs. 52.6%, P = 0.006). Higher percent oversizing was shown to be associated with significant aortic neck dilatation for true aneurysms only. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic neck dilatation occurs over time for the majority of patients following TEVAR with the distal neck experiencing the highest rate of expansion. Dissection pathology, aortic landing zone 2, and smoking were found to be associated with a higher rate of neck dilatation.

Extended screening guidelines for the diagnosis of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines are the most widely used criteria for screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). However, when the USPSTF criteria are applied retrospectively to a group of patients who have undergone treatment for AAA, there are many patients who satisfy none of the AAA screening criteria. The more sensitive Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) guidelines have expanded the criteria for screening for AAA with the hope of capturing a greater fraction of those individuals who can undergo treatment for their AAA before presenting with AAA rupture. We sought to identify the number of patients who would have been identified as having criteria for screening for AAA by both the USPSTF and SVS criteria, in a cohort of patients who have undergone treatment for AAA. METHODS: We assessed demographic, comorbidity, and perioperative complication data for all patients undergoing endovascular and open AAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative. Patients meeting each of the screening criteria were identified. Clinical factors and demographic variables were collected. RESULTS: We identified 55,197 patients undergoing AAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative, including 44,602 patients who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and 10,595 patients undergoing open repair. Of these, the USPTF guidelines would have identified fewer than one-third of patients (32% EVAR and 33% open repair). Applying the SVS guidelines increased the number meeting criteria for screening by 6% and 12% for the EVAR and open repair cohorts, respectively. Finally, adoption of the expanded SVS guidelines (including the "weak recommendations") would have identified an additional 34% of EVAR patients and 21% of open AAA repair patients. Use of the expanded criteria would have resulted in 27% of patients undergoing EVAR and 33% of patients undergoing open AAA repair who would not have met any screening criteria. In EVAR patients not meeting the criteria, 52% were younger than 65 years had a history of heavy smoking. Of all those who did not meet screening criteria, ruptured AAA was twice as prevalent as those who met screening criteria (8.5% vs 4.4%; P ≤ .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Expanding established USPSTF screening guidelines to include the expanded SVS criteria may potentially double the number of patients identified with AAA. Smokers under the age of 65, and elderly patients 70 and older with no smoking history, represent two groups with AAA and potentially twice the risk of presenting with rupture.

Digital Footprint of Vascular Surgery Training Programs in the United States and Canada.

BACKGROUND: The digital footprint of vascular residency and fellowship programs may have an impact on an applicant's likelihood of selecting a given program. This may include content and accessibility of a particular program's website as well as its social media presence. The goal of this study is to evaluate the online presence of all accredited vascular surgery training programs in the United States and Canada. METHODS: A list of accredited vascular surgery training programs in the United States was obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the Society for Vascular Surgery websites. Canadian program websites were sourced from the Canadian Society for Vascular Surgery website. Each program website was individually queried. A systematic Google search of each program was carried out to determine website accessibility. Thirty-one individual content and quality metrics were used to appraise the websites. Three major social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram) were individually searched for program profiles. RESULTS: A total of 105 independent vascular surgery fellowship programs in the 5 + 2 paradigm and 55 integrated vascular surgery residency programs in the 0 + 5 paradigm were identified in the United States. An additional 10 Canadian programs were also identified, including 10 integrated residency programs and 4 independent fellowships. Ninety-nine percent of integrated residency and fellowship programs were accessible through Google search. Program description was also almost universally available. Significant differences between US and Canadian programs were observed including the mention of salary information (43% vs. 10%, P = 0.039), clinic responsibilities (38% vs. 90%, P = 0.001), teaching responsibilities (34% vs. 100%, P < 0.0001), program director contact information (47% vs. 80%, P = 0.045), mention of journal club (52% vs. 100%, P = 0.003), research requirements (50% vs. 90%, P = 0.014), and past and current research (30% vs. 70%, P = 0.009 and 37% vs. 80%, P = 0.008, respectively). Additionally, there were significant differences in mention of institutions from which trainees came from (48% vs. 10%, P = 0.021), mention of hybrid operating room (42% vs. 100%, P = 0.0003), advertised medical student rotations (25% vs. 90%, P < 0.0001), and finally social media presence (13% vs. 70%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The overall digital footprint of the majority of training programs in the United States was small, unlike their Canadian counterparts. Although the vast majority of websites for vascular surgery training programs were accessible via simple internet searches, they lacked information that could have been important to applicants. Additionally, the significant underuse of social media platforms by American vascular surgery programs indicated a potential missed opportunity to target the millennials who make up most of the applicant pool to these programs.

A survey of vascular specialists' practice patterns of inferior vena cava filter placement and retrieval.

OBJECTIVES: The placement of inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) continues to rise. Vascular specialists adopt different practices based on local expertise. This study was performed to assess the attitudes of vascular specialists towards the placement and retrieval of IVCF. METHODS: An online survey of 28 questions related to practice patterns regarding IVCF was administered to 1429 vascular specialists. Vascular specialists were categorized as low volume if they place less than three IVCF per month and high volume if they place at least three IVCF per month. The responses of high volume and low volume were compared using two-sample t-tests and Chi-square tests. RESULTS: A total of 259 vascular specialists completed the survey (18% response rate). There were 191 vascular surgeons (74%) and 68 interventional radiologists (26%). The majority of responders were in academic practice (67%) and worked in tertiary care centers (73%). The retrievable IVCF of choice was Celect (27%) followed by Denali (20%). Forty-two percent used a temporary IVCF and left it in situ instead of using a permanent IVCF. Eighty-two percent preferred placing the tip of the IVCF at or just below the lowest renal vein. Thirty-one percent obtained a venous duplex of the lower extremities prior to retrieval while 24% did not do any imaging. There were 132 (51%) low volume vascular specialists and 127 (49%) high volume vascular specialists. Compared to low volume vascular specialists, significantly more high volume vascular specialists reported procedural times of less than 30 min for IVCF retrieval (57% vs. 42%, P = 0.026). There was a trend for high volume to have fewer unsuccessful attempts at IVCF retrieval but that did not reach statistical significance ( P = .061). High volume were more likely to have attempted multiple times to retrieve an IVCF (66% vs. 33%, P < .001), and to have used bronchoscopy forceps (32% vs. 14%, P = .001) or a laser sheath (14% vs. 2%, P < .001) for IVCF retrieval. In general, vascular specialists were not comfortable using bronchoscopy forceps (65%) or a laser sheath (82%) for IVCF retrieval. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores significant variability in vascular specialists practice patterns regarding IVCF. More studies and societal guidelines are needed to define best practices.

Distal embolization during lower extremity endovascular interventions.

OBJECTIVE: Distal embolization (DE) during peripheral arterial endovascular interventions is a well-known complication that is poorly studied. The goal of this study was to determine the incidence, risk factors, and effect of DE on the outcomes of lower extremity endovascular interventions (LEIs). METHODS: All LEIs between 2010 and 2014 in the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) database were reviewed. Patient characteristics were analyzed to determine predictors of DE. LEIs involving the superficial femoral artery (SFA) were reviewed to assess the effect of type of treatment on DE. The outcomes examined were loss of patency, limb loss, and mortality after LEI involving the SFA. A multivariable regression was used to determine predictors of DE. RESULTS: There were 10,875 procedures. The incidence of DE was 17.3 per 1000 procedures, and 68% required treatment (57% endovascular, 11% open surgery). DE was more common in patients treated for critical limb ischemia compared with claudication (relative risk [RR], 2.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-3.45; P = .006) and for emergency interventions compared with elective (RR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.22-7.30; P = .017). DE increased with the number of arteries treated (P < .0001) and with the length of occlusion (P < .0001). The SFA was the most commonly treated artery (4751 [43.7%]). In comparison with atherectomy and balloon angioplasty, stenting alone (RR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17-0.73; P = .005), balloon angioplasty alone (RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.13-0.41; P < .0001), and combined stenting and balloon angioplasty (RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.17-0.49; P < .0001) were associated with a significantly lower risk of DE. DE was not significantly associated with loss of patency, major amputation, or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of DE during LEIs is 1% to 2% in the VSGNE database, and most patients are treated with additional endovascular interventions. The incidence increases in patients with critical limb ischemia and with the use of atherectomy.

Trends in open abdominal exposure among vascular surgery trainees.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective study evaluates the trends in open abdominal surgery cases among integrated vascular surgery residents compared with their 5 + 2 counterparts. METHODS: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) case logs between 2007 and 2016 were collected from a pool of 9861 residents and fellows from 371 institutions. Trainees were grouped into three categories: general surgery residency (GSR), integrated vascular surgery residency (IVSR), and vascular surgery fellowship in the United States. Inclusion criteria were specific to open abdominal cases of or including the anatomy adjacent to the aorta performed by the surgeon chief. RESULTS: The 5 + 2 graduates have obtained significantly more open vascular surgery training experience than their IVSR graduate counterparts (P < .01). GSR chief residents performed significantly more open abdomen cases than IVSR chief residents (P < .01). IVSR chiefs performed significantly more open vascular procedures than GSR chiefs (P < .01). On the completion of vascular surgery fellowship, 5 + 2 graduates had significantly more open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) exposure during training than IVSR graduates did (P < .01); however, IVSR trainees had performed significantly more open AAA procedures than their GSR counterparts (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Up to 2016, graduates of the 5 + 2 vascular training pathway had significantly higher open abdominal exposure than those of the IVSR track. However, graduates of the IVSR track had significantly higher open AAA exposure than GSR graduates.

Percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair in morbidly obese patients.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with percutaneous femoral access (PEVAR) has several potential advantages. Morbidly obese (MO) patients present unique anatomical challenges and have not been specifically studied. This study examines the trends in the use of PEVAR and its surgical outcomes compared with open femoral cutdown (CEVAR) in MO patients. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program files for the years 2005 to 2013 were reviewed. The study included all MO patients (body mass index [BMI] ≥40 kg/m2) undergoing EVAR. Patients were categorized as having CEVAR if they had any one of 11 selected Current Procedural Terminology (American Medical Association, Chicago, Ill) codes describing an open femoral procedure. The PEVAR group included any remaining patients who had only codes for EVAR and endovascular procedures. Linear correlation was used to evaluate temporal trends in the use of PEVAR among MO patients. Baseline comorbidities and surgical outcomes were compared between the PEVAR and CEVAR groups using χ2 tests or t-tests. RESULTS: There were 833 MO patients (470 CEVAR and 363 PEVAR) constituting 3.0% of all patients undergoing EVAR. The use of PEVAR in MO patients significantly increased from 27.3% of total EVARs in the years 2005 to 2006 to 48.6% in 2013 (P = .039). The two groups had similar baseline characteristics, including age, BMI, comorbidities, and emergency procedures, except for history of severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (29.6% CEVAR vs 22.6% PEVAR; P = .024). PEVAR patients had shorter duration of anesthesia (244 vs 260 minutes; P = .048) and shorter total operation time (158 vs 174 minutes; P = .002). PEVAR patients had significantly decreased wound complications (5.5% vs 9.4%; P = .039). There was a trend towards PEVAR patients being more likely to be discharged home than to a facility (93.6% vs 87.8%; P = .060). There was no difference in any other complication or mortality. A subgroup analysis of 109 superobese patients with BMI ≥50 kg/mg2 (59 CEVAR and 50 PEVAR) demonstrated no significant differences in outcomes between groups. CONCLUSIONS: PEVAR is increasingly used in MO patients and decreases operating time and rates of wound infection compared with CEVAR. The advantages of PEVAR seem to be lost in the superobese patients.