Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Though splenic artery aneurysms (SAAs) are the most common visceral aneurysm, there is a paucity of literature on the behavior of these entities. The objective of this study was to review the natural history of patients with SAA. METHODS:This single-institution retrospective analysis studied patients with SAA diagnosed by CT imaging between 2015 and 2019, identified by our institutional radiology database. Imaging, demographic, and clinical data was obtained via the electronic medical record. The growth rate was calculated for patients with radiologic follow-up. RESULTS:The cohort consisted of 853 patients with 890 SAA, of which 692 were female (81.2%). There were 37 women (5.3%) of childbearing age (15-50 years). Mean age at diagnosis was 70.9 years (range: 28-100) years. Frequently observed medical comorbidities included hypertension (70.2%), hypercholesterolemia (54.7%), and prior smoking (32.2%). Imaging indications included abdominal pain (37.3%), unrelated follow-up (28.0%) and follow-up of a previously noted visceral artery aneurysm (8.6%). The mean diameter at diagnosis was 13.3±6.3mm. Anatomical locations included the splenic hilum (36.0%), distal splenic artery (30.3%), mid-splenic artery (23.9%), and proximal splenic artery (9.7%). Radiographically, the majority were saccular aneurysms (72.4%) with calcifications (88.5%). One patient (38-year-old female) was initially diagnosed at the time of rupture of a 25mm aneurysm; this patient underwent immediate endovascular intervention with no complications. The mean clinical follow-up among 812 patients was 4.1 ± 4.0 years and the mean radiological follow-up among 514 patients was 3.8 ± 6.8 years. Of the latter, 122 patients (23.7%) experienced growth. Aneurysm growth rates for initial sizes < 10mm (n=123), 10-19mm (n=353), 20-29mm (n=34), and >30mm (n=4) were 0.166 mm/yr, 0.172 mm/yr, 0.383 mm/yr, and 0.246 mm/yr, respectively. Of the entire cohort, 27 patients (3.2%) eventually underwent intervention (81.5% endovascular), with the most common indications including size/growth criteria (70.4%) and symptom development (18.5%). On multivariate analysis, only prior tobacco use was significantly associated with aneurysm growth (p=.028). CONCLUSIONS:The majority of SAAs in this cohort remained stable in size, with few patients requiring intervention over mean follow-up of 4 years. Current guidelines recommending treatment of asymptomatic aneurysms >30mm appear appropriate given their slow progression. Despite societal recommendations for intervention for all SAAs among women of childbearing age, only a minority underwent vascular surgical consultation and intervention in this series, indicating that these recommendations are likely not well known in the general medical community.

OBJECTIVE:The necessary training and certification of providers performing venous ablation has become a topic of debate in recent years. As venous interventions have shifted away from the hospital, the diversity of provider backgrounds has increased. We aimed to characterize superficial venous ablation practice patterns associated with different provider types. METHODS:We analyzed Medicare fee-for-service data from 2010 through 2018. Procedures were identified by their Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code and included radiofrequency ablation, endovenous laser ablation, chemical adhesive ablation (i.e., VenaSeal®), and mechanochemical ablation. These procedures were correlated with the practitioner type to identify provider-specific trends. RESULTS:Between 2010 and 2018, the number of ablation procedures rose by 107% from 114,197 to 236,558 per year (p<0.001). Most procedures were performed by surgeons without vascular board certification (28.7%, 95% CI [28.7, 28.8]), followed by vascular surgeons (27.1%, 95% CI [27.0, 27.2]). Traditionally non-interventional specialties, which exclude surgeons, cardiologists, and interventional radiologists, accounted for 14.1% (95% CI [14.1, 14.2]), and APPs accounted for 3.5% (95% CI [3.4, 3.5]) of all ablation procedures during the time frame. The total number of ablations increased by 9.7% annually (95% CI [9.7, 9.8]), whereas procedures performed by APPs grew by 62.0% annually (95% CI [61.6, 62.4]). There were significant differences between specialties in the use of non-thermal ablation modalities: APPs had the highest affinity for non-thermal ablation (OR 2.60, 95% CI [2.51, 2.69]). Cardiologists were also more likely to use non-thermal ablation (OR 1.62, 95% CI [1.59, 1.66]). Similarly, the uptake of new non-thermal technology (i.e., chemical adhesives) was greatest among APPs (OR 3.57, 95% CI [3.43, 3.70]) and cardiologists (OR 1.86, 95%,CI [1.81, 1.91]). Vascular surgeons were less likely to use non-thermal modalities (OR 0.95, 95% CI [0.92, 0.97]), including new non-thermal technology in the first year of availability (OR 0.93, 95% CI [0.90, 0.95]). CONCLUSIONS:Venous procedures have grown rapidly over the past decade, particularly as endovenous ablations have been performed by a wider practitioner base including APPs and non-interventionalists. Practice patterns differ by provider type, with APPs and cardiologists skewing more toward non-thermal modalities, including more rapid uptake of new non-thermal technology. Provider-specific biases for specific ablation modalities may reflect differences in training, skill set, the need for capital equipment, clinical privileges, or reimbursement. These data may help to inform training paradigms, allocation of resources, and evaluation of appropriateness in a real-world setting.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool to engage with patients. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of AI responses to common patient questions regarding vascular surgery disease processes. METHODS:OpenAI's ChatGPT-3.5 and Google Bard were queried with 24 mock patient questions spanning seven vascular surgery disease domains. Six experienced vascular surgery faculty at a tertiary academic center independently graded AI responses on their accuracy (rated 1-4 from completely inaccurate to completely accurate), completeness (rated 1-4 from totally incomplete to totally complete), and appropriateness (binary). Responses were also evaluated with three readability scales. RESULTS:> .05 for all analyses). CONCLUSIONS:AI offers a novel means of educating patients that avoids the inundation of information from "Dr Google" and the time barriers of physician-patient encounters. ChatGPT provides largely valid, though imperfect, responses to myriad patient questions at the expense of readability. While Bard responses are more readable and concise, their quality is poorer. Further research is warranted to better understand failure points for large language models in vascular surgery patient education.

OBJECTIVE:Investigations into imaging modalities in the diagnosis of extracranial carotid artery occlusion (CAO) have raised questions about the inter-modality comparability of duplex ultrasound (DUS) and cross-sectional imaging (CSI). This study examines the relationship between DUS and CSI diagnoses of extracranial CAO. METHODS:This single-institution retrospective analysis studied patients with CAO diagnosed by DUS from 2010 to 2021. Patients were identified in our office-based accredited vascular laboratory database. Imaging and clinical data was obtained via our institutional electronic medical record. Primary outcome was discrepancy between DUS and CSI modalities. Secondary outcomes included incidence of stroke and intervention subsequent to CAO diagnosis. RESULTS:Of our 140-patient cohort, 95 patients (67.9%) had DUS follow-up (mean, 42.7 ± 31.3 months). At index duplex, 68.0% of individuals (n = 51) were asymptomatic. Seventy-five patients (53.6%) had CSI of the carotids after DUS CAO diagnosis; 18 (24%) underwent magnetic resonance imaging and 57 (76%) underwent computed tomography. Indications for CSI included follow-up of DUS findings of carotid stenosis/occlusion (44%), stroke/transient ischemic attack (16%), other symptoms (12%), preoperative evaluation (2.7%), unrelated pathology follow-up (9.3%), and outside institution imaging with unavailable indications (16%). When comparing patients with CSI and those without, there were no differences with regard to symptoms at diagnosis, prior neck interventions, or hypertension. There was a significant difference between cross-sectionally imaged and non-imaged patients in anti-hypertensive medications (72% vs 53.8%; P = .04). Despite initial DUS diagnoses of carotid occlusion, 10 patients (13.3%) ultimately had CSI indicating patent carotids. Four of these 10 patients had stenoses of ∼99% (with 1 string sign), four of 70% to 99%, one of 50% to 69%, and one of less than 50% on CSI. The majority of patients (70%) had CSI within 1 month of the index ultrasound. There were no significant relationships between imaging discrepancies and body mass index, heart failure, upper body edema, carotid artery calcification, and neck hardware. Eight individuals (10.7%) underwent ipsilateral revascularization; 62.5% (n = 5) were carotid endarterectomy procedures, and the remaining three procedures were a transcervical carotid revascularization, subclavian to internal carotid artery bypass, and transfemoral carotid artery stenting. Eight patients (10.7%) underwent contralateral revascularization, with the same distribution of procedures as those ipsilateral to occlusions. Two of the 10 patients with discrepancies underwent carotid endarterectomy, and one underwent carotid stenting. CONCLUSIONS:In our experience, duplex diagnosis of CAO is associated with a greater than 10% discordance when compared with CSI. These patients may benefit from closer surveillance as well as confirmatory computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography. Further work is needed to determine the optimal diagnostic modality for CAO.

BACKGROUND:Duplex-derived velocity measurements are often used to determine the need for carotid revascularization. There is evidence that severe ipsilateral carotid stenosis can cause artificially elevated velocities in the contralateral carotid artery, which may decrease following ipsilateral revascularization. The objective of this study was to determine if contralateral carotid artery duplex velocities decrease following ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy or stenting procedures. METHODS:This is a single institutional retrospective study of prospectively collected data on all patients who underwent carotid revascularization from 2013 to 2021. Patients with immediate preoperative and first postoperative Duplex scan within 4 months of carotid revascularization at our vascular laboratory were included for analysis. Patients with contralateral occlusion were excluded. Duplex criteria used to define moderate (50-69%) and severe (>70%) stenosis were systolic velocity ≥125 cm/sec and ≥230 cm/sec, respectively. RESULTS:Between 2013 and 2021, 129 patients with bilateral carotid stenosis underwent either carotid endarterectomy (98) or a stenting procedure (31). The majority of patients (90%) underwent intervention for severe stenosis. Preoperatively, the contralateral artery was categorized as severe in 30.4% patients. After ipsilateral carotid revascularization, 86 patients (67.2%) saw a decrease in the contralateral artery peak systolic velocity (PSV), while the remaining remained stable or increased. Fifty-four patients had a change in designated stenosis severity in the contralateral artery. Between the carotid endarterectomy and stenting cohorts, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients whose contralateral velocity decreased (69.4% vs. 61.3%, P = 0.402). Patients with coronary artery disease and diabetes were significantly less likely to experience a decrease in the contralateral artery PSV after ipsilateral intervention (P = 0.018 and P = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS:In patients with bilateral carotid disease, ipsilateral revascularization can change the contralateral artery velocity and perceived disease severity. Most patients were noted to have a decrease in the contralateral artery PSV, although almost one-third either stayed stable or increased. On multivariable analysis, patients with coronary artery disease and diabetes were less likely to see a decrease in the contralateral artery PSV after intervention. Patients who are at risk for artificial elevation of the contralateral artery may warrant a re-evaluation of the contralateral artery after ipsilateral intervention. These patients are potentially better assessed with axial imaging, although further research is needed.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to investigate the natural history of internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis progression. METHODS:This single-institution retrospective cohort study analyzed patients diagnosed with ICA stenosis of 50% or greater on duplex ultrasound from 2015 to 2022. Subjects were drawn from our institutional Intersocietal Accreditation Commission-accredited noninterventional vascular laboratory database. Primary outcomes were incidences of disease progression, and stroke or revascularization after index study. Progression was defined as an increase in stenosis classification category. Imaging, demographic, and clinical data was obtained from our institutional electronic medical record via a database mining query. Cases were analyzed at the patient and artery levels, with severity corresponding to the greatest degree of ICA stenosis on index and follow-up studies. RESULTS:Of 577 arteries in 467 patients, mean cohort age was 73.5 ± 8.9 years at the time of the index study, and 45.0% (n = 210) were female. Patients were followed with duplex ultrasound for a mean of 42.2 ± 22.7 months. Of 577 arteries, 65.5% (n = 378) at the index imaging study had moderate (50%-69%) stenosis, 23.7% (n = 137) had severe (70%-99%) stenosis, and 10.7% (n = 62) were occluded. These three groups had significant differences in age, hypertension, hyperlipidemia prevalence, and proportion on best medical therapy. Of the 467-patient cohort, 56.5% (n = 264) were on best medical therapy, defined as smoking cessation, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, statin, and antihypertensive and glycemic agents as indicated. Mean time to progression for affected arteries was 28.0 ± 20.5 months. Of those arteries with nonocclusive disease at diagnosis, 21.3% (n = 123) progressed in their level of stenosis. Older age, diabetes, and a history of vasculitis were associated with stenosis progression, whereas antiplatelet agent use trended towards decreased progression rates. Of the 467 patients, 5.6% (n = 26) developed symptoms; of those, 38.5% (n = 10) had ischemic strokes, 26.9% (n = 7) had hemispheric transient ischemic attacks, 11.5% (n = 3) had amaurosis fugax, and 23.1% (n = 6) had other symptoms. A history of head and neck cancer was positively associated with symptom development. Of 577 affected arteries, 16.6% (n = 96) underwent intervention; 81% (n = 78) of interventions were for asymptomatic disease and 19% (n = 18) were for symptomatic disease. No patient-level factors were associated with risk of intervention. CONCLUSIONS:A significant number of carotid stenosis patients experience progression of disease. Physicians should consider long-term surveillance on all patients with carotid disease, with increased attention paid to those with risk factors for progression, particularly those with diabetes and a history of vasculitis.

OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to investigate the administrative and clinical impacts of prior authorization (PA) processes in the Office-Based Laboratory (OBL) setting. METHODS:This single-institution retrospective analysis studied all OBL PAs pursued between January 2018 and March 2022. Case, PA, and coding information was obtained from the practice's scheduling database. RESULTS:Over the study period, 1,854 OBL cases were scheduled; 8% (n=146) required PA. Of these, 75% (n=110) were for lower extremity arterial interventions, 19% (n=27) were for deep venous interventions, and 6% (n=9) were for other interventions. Of 146 PAs, 19% (n=27) were initially denied but 74.1% (n=7) of these were overturned on appeal. Deep venous procedures were initially denied, at 43.8% (n=14) more often than were arterial procedures, at 11.8% (n=13). Of 146 requested procedures, 4% (n=6) were delayed due to pending prior authorization determination by a mean 14.2±18.3 working days. An additional 6% (n=8) of procedures were performed in the interest of time prior to final determination. Of the 7 terminally denied procedures, 57% (n=4) were performed at cost to the practice based on clinical judgment. CONCLUSIONS:Utilizing prior authorization appeals mechanisms, while administratively onerous, resulted in the overturning of most initial denials.

OBJECTIVE:Effective treatment options are available for chronic venous insufficiency associated with superficial venous reflux. Although many patients with C2 and C3 disease based on the CEAP (Clinical-Etiological-Anatomical-Pathophysiological) classification have combined great saphenous vein (GSV) and saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) reflux, some may not have concomitant SFJ reflux. Several payors have determined that symptom severity in patients without SFJ reflux does not warrant treatment. In patients planned for venous ablation, we tested whether Venous Clinical Severity Scores (VCSS) are equivalent in those with GSV reflux alone compared with those with both GSV and SFJ reflux. METHODS:This cross-sectional study was conducted at 10 centers. Inclusion criteria were: candidate for endovenous ablation as determined by treating physician; 18 to 80 years of age; GSV reflux with or without SFJ reflux on ultrasound; and C2 or C3 disease. Exclusion criteria were prior deep vein thrombosis; prior vein ablation on the index limb; ilio-caval obstruction; and renal, hepatic, or heart failure requiring prior hospitalization. An a priori sample size was calculated. We used multiple linear regression (adjusted for patient characteristics) to compare differences in VCSS scores of the two groups at baseline, and to test whether scores were equivalent using a priori equivalence boundaries of +1 and -1. In secondary analyses, we tested differences in VCSS scores in patients with C2 and C3 disease separately. RESULTS:. The VCSS scores in patients with and without SFJ reflux were found to be equivalent; SFJ reflux was not a significant predictor of VCSS score; and mean VCSS scores did not differ significantly (6.4 vs 6.6, respectively, P = .40). In secondary subset analyses, VCSS scores were equivalent between C2 patients with and without SFJ reflux, and VCSS scores of C3 patients with SFJ reflux were lower than those without SFJ reflux. CONCLUSIONS:Symptom severity is equivalent in patients with GSV reflux with or without SFJ reflux. The absence of SFJ reflux alone should not determine the treatment paradigm in patients with symptomatic chronic venous insufficiency. Patients with GSV reflux who meet clinical criteria for treatment should have equivalent treatment regardless of whether or not they have SFJ reflux.

OBJECTIVE:The outcomes of patients with premature cerebrovascular disease (age ≤55 years) who undergo carotid artery stenting are not well-defined. Our study objective was to analyze the outcomes of younger patients undergoing carotid stenting. METHODS:The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS) and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) procedures between 2016 and 2020. Patients were stratified based on age ≤55 or >55 years. Primary endpoints were periprocedural stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), and composite outcomes. Secondary endpoints included procedural failure (defined as ipsilateral restenosis ≥80% or occlusion) and reintervention rates. RESULTS:Of the 35,802 patients who underwent either TF-CAS or TCAR, 2912 (6.1%) were ≤55 years. Younger patients were less likely than older patients to have coronary disease (30.5% vs 50.2%; P < .001), diabetes (31.5% vs 37.9%; P < .001), and hypertension (71.8% vs 89.8%; P < .001), but were more likely to be female (45% vs 35.4%; P < .001) and active smokers (50.9% vs 24.0%; P < .001) Younger patients were also more likely to have had a prior transient ischemic attack or stroke than older patients (70.7% vs 56.9%; P < .001). TF-CAS was more frequently performed in younger patients (79.7% vs 55.4%; P < .001). In the periprocedural period, younger patients were less likely to have a MI than older patients (0.3% vs 0.7%; P < .001), but there was no significant difference in the rates of periprocedural stroke (1.5% vs 2.0%; P = .173) and composite outcomes of stroke/death (2.6% vs 2.7%; P = .686) and stroke/death/MI (2.9% vs 3.2%; P = .353) between our two cohorts. The mean follow-up was 12 months regardless of age. During follow-up, younger patients were significantly more likely to experience significant (≥80%) restenosis or occlusion (4.7% vs 2.3%; P = .001) and to undergo reintervention (3.3% vs 1.7%; P < .001). However, there was no statistical difference in the frequency of late strokes between younger and older patients (3.8% vs 3.2%; P = .129). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with premature cerebrovascular disease undergoing carotid artery stenting are more likely to be African American, female, and active smokers than their older counterparts. Young patients are also more likely to present symptomatically. Although periprocedural outcomes are similar, younger patients have higher rates of procedural failure (significant restenosis or occlusion) and reintervention at 1-year follow-up. However, the clinical implication of late procedural failure is unknown, given that we found no significant difference in the rate of stroke at follow-up. Until further longitudinal studies are completed, clinicians should carefully consider the indications for carotid stenting in patients with premature cerebrovascular disease, and those who do undergo stenting may require close follow-up.