Faculty Bibliography

This paper describes the present status of the initiative to obtain American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) approval of an independent American Board of Vascular Surgery (ABVS). The need for such a board arises from the evolution of vascular surgery into a distinct, well-defined specialty that deals with all aspects of vascular disease, including knowledge of its natural history, all methods of noninvasive and invasive diagnosis, conservative and medical treatment, open operative treatment, endovascular treatment, and periprocedural care. Because of the greater skill requirements and increased complexity of vascular surgery, its paradigms of training must be changed. Longer periods of vascular training are required with a reciprocal 2- to 3-year shortening of training in general surgery. This cannot be done without an independent ABVS. The effort to obtain ABVS approval has elicited opposition from the American Board of Surgery (ABS) and from some vascular surgery leaders associated with it, making the ABVS a contentious issue. A successful effort was made to reach consensus within vascular surgery, and the ABVS application was submitted to the ABMS. As a result of an ABS campaign that combined pressure and dire warnings, this application encountered intense opposition within the ABMS and its Liaison Committee for Specialty Boards (LCSB). Institutional and professional self-interest, rather than quality of patient care, appeared to be the overriding considerations in the ABS argument. Measures to overcome this ABS opposition and obstructionism are proposed. They require unity, action, and tangible support from all vascular surgeons. If this call to arms goes unheeded, vascular surgery will not continue to be the self-sufficient specialty it has become and, most importantly, patient care will suffer

PURPOSE: To assess unenhanced and delayed phase computed tomographic (CT) images combined with arterial phase images for detecting endoleaks after endovascular treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT scans were retrospectively evaluated for the presence of endoleaks after endovascular treatment of AAAs in 33 patients with endoleak (positive group) and 40 patients without evidence of endoleak or aneurysm enlargement (negative group). All patients underwent unenhanced and biphasic contrast material-enhanced CT. The CT scans were reviewed in the following combinations: (a) arterial phase and unenhanced scans (uniphasic/unenhanced set), (b) arterial and delayed phase scans only (biphasic set), and (c) arterial and delayed phase scans with unenhanced scans (complete set). Each set was reviewed by two radiologists blinded to the diagnosis of endoleak. Findings were recorded as positive, negative, or indeterminate for endoleak. RESULTS: Within the positive group, endoleaks were diagnosed with the uniphasic/unenhanced, biphasic, and complete image sets in 30 (91%), 32 (97%), and 33 (100%) patients, respectively. With the uniphasic/unenhanced set, three (9%) endoleaks (seen only on delayed phase images) were missed. With the biphasic set, one (3%) endoleak was interpreted as indeterminate. Within the negative group, uniphasic/unenhanced, biphasic, and complete image sets were negative for endoleaks in 100%, 80%, and 100% of patients, respectively. With the biphasic set, results were indeterminate in 20% of cases. CONCLUSION: A delayed CT acquisition enables detection of additional endoleaks, while an unenhanced acquisition helps eliminate indeterminate results. Thus, both acquisitions contribute to accurate diagnosis of endoleaks when combined with an arterial phase acquisition

AIM: Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) larger than 5.5 cm should generally undergo elective repair. However, some of these patients have serious comorbid conditions, which greatly increase operative risk. This study evaluated the outcomes of nonoperative, observational management and selective delayed AAA repair in high-risk patients with large infrarenal and pararenal AAAs. METHODS: Among 226 patients with AAAs >5.5 cm, we selected 72 with AAAs 5.6-12.0 cm (mean 7.0 cm) for periods of nonoperative management because of their prohibitive surgical risks. Comorbid factors included a low ejection fraction of 15-34% (mean 22%) in 18 patients; FEV1 <50% (mean 38%) in 25; prior laparotomy in 10; and morbid obesity in 22. Follow-up was complete in the 72 patients for the 6-76 months (mean 23 months) that they were treated nonoperatively. Fifty-three patients ultimately underwent repair because of AAA enlargement or onset of symptoms after 6-72 months (mean 19 months) of observational treatment. RESULTS: Of the 72 selected patients, 54 (75%) are living and 18 (25%) are dead. Seven patients undergoing only nonoperative treatment presently survive after 28-76 months (mean 48 months). Of the 18 deaths, AAA rupture occurred in only 3 patients (4%) who had been observed for 12, 31, and 72 months before rupture. Nine other deaths (13%) occurred after 6-72 months from comorbidities unrelated to the patient's AAA. Six of the 53 patients undergoing delayed AAA repair died within 30 days of operation (11% mortality). The mortality for the 154 good risk AAA patients, who underwent prompt open or endovascular repair, was 2.2%. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that some patients with large AAAs and serious comorbidities are acceptably managed for long periods (6-76 months) by nonoperative means. Substantial delays of 12 to 76 months resulted in an AAA rupture rate of only 4%, while 13% of these patients (9 of 72) died of their comorbidities unrelated to AAA rupture or surgery and mortality in this group of patients, when operated on, was 11% (6 of 53). These findings support the selective use of nonoperative observational management in some patients with large AAAs and serious comorbidities