Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:The development of a venous leg ulcer (VLU) represents the most severe clinical manifestation of a chronic venous disease. Despite major progress, there is a limited understanding of VLU pathogenesis and wound healing biology. Treatment of VLUs remains a serious challenge for physicians of different specialties. This communication focuses on describing the rationale and scientific basis for topical wound care in the management of VLUs. METHODS:A literature review was performed to summarize methods with proven efficacy in VLU management. A systematic literature search was also performed to identify new evidence from the randomized controlled trials published within 2014-2021. The scientific challenges, clinical practice concerns, economic obstacles, and possible directions for further research have been discussed. RESULTS:Hundreds of topical products have been advertised for the treatment of VLUs. Published data on topical treatment of venous ulcers is insufficient, scattered, weak, and has significant methodological flaws. Forty-three randomized controlled trials on topical treatment of VLUs have been published within 2014-2021. Clinical practice guidelines need to be updated. Major gaps in knowledge have been identified, and suggestions for future research directions have been provided. CONCLUSIONS:The American Venous Forum Research Committee would like to bring attention to topical wound care for VLUs as a critical gap in knowledge, and encourage scientists, practitioners, and industry to collaborate to fill this gap.

OBJECTIVE:Contemporary commercially available endovascular devices for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) include standard endovascular aortic repair (sEVAR) or fenestrated EVAR (fEVAR) endografts. However, aortic neck dilatation (AND) can occur in nearly 25% of patients following EVAR, resulting in loss of proximal seal with risk of aortic rupture. AND has not been well characterized in fEVAR, and direct comparisons studying AND between fEVAR and sEVAR have not been performed. This study aims to analyze AND in the infrarenal and suprarenal aortic segments, including seal zone, and quantify sac regression following fEVAR implantation compared to sEVAR. METHOD/METHODS:A retrospective review of prospectively collected data on 20 consecutive fEVAR patients (Cook Zenith® Fenestrated) and 20 sEVAR (Cook Zenith®) patients was performed. Demographic data, anatomic characteristics, procedural details, and clinical outcome were analyzed. Pre-operative, post-operative (1 month), and longest follow-up CT scan at an average of 29.3 months for fEVAR and 29.8 months for sEVAR were analyzed using a dedicated 3D workstation (iNtuition, TeraRecon Inc, Foster City, California). Abdominal aortic aneurysm neck diameter was measured in 5 mm increments, ranging from 20 mm above to 20 mm below the lowest renal artery. Sub-analysis comparing the fEVAR to the sEVAR group at 12 months and at greater than 30 months was performed. Standard statistical analysis was done. RESULTS:Demographic characteristics did not differ significantly between the two cohorts. The fEVAR group had a larger mean aortic diameter at the lowest renal artery, shorter infrarenal aortic neck length, increased prevalence of nonparallel neck shape, and longer AAA length. On follow-up imaging, the suprarenal aortic segment dilated significantly more at all locations in the fEVAR cohort, whereas the infrarenal aortic neck segment dilated significantly less compared to the sEVAR group. Compared to the sEVAR cohort, the fEVAR patients demonstrated significantly greater positive sac remodeling as evident by more sac diameter regression, and elongation of distance measured from the celiac axis to the most cephalad margin of the sac. Device migration, endoleak occurrence, re-intervention rate, and mortalities were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Compared to sEVAR, patients undergoing fEVAR had greater extent of suprarenal AND, consistent with a more diseased native proximal aorta. However, the infrarenal neck, which is shorter and also more diseased in fEVAR patients, appears more stable in the post-operative period as compared to sEVAR. Moreover, the fEVAR cohort had significantly greater sac shrinkage and improved aortic remodeling. The suprarenal seal zone in fEVAR may result in a previously undescribed increased level of protection against infrarenal neck dilatation. We hypothesize that the resultant decreased endotension conferred by better seal zone may be responsible for a more dramatic sac shrinkage in fEVAR.

OBJECTIVE:Over the past two decades, the treatment of popliteal artery aneurysms (PAAs) has undergone a transformation. While open surgical repair (OR) remains the gold standard for treatment, endovascular repair (ER) has become an attractive alternative in select patient populations. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of open versus endovascular repair of PAAs at a single institution. METHODS:We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients between 1998 and 2017 who underwent repair for PAA. Patient baseline, anatomic, and operative characteristics as well as outcomes were compared between the open and endovascular cohorts. The intervention and treatment were at the discretion of the surgeon. RESULTS:Between 1998 and 2017, a total of 64 patients underwent repair of 73 PAAs at our tertiary care center. Twenty-nine patients with 33 PAAs underwent OR, and 35 patients with 40 PAAs underwent ER. When comparing the 2 cohorts, there were no statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics such as age, gender, or number of run-off vessels. There were significantly more patients in the ER group (21/53%) than the OR group (7/21%) with hyperlipidemia (p=.008) and a prior carotid intervention (6% vs. 0%, p=.029). Overall, the presence of symptoms was similar amongst the two groups; however, patients in the OR group had a significantly higher number of patients presenting with acute ischemia (p=.01). Length of stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in the ER cohort (mean 1.8 days [1-11]) compared to the OR group (5.4 days [2-13]) (p<.0001). There was no significant difference in primary or secondary patency rates between the two groups. In the ER group, good runoff (≥2 vessels) was a positive predictor for primary patency at 1 year (3.36 [1.0-11.25]), however, it was not in the OR group. Post-operative single and/or dual anti-platelet therapy did not affect primary patency in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS:The results of our study demonstrate that ER of PAAs is a safe and durable option with comparable patency rates to OR and a decreased LOS, with good run-off being a positive predictor for primary patency in the ER cohort.

Objectives: In patients with carotid stenosis, both the severity of the stenosis as well as the plaque morphology influence the likelihood of future transient ischemic attack or stroke. In general, severely stenotic lesions are presumed to have a higher embolic potential than moderately stenotic lesions. Carotid intervention is indicated in patients with both moderate and severe stenosis with related cerebrovascular symptoms. However, the effect of the degree of carotid stenosis in symptomatic patients upon the outcome of carotid intervention has not been extensively studied.
Method(s): The Society for Vascular Surgery Quality Initiative database was queried for all patients undergoing transfemoral carotid stenting (CAS), carotid endarterectomy (CEA), and transcervical carotid stenting (TCAR) between 2003 and 2020. Patients undergoing interventions for symptomatic disease were included in the analysis. Patients were stratified into two cohorts based on the severity of stenosis-moderate (0%-69%) and severe (greater than or equal to 70%). Primary endpoints were perioperative neurologic events (strokes and transient ischemic attacks [TIAs]). Secondary endpoints were perioperative mortality and postoperative complications.
Result(s): Over 50,000 patients were included in the analysis: 5296 patients (8.9%) underwent TCAR, 7844 (13.3%) underwent CAS, and 45,853 (77.8%) underwent CEA for symptomatic carotid artery disease. In the TCAR and CEA cohorts, patients with moderate stenosis had a significantly higher rate of perioperative neurologic events than patients with severe stenosis (TCAR 4.3% vs 3.0%; P =.033; CEA 3.0% vs 2.3%; P <.001). In contrast, in patients undergoing CAS, there was no significant difference noted in the perioperative neurologic event rate (3.5% in moderate stenosis group vs 3.8% in severe stenosis group; P =.518). There were no differences in perioperative myocardial infarction or mortality (Table). On multivariable analysis, moderate stenosis was significantly and independently associated with an increased rate of neurologic events in the TCAR (odds ratio [OR], 0.833; 95% confidence interval, 0.693-1.000; P =.05), and CEA (odds ratio, 0.901; 95% confidence interval, 0.861-0.944; P <.001) cohorts.
Conclusion(s): Moderate carotid stenosis was associated with increased perioperative neurologic events in patients undergoing TCAR and CEA, but not CAS. Therefore, this effect was noted only in the cohorts that require direct open surgical manipulation of the cervical carotid artery (TCAR and CEA). Moderately stenotic lesions that become symptomatic likely have worse intrinsic plaque morphology than severely stenotic lesions, producing cerebrovascular symptoms at a lower degree of stenosis. The mechanism of such events warrants further evaluation with a particular focus on plaque morphology and brain physiology. [Formula presented]
Copyright

Objective: Statins are often used for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events. Multiple studies have demonstrated a significant reduction in perioperative complications after carotid endarterectomy for patients taking statins. However, data for statin use for patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) are limited. We evaluated the effects of statin use on the postoperative outcomes after TCAR.
Method(s): The records of the Vascular Quality Initiative carotid artery stenting registry (2012-2020) were reviewed for patients who had undergone TCAR. The patient demographics, perioperative characteristics, and 30-day outcomes were compared between the patients treated with and without statins (statin and no-statin group, respectively). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the effect of statins on the postoperative outcomes.
Result(s): A total of 15,797 patients had undergone TCAR, of whom, 10,116 (64%) were men. Of the 15,797 patients, 14,152 (89.6%) were taking a statin preoperatively (Table I). The statin group was more likely to have hypertension (91% vs 87%; P <.001), coronary artery disease (26% vs 23%; P =.008), and diabetes mellitus (33% vs 29%; P <.001). The incidence of both prior ipsilateral stroke (17.2% vs 13.5%; P <.001) and recent ipsilateral stroke (<=30 days; 7.1% vs 5.6%; P =.02) was higher in the statin group. No differences were found in the perioperative characteristics, including median operative time, contrast amount used, technical success, and number of stents used. Perioperative stroke and major adverse cardiac events (MACE; myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, dysrhythmia) occurred in 1.5% and 2.4% of the statin group and 1.4% and 2.3% of the no-statin group, respectively. Controlling for covariates with the logistic regression method, statin use was associated with a 62% reduction in the odds of mortality (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.99; P =.047; Table II) for patients who had experienced a perioperative stroke or MACE after TCAR.
Conclusion(s): Statin use was associated with a significant reduction in postoperative mortality for patients who had experienced a stroke or MACE after TCAR. Therefore, strict adherence to statin use is strongly recommended, especially for patients who could be at high risk of major postoperative complications. [Formula presented] [Formula presented]
Copyright

Endothermal heat induced thrombosis (EHIT) is a post-procedural entity following endothermal superficial venous ablation that refers to the propagation of thrombus into the adjacent deep vein lumen. It is identified most commonly during the post-procedural surveillance venous duplex ultrasound. EHIT is recognized as a unique post-procedural entity, distinct in clinical behavior from a deep vein thrombosis. The definition, classification systems, pathophysiology, risk factors, treatment, and prevention are all discussed. The understanding of EHIT has advanced considerably, but additional data are required to understand its impact on quality of life and the cost-effectiveness of surveillance.
Copyright

BACKGROUND:There remain many questions regarding the pathophysiology and risk factors for endothermal heat induced thrombosis formation. Moreover, there are a paucity of data on the timing of its occurrence, and there has been no consensus regarding for its treatment. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current knowledge on the pathophysiology, risk factors and treatment strategies for endothermal heat induced thrombosis. METHODS:The PubMed database was searched from 2001 to present for endothermal heat induced thrombosis, EHIT, deep vein thrombosis, chronic venous insufficiency, varicose veins, endovenous laser and radiofrequency ablation (treatment). All relevant articles identified by the authors mentioning endothermal heat induced thrombosis were included in this review. RESULTS:A multitude of risk factors, several pathophysiological hypotheses and different treatment strategies are described in the literature. CONCLUSIONS:Endothermal heat induced thrombosis is marginally understood. There remains a theoretical risk for significant venous thromboembolic complications. With the new uniform classification of EHIT (American Venous Forum), healthcare providers should continue to investigate the nature of this event.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The purpose was to assess whether combining patient reported scores (VVSymQ®) and physician reported scores (VCSS) stratifies disease severity in C2 patients. METHODS:Consecutive patients were pooled from the VANISH-1 and VANISH-2 cohorts. VCSS and VVSymQ® were calculated for each patient. The relationship between scoring systems was evaluated using Pearson's correlation and frequency distribution analysis. RESULTS:Two-hundred and ten C2 limbs were included. Scoring systems demonstrated: VVSymQ®: mean = 8.72; VCSS: mean = 6.32; correlation (r = 0.22, p = 0.05). Frequency distribution analysis demonstrated 61.4% of patients had low VVSymQ® and low VCSS; 31.3% had elevated VVSymQ® and increased VCSS; 7.3% were inconsistent with C2 disease. Strict concordance analysis revealed 40.5% had VVSymQ® (< 9)/VCSS (0-6), 18.6% had VVSymQ® (≥ 9)/VCSS (7-9), and 2.9% had VVSymQ® (≥9)/VCSS (≥10). CONCLUSIONS:For combined elevated VVSymQ® and VCSS, moderate/severe disease is corroborated, and intervention may be indicated. For combined lower scores, the disease severity is mild and conservative therapy is more appropriate.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The pandemic of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused devastating morbidity and mortality worldwide. In particular, thromboembolic complications have emerged as a key threat in COVID-19. We assessed our experience with deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in patients with COVID-19. METHODS:We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients with COVID-19 undergoing upper or lower extremity venous duplex ultrasonography at an academic health system in New York City between March 3 2020 and April 12 2020 with follow-up through May 12 2020. A cohort of hospitalized patients without COVID-19 (non-COVID-19) undergoing venous duplex ultrasonography from December 1 2019 to December 31 2019 was used for comparison. The primary outcome was DVT. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary embolism (PE), in-hospital mortality, admission to intensive care unit, and antithrombotic therapy. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for DVT and mortality. RESULTS:Of 443 patients (188 COVID-19 and 255 non-COVID-19) undergoing venous duplex ultrasonography, patients with COVID-19 had higher incidence of DVT (31% vs. 19%; P=0.005), compared to the non-COVID-19 cohort. The incidence of PE was not statistically different between the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cohorts (8% vs. 4%; P=.105). The DVTs in the COVID-19 group were more distal (63% vs. 29%; P<.001) and bilateral (15% vs. 4%; P<.001). The result of duplex ultrasonography had a significant impact on the antithrombotic plan; 42 (72%) patients with COVID-19 in the DVT group had their therapies escalated while 49 (38%) and 3 (2%) patients had their therapies escalated and de-escalated in the non-DVT group, respectively (P<.001). Within the COVID-19 cohort, the D-dimer was significantly higher in the DVT group at the time of admission (2,746 ng/mL vs 1,481 ng/mL; P=.004) and at the time of the duplex exam (6,068 ng/mL vs. 3,049 ng/mL; P<0.01). At multivariable analysis, male sex (odd ratio (OR) 2.27; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.06-4.87; P=.035), ICU admission (OR 3.42; 95% CI, 1.02-11.44; P=.046) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (OR 5.5; 95% CI, 1.01-30.13; P=.049) were independently associated with DVT. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Given the high incidence of venous thromboembolic events in this population, we support the decision to empirically initiate therapeutic anticoagulation in patients with low bleeding risk and severe COVID-19 infection, with duplex ultrasonography reserved for patients with high clinical suspicion of VTE in which anticoagulation may pose a life-threatening consequence. Further study is warranted in patients with COVID-19 to elucidate the etiology of vascular thromboembolic events and guide prophylactic and therapeutic interventions in these patients.