Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:There is a paucity of data evaluating outcomes of lower extremity bypass (LEB) using supra-inguinal inflow for revascularization of infra-inguinal vessels. The purpose of this study is to report outcomes after LEB originating from aortoiliac arteries to infra-femoral targets. METHODS:The Vascular Quality Initiative database (2003-2020) was queried for patients undergoing LEB from the aortoiliac arteries to the popliteal and tibial arteries. Patients were stratified into 3 cohorts based on outflow targets (above-knee [AK] popliteal, below-knee [BK] popliteal, and tibial arteries). Perioperative and 1-year outcomes including primary patency, amputation-free survival (AFS), and major adverse limb events (MALEs) were compared. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the independent prognostic factors of outcomes. RESULTS:Of 403 LEBs, 389 (96.5%) originated from the external iliac artery, while the remaining used the aorta or common iliac artery as inflow. In terms of the distal target, the AK popliteal was used in 116 (28.8%), the BK popliteal in 151 (27.5%), and tibial vessels in 136 (43.7%) cases. BK popliteal and tibial bypasses, compared to AK popliteal bypasses, were more commonly performed in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (69.5% and 69.9% vs. 48.3%; P < 0.001). Vein conduit was more often used for tibial bypass than for AK and BK popliteal bypasses (46.3% vs. 21.9% and 16.3%; P < 0.001). In the perioperative period, BK popliteal and tibial bypass patients had higher reoperation rates (16.9% and 13.2% vs. 5.2%; P = 0.02) and lower primary patency (89.4% and 89% vs. 95.7%; P = 0.04) than AK bypass patients. At 1 year, compared with AK popliteal bypasses, BK and tibial bypasses demonstrated lower primary patency (81.9% vs. 56.7% vs. 52.4%, P < 0.001) and freedom from MALE (77.6% vs. 70.2% vs. 63.1%, P = 0.04), although AFS was not significantly different (89.7% vs. 90.6% vs. 83.8%, P = 0.19).On multivariable analysis, compared with AK popliteal bypasses, tibial bypasses were independently associated with increased loss of primary patency (hazard ratio 1.9, 95% confidence interval, 1.03-3.51, P = 0.04). Subanalysis of patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia demonstrated significantly higher primary patency in the AK popliteal cohort at discharge and 1 year, but no difference in AFS or freedom from MALE between the cohorts at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:LEB with supra-inguinal inflow appear to have acceptable rates of 1-year patency and limb salvage in patients at high risk of bypass failure. Tibial outflow target was independently associated with worse primary patency but not with MALE or AFS.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Advanced pneumatic compression devices (APCDs) have been shown to be effective in treatment of lower extremity lymphedema in the home setting. However, adherence to self-care has been poor, and APCD's require patients to remain immobile during treatment. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of a novel non-pneumatic compression device (NPCD) for treating lower extremity lymphedema vs and APCD. METHODS:A randomized, crossover head-to-head study was performed at nine sites in 2023. Patients were randomized to either the NPCD or a commercially available APCD. Patients used the randomly assigned initial device for 28 days with a 4-week washout period before a comparable 28-day use of the second device. RESULTS:A total of 71 patients (108 affected limbs) with lower extremity lymphedema were analyzed. Compared with the APCD, the NPCD was associated with a greater mean reduction in limb edema volume (a mean limb volume reduction of 369.9 (± 68.19) mL p<0.05 vs 83.1 (± 67.99 mL) p<0.05). Significant improvement in Quality of Life was achieved for NPCD and but not for APCD treatment (score improvement of 1.01 (± 0.23) (p<0.05) for NPCD vs 0.17 (± 0.18) (p>0.05) for APCD). Patients reported greater adherence (81% vs 56%, p<0.001) and satisfaction with the NPCD (78% vs 22%) compared to APCD. No device related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS:The novel NPCD is an effective treatment for reducing limb volume in patients with lower extremity lymphedema. The NPCD was more effective than an APCD and resulted in superior limb volume reduction, greater improved QoL, adherence, mobility, and patient satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE:Vascular surgeons are often called upon to provide emergent surgical assistance to other specialties for iatrogenic complications, both intraoperatively and in the inpatient setting. The management of iatrogenic vascular injury remains a critical role of the vascular surgeon, especially in the context of the increasing adoption of percutaneous procedures by other specialties. This study aims to characterize consultation timing, management, and outcomes for iatrogenic vascular injuries. METHODS:This study identified patients for whom vascular surgery was consulted for iatrogenic vascular complications from February 1, 2022, to May 12, 2023. Patient information, including demographic information, injury details, and details of any operative intervention, was retrospectively collected from February 1, 2022, to October 13, 2022, and prospectively collected for the remainder of the study period. Analyses were performed with R (version 2022.02.03). RESULTS:There were 87 patients with consultations related to iatrogenic vascular injury. Of these, 42 (46%) were female and the mean age was 59 years (±18 years). The most common consulting services were cardiology (32%), cardiothoracic surgery (26%), general surgery (8%), and neurointerventional radiology (10%). Reasons for consultation included hemorrhage (36%), limb ischemia (36%), and treatment of pseudoaneurysm (23%). A total of 24% of consults were intraoperative, 20% of consults related to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cannulation, and 16% of consults related to ventricular assist devices including left ventricular assist device and intra-aortic balloon pump. The majority of these consult requests (60%) occurred during evening and night hours (5 PM to 7 AM). Emergent intervention was required in 62% of cases and consisted of primary open surgical repair of arterial injury (54%), endovascular intervention (21%), and open thromboembolectomy (15%). Overall, in-hospital mortality for the patient cohort was 20% and the reintervention rate was 23%, reflecting the underlying complexity of the illness and nature of the vascular injury in this patient group. CONCLUSIONS:Vascular surgeons play an essential role in managing emergent life-threatening hemorrhagic and ischemic iatrogenic vascular complications in the hospitalized setting. The complications require immediate bedside or intraoperative consult and often emergent open surgical or endovascular intervention. Furthermore, many of these require urgent management in the evening or overnight hours, and therefore the high frequency of these events represents a potential significant resource utilization and workforce issue to the vascular surgery workforce.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:In hemodynamically stable patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE), the Composite Pulmonary Embolism Shock (CPES) score predicts normotensive shock. However, it is unknown if CPES predicts adverse clinical outcomes. The objective of this study was to determine whether the CPES score predicts in-hospital mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic deterioration. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Patients with acute intermediate-risk PE admitted from October 2016 to July 2019 were included. CPES was calculated for each patient. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic decompensation. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome. The association of CPES with primary and secondary outcomes was evaluated. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:=0.005). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:In patients with acute intermediate-risk PE, the CPES score effectively risk stratifies and prognosticates patients for the prediction of clinical events and provides incremental value over baseline demographics and European Society of Cardiology intermediate-risk subcategories.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Carotid interventions are indicated for both patients with symptomatic and a subset of patients with severe asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (CAS). Symptomatic CAS accounts for up to 12%-25% of overall carotid interventions, but predictors of symptomatic presentation remain poorly defined. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with symptomatic CAS in our patient population. METHODS:Between January 2015 and February 2022, an institutional retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data on patients undergoing interventions for CAS was performed. Procedures included carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS). Demographic data, comorbidities, procedural details, and anatomic features from various imaging modalities were collected. Comparisons were made between symptomatic (symptoms within the prior 6 months) and asymptomatic patients. RESULTS:< .001), and symptomatic patients with ulcerated plaques more frequently had less than 50% compared to moderate/severe CAS. Nine patients who presented with symptoms had mild CAS and underwent intervention. CONCLUSIONS:Symptomatic CAS was associated with a history of remote prior symptoms and lack of anti-platelet therapy at time of presentation. Furthermore, symptomatic patients not on anti-platelet agents were more likely to have a greater area of parenchymal involvement when presenting with stroke and symptomatic patients with ulcerated plaques were more likely to have mild CAS, suggesting the role of plaque instability in symptomatic presentation. These findings underscore the importance of appropriate medical management and adherence in all patients with CAS and perhaps a role for more frequent surveillance in those with potentially unstable plaque morphology.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Clot-in-transit is associated with high mortality, but optimal management strategies remain uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of different treatment strategies in patients with clot-in-transit. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:This is a retrospective study of patients with documented clot-in-transit in the right heart on echocardiography across 2 institutions between January 2020 and October 2023. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic decompensation. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:=0.067). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:In this study of CBT in patients with clot-in-transit, CBT or systemic thrombolysis was associated with a significantly lower rate of adverse clinical outcomes, including a lower rate of death compared with anticoagulation alone driven by the CBT group. CBT has the potential to improve outcomes. Further large-scale studies are needed to test these associations.

Postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common and costly complication following total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Development of a refined thrombophilic screening panel will better equip clinicians to identify patients at high-est risk for developing VTEs. In this pilot study, 62 high-risk TJA recipients who had developed pulmonary emboli (PE) within 90-days of surgery were eligible to participate. Of these patients, 14 were enrolled and subsequently adminis-tered a pre-determined panel of 18 hematologic tests with the aim of identifying markers that are consistently elevated or deficient in patients developing PE. A separate cohort of seven high-risk TJA recipients who did not report a symp-tomatic VTE within 90-days of surgery were then enrolled and Factor VIII and lipoprotein(a) levels were assessed. The most common aberrance was noted in 10 patients (71.4%) who had elevated levels of Factor VIII followed by five patients (35.7%) who had elevated levels of lipoprotein(a). Factor VIII was significantly prevalent (p < 0.001) while lipoprotein(a) failed to achieve statistical significance (p = 0.0708). Of the patients who were within normal limits of Factor VIII, three-fourths were "high-normal" with Fac-tor VIII levels within 5% of the upper limit of normal. This study demonstrates the potential utility of this hematologic panel as part of a perioperative screening protocol aimed at identifying patients at risk for developing VTEs. However, future larger scale studies assessing the capabilities and limitations of our findings are warranted.

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:Endovenous ablation is the standard of care for patients with symptomatic superficial venous insufficiency. For patients with a history of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), concern exists for an increased risk of postprocedural complications, particularly venous thromboembolism. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endovenous thermal ablation in patients with a history of DVT. METHODS:The national Vascular Quality Initiative Varicose Vein Registry was queried for superficial venous procedures performed from January 2014 to July 2021. Limbs treated with radiofrequency or laser ablation were compared between patients with and without a DVT history. The primary safety end point was incident DVT or endothermal heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) II-IV in the treated limb at <3 months of follow-up. The secondary safety end points included any proximal thrombus extension (ie, EHIT I-IV), major bleeding, hematoma, pulmonary embolism, and death due to the procedure. The primary efficacy end point was technical failure (ie, recanalization at <1 week of follow-up). Secondary efficacy end points included the risk of recanalization over time and the postprocedural change in quality-of-life measures. Outcomes stratified by preoperative use of anticoagulation (AC) were also compared among those with prior DVT. RESULTS:Among 33,892 endovenous thermal ablations performed on 23,572 individual patients aged 13 to 90 years, 1698 patients (7.2%) had a history of DVT. Patients with prior DVT were older (P < .001), had a higher body mass index (P < .001), were more likely to be male at birth (P < .001) and Black/African American (P < .001), and had greater CEAP classifications (P < .001). A history of DVT conferred a higher risk of new DVT (1.4% vs 0.8%; P = .03), proximal thrombus extension (2.3% vs 1.6%; P = .045), and bleeding (0.2% vs 0.04%; P = .03). EHIT II-IV, pulmonary embolism, and hematoma risk did not differ by DVT history (P = NS). No deaths from treatment occurred in either group. Continuing preoperative AC in patients with prior DVT did not change the risk of any complications after endovenous ablation (P = NS) but did confer an increased hematoma risk among all endovenous thermal ablations and surgeries (P = .001). Technical failure was similar between groups (2.0% vs 1.2%; P = .07), although a history of DVT conferred an increased recanalization risk over time (hazard ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.46, 2.46; P < .001). The groups had comparable improvements in postprocedural venous clinical severity scores and Heaviness, Aching, Swelling, Throbbing, and Itching scores (P = NS). CONCLUSIONS:Endovenous thermal ablation for patients with a history of DVT was effective. However, appropriate patient counseling regarding a heightened DVT risk, albeit still low, is critical. The decision to continue or withhold AC preoperatively should be tailored on a case-by-case basis.

Lymphedema and chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) affect millions of people and require lifelong management. Many compression options exist for the long-term management of these conditions; however, limitations in patient mobility and adherence are common. Current options for care often present challenges with adherence because they are time-intensive and cumbersome. Innovation is needed to improve compression options for patients with chronic edematous conditions, particularly because lymphedema and CVI benefit from combination interventions. In this narrative review, the authors focus on long-term management strategies for lymphedema and CVI and highlight a nonpneumatic compression device designed for ease of use in the management of lymphedema and CVI. Using a nonpneumatic compression device that combines multiple treatment modalities demonstrates improved efficacy, quality of life, and patient adherence.