Search

Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is a dreaded complication of thoracic and complex endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR/cEVAR). Controversy exists surrounding cerebrospinal fluid drain (CSFD) use, especially preoperative prophylactic placement, owing to concerns regarding catheter-related complications. However, these risks are balanced by the widely accepted benefits of CSFDs during open repair to prevent and/or rescue patients with SCI. The importance of this issue is underscored by the paucity of data on CSFD practice patterns, limiting the development of practice guidelines. Therefore, the purpose of the present analysis was to evaluate the differences between patients who developed SCI despite preoperative CSFD placement and those treated with therapeutic postoperative CSFD placement.All elective TEVAR/cEVAR procedures for degenerative aneurysm pathology in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative from 2014 to 2019 were analyzed. CSFD use over time, the factors associated with preoperative prophylactic vs postoperative therapeutic CSFD placement in patients with SCI (transient or permanent), and outcomes were evaluated. Survival differences were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.A total of 3406 TEVAR/cEVAR procedures met the inclusion criteria, with an overall SCI rate of 2.3% (n = 88). The SCI rate decreased from 4.55% in 2014 to 1.43% in 2018. Prophylactic preoperative CSFD use was similar over time (2014, 30%; vs 2018, 27%; P = .8). After further exclusions to evaluate CSFD use in those who had developed SCI, 72 patients were available for analysis, 48 with SCI and prophylactic CSFD placement and 24 with SCI and therapeutic CSFD placement. Specific to SCI, the patient demographics and comorbidities were not significantly different between the prophylactic and therapeutic groups, with the exception of previous aortic surgery, which was more common in the prophylactic CSFD cohort (46% vs 23%; P .001). The SCI outcome was significantly worse for the therapeutic group because 79% had documented permanent paraplegia at discharge compared with 54% of the prophylactic group (P = .04). SCI patients receiving a postoperative therapeutic CSFD had had worse survival than those with a preoperative prophylactic CSFD (50% ± 10% vs 71% ± 9%; log-rank P = .1; Wilcoxon P = .05).Prophylactic CSFD use with TEVAR/cEVAR remained stable during the study period. Of the SCI patients, postoperative therapeutic CSFD placement was associated with worse sustained neurologic outcomes and overall survival compared with preoperative prophylactic CSFD placement. These findings highlight the need for a randomized clinical trial to examine prophylactic vs therapeutic CSFD placement in association with TEVAR/cEVAR.

A pseudoaneurysm of the proximal right brachial artery is rare, with most caused by penetrating or blunt trauma. We report the case of a 41-day-old patient with a large iatrogenic pseudoaneurysm of the right brachial artery that had been induced by a puncture lesion during peripherally inserted central catheter placement for treatment of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. The patient was successfully treated with a multidisciplinary approach, that consisted of direct excision of the pseudoaneurysm, followed by microvascular direct anastomosis. The patient was discharged with no complications, and complete exclusion of the pseudoaneurysm was confirmed at the 2-year follow-up examination.

Enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) have gained wide acceptance across multiple surgical disciplines to improve postoperative outcomes and to decrease hospital length of stay (LOS). However, there is limited information in the existing literature for vascular patients. We describe the implementation and early results of an ERP and barriers to its implementation for lower extremity bypass surgery. Our intention is to provide a framework to assist with implementation of similar ERPs.Using the plan, do, check, adjust methodology, a multidisciplinary team was assembled. A database was used to collect information on patient-, procedure-, and ERP-specific metrics. We then retrospectively analyzed patients' demographics and outcomes.During 9 months, an ERP (n = 57) was successfully developed and implemented spanning preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases. ERP and non-ERP patient demographics were statistically similar. Early successes include 97% use of fascia iliaca block and multimodal analgesia administration in 81%. Barriers included only 47% of patients achieving day of surgery mobilization and 19% receiving celecoxib preoperatively. ERP patients had decreased total and postoperative LOS compared with non-ERP patients (n = 190) with a mean (standard deviation) total LOS of 8.32 (8.4) days vs 11.14 (10.1) days (P = .056) and postoperative LOS of 6.12 (6.02) days vs 7.98 (7.52) days (P = .089). There was significant decrease in observed to expected postoperative LOS (1.28 [0.66] vs 1.82 [1.38]; P = .005). Variable and total costs for ERP patients were significantly reduced ($13,208 [$9930] vs $18,777 [$19,118; P .01] and $29,865 [$22,110] vs $40,328 [$37,820; P = .01], respectively).Successful implementation of ERP for lower extremity bypass carries notable challenges but can have a significant impact on practice patterns. Further adjustment of our current protocol is anticipated, but early results are promising. Implementation of a vascular surgery ERP reduced variable and total costs and decreased total and postoperative LOS. We believe this protocol can easily be implemented at other institutions using the pathway outlined.

In this study, pre-operative medical complexity is estimated by the independently validated Vascular Quality Initiative VQI Cardiac Risk Index (CRI). This study aims to identify and correlate trends of CRI for open abdominal aortic aneurysm (OAR) with trends in the CRI for corresponding endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). This assessment of differences in estimated procedural risks will be used to support the theory that, patient migration is an important factor contributing to decreased POMI following open vascular procedures.A retrospective review of VQI data from 2003 to 2020 for all patients undergoing elective aortic repairs (OAR and EVAR) was conducted. The CRI scoring developed for the open repair (oCRI) was applied to both the OAR and EVAR cohorts, with variables specific to EVAR translated from similar open repair factors in the model where feasible. To evaluate for changes across time, patients were grouped into Eras based on year of procedure, subsequently, univariate analysis of post-operative myocardial infarction (POMI) rates and CRI scores were perfomed between each era.A total of 56,067 elective aortic repairs were identified (83% EVAR, 17% OAR). Within the OAR cohort, the average oCRI estimate was 7.1% with significant decrease across the studied timeframe (8% ± 4.6%→6.9% ± 4.4%, P 0.001), which corresponded to a significant decrease in observed clinical myocardial infarction (MI) rate (4.1%→1.4%, P 0.001). Over that same time period, the open CRI was applied to the EVAR cohort, and the average oCRI estimate was 7.2% and showed a significant increase (6.6% ± 2.8%→7.2% ± 4.4%, P 0.001). Within the EVAR cohort, the eCRI estimate did not show any significant changes over time (average 0.48%), while the actual rate of clinical MI showed a significant decrease (1.1%→0.3%, P = 0.002). Gap analysis was conducted within the EVAR cohort between CRI estimates of procedural risks from an open operation versus an EVAR, which demonstrated that patients within the EVAR cohort would, on an average, has had 6.7% higher risk of POMI had they undergone an open procedure.Paradigm shifts with regard to patient selection for aortic repair is evident within this large national cohort. Over time, OAR patients had fewer preoperative estimated cardiac comorbidities and there is a corresponding decrease in POMI rates. As high-risk patients migrate from OAR to EVAR, there has been a subsequent increase in EVAR estimated pre-operative risks as the patients become more medically high-risk. Despite increasing complexity, rates of POMI in EVAR significantly decreased, potentially explained by improved operative technique and peri-operative care.

OBJECTIVES: Statin therapy has been associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients undergoing treatment for vascular disease. Current guidelines do not address statin therapy in isolated abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in the absence of other atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). This study aims to elucidate effects of statin therapy, either as monotherapy or combined with antiplatelet agents, on the long-term mortality of patients with and without ASCVD who undergo elective AAA repair. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on all AAA patients treated electively with endovascular (EVAR) and open aortic repair (OAR) in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative from 2003–2020. Long-term mortality was evaluated based on the presence of statin and antiplatelet medication use at discharge stratified by those with and without a history of ASCVD. Unadjusted survival was estimated by Kaplan Meier methodology. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to determine mortality risk after adjusting for key factors. RESULTS: A total of 47,012 AAA repairs were selected for analysis: 80.7% EVAR (N=40,153) and 19.3% OAR (N=6,859). EVAR patients on combined statin/antiplatelet (AP) therapy had significantly better survival irrespective of whether they had known ASCVD. In the presence of ASCVD, EVAR patients on statin alone had improved survival compared to those not on a statin (10.9±0.5 vs 10.5±0.4 years, Log Rank

Statin use is recommended in all patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) owing to its morbidity and mortality benefits. However, the effect of statin use on limb salvage in patients with PAD after intervention is unclear. We examined the effect of statin use on limb salvage and survival among patients with PAD undergoing surgical or endovascular intervention.A total of 488 patients with PAD were identified who underwent surgical (n = 297) or endovascular (n = 191) intervention between 2009 and 2010. Information was collected from electronic medical records and the Social Security Death Index. Predictors of ongoing statin use were identified first by univariate analysis and then via multivariable logistic regression. Survival and freedom from amputation were identified using Kaplan-Meier plots and adjusted hazard ratios by Cox regression.Of the 488 patients with PAD with intervention, 39% were non-whites, 44% were females, 41% received statins, 56% received antiplatelets, 26% received oral anticoagulants, 9% required a major amputation, and 11% died during follow-up of up to 88 months. Statin users were more often male (P = .03), white (P = .03), smokers (P .01), and had higher comorbidities such as coronary artery disease (P .01), hypertension (P .01), and diabetes (P .01). Antiplatelet use was not associated with limb salvage (P = .13), but did improve survival (P .01). Dual antiplatelet therapy did not show any benefit over monotherapy for limb salvage (P = .4) or survival (P = .3). Statin use was associated with improved survival (P = .04), and improved limb salvage (hazard ratio, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.7) after adjusting for severity of disease, traditional risk factors, and concurrent antiplatelet use.Statin use in patients with PAD with interventions was associated with improved limb salvage and survival. Despite existing guidelines, statin therapy was low in our PAD population, and efforts are ongoing to increase their use across the health care system.

This Practice Guidelines document has been co-published in Phlebology [DOI: 10.1177/0268355521999559] and Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders [DOI: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2020.12.084]. The publications are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal’s style. The contribution has been published under a Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) With the support of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Vein & Lymphatic Society, the American Venous Forum, the Canadian Society of Phlebology, the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society of Europe, the European Venous Forum, the International Pelvic Pain Society, the International Union of Phlebology, the Korean Society of Interventional Radiology, the Society of Interventional Radiology, and the Society for Vascular Surgery As the importance of pelvic venous disorders (PeVD) has been increasingly recognized, progress in the field has been limited by the lack of a valid and reliable classification instrument. Misleading historical nomenclature, such as the May-Thurner, pelvic congestion, and nutcracker syndromes, often fails to recognize the interrelationship of many pelvic symptoms and their underlying pathophysiology. Based on a perceived need, the American Vein and Lymphatic Society convened an international, multidisciplinary panel charged with the development of a discriminative classification instrument for PeVD. This instrument, the Symptoms-Varices-Pathophysiology (“SVP”) classification for PeVD, includes three domains—Symptoms (S), Varices (V), and Pathophysiology (P), with the pathophysiology domain encompassing the Anatomic (A), Hemodynamic (H), and Etiologic (E) features of the patient’s disease. An individual patient’s classification is designated as SVPA,H,E. For patients with pelvic origin lower extremity signs or symptoms, the SVP instrument is complementary to and should be used in conjunction with the Clinical-Etiologic-Anatomic-Physiologic (CEAP) classification. The SVP instrument accurately defines the diverse patient populations with PeVD, an important step in improving clinical decision making, developing disease-specific outcome measures and identifying homogenous patient populations for clinical trials.

Vascular surgery has seen rapid increase in the use of less invasive endovascular therapies along with advancements in cardiac perioperative optimization in the past 2 decades. However, a recent American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database study found no improvement in postoperative myocardial infarction (POMI) over a 10-year period in high-risk procedures. The national Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry provides a more in-depth characterization of vascular surgery procedures. Here, we sought to evaluate long-term trends in POMI using VQI registry data for patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA), thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (oAAA), suprainguinal bypass (SIB), and infrainguinal bypass (IIB).A retrospective cohort study was performed using data on elective procedures from 2003 to 2017. Procedures were subdivided by date of operation into 3-year era consecutive groups for subanalysis (2003-05, 2006-08, 2009-11, 2012-14, and 2015-17). The incidence of POMI, preoperative risk factors (including individual patient VQI cardiac risk index (CRI)), and demographics were determined over time.A total of 227,837 elective procedures were identified: CEA (n = 88,805, 39.0%), TEVAR (n = 7,494, 3.3%), EVAR (n = 34,376, 15.1%), oAAA (n = 7,568, 3.3%), SIB (n = 11,354, 5.0%), and IIB (n = 34,661, 15.2%). Across all procedures, the overall rate of POMI was 1.3%. POMI rates from 2003-05 to 2015-17 for CEA decreased from 0.9% to 0.7% (P = 0.21), EVAR from 2.0% to 0.7%, P = 0.003, oAAA from 6.8% to 5.1% (P = 0.12), and IIB from 3.8% to 2.4% (P = 0.003). SIB POMI decreased from 3.06% to 2.95%, P = 0.85 from 2009 to 17. While POMI after TEVAR increased from 2.40% to 2.56% from 2009 to 17, P = 0.91. Over these same time periods, only EVAR and IIB had a reduction in CRIs (P = 0.059 and P 0.001, respectively). CEA, EVAR, IIB, and oAAA all showed a significant (P 0.001) increase in preoperative statin use.Except for TEVAR, the incidence of POMI has remained unchanged or decreased over the past 15 years in VQI registries. Patients undergoing IIB and EVAR demonstrated decreases in POMI rates that correspond with a reduction in CRIs and increased preoperative statin use. CEA and SIB had no significant change in POMI rates nor CRIs. The etiology of decreased POMI rate is uncertain, but increasing statin use, patient-specific factors, and patient selection for procedures may be important drivers of this improvement.

Objective Thoracofemoral bypass (TFB) is used infrequently but is an alternative for selective patients with aortoiliac occlusive disease. There is limited data in the existing literature regarding TFB, with all studies being small, single-center series. We aim to describe perioperative and long-term survival, patency, and rate of major perioperative complications following TFB in a large national registry. Methods The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) suprainguinal bypass module was used to identify patients undergoing TFB for occlusive disease from 2009-2019. A descriptive analysis was performed to provide rates of survival, patency, major complications, and freedom from major amputation in the perioperative period and at 1-year follow up. Major complications were compared by procedure indication with categorical variables analyzed using chi-square tests while continuous variables were analyzed using ANOVA. Kaplan Meier curve analysis was used to estimate survival at 1 and 5-year follow up intervals as well as freedom from major amputation at 1 year. Results There were 154 TFB procedures identified. Fifty-nine patients (38.3%) had prior inflow bypass while 22 patients (14.2%) had prior leg bypass. Procedure indications included claudication (42.9%, n=66), rest pain (38.3%, n=59), tissue loss (12.3%, n=19), and acute limb ischemia (6.5%, n=10). Major complication (wound infection, respiratory, major stroke, new dialysis, cardiac, embolic, major amputation, occlusion) occurred in 31.2% of the cohort, and when examined by indication, acute limb ischemia and claudication cohorts had increased rate of major complication (acute limb ischemia: 60.0%, claudication: 34.8%, critical limb ischemia: 24.4%; p=.05). Survival at 30 days was 95.5% with Kaplan Meier estimated 1-year survival of 92.7% ± 2.2%. Primary patency at discharge from the index hospitalization was 92.9% and 89.0% at 1 year. Postoperative major amputation occurred in 1 patient during index hospitalization with Kaplan Meier estimated freedom from major amputation at 1-year follow up of 97.1% ± 2.2%. Two patients developed in-hospital bypass occlusion and 3 additional patients had occlusion occurring within 1 year for an overall freedom from occlusion rate of 96.8% at 1 year. Conclusion Thoracofemoral bypass is associated with a high rate of perioperative major complications; however, long-term survival and patency following the procedure remain acceptable when performed for limb salvage. High perioperative complication rates of TFB procedures performed for claudication suggest this procedure should be used rarely in this population. These data can be used to counsel patients and aid in decision making prior to operative intervention.

Traditional open surgical repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) has historically resulted in 30-day mortality rates ranging from 6% to 20%, depending on the Crawford anatomic extent. Although short-term survival is important, long-term survival is essential for patients to benefit from these often elective and potentially morbid procedures. The aneurysm extent affects the long-term survival after open repair; however, effect on endovascular repair is unknown and could influence the decision process for repair. We evaluated the association between aneurysm extent and survival and identified patient and perioperative factors associated with mortality after endovascular repair.A retrospective cohort of patients treated for TAAAs recorded in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative thoracic and complex endovascular aneurysm repair registry were evaluated. All patients treated for asymptomatic degenerative aneurysms from 2010 to 2019 were included. Crawford extent I to V was defined according to the proximal and distal landing zones documented in the registry. Patients without extension into the visceral aorta were used for comparison and categorized as having extent 0a or 0b, depending on the distal landing zone in the thoracic aorta. Kaplan-Meier plots were used to estimate survival, and Cox proportional hazard regression models were created to identify the predictors of mortality.From 2010 to 2019, 15,333 patients were entered into the registry, of whom 2062 met the inclusion criteria. The Crawford extent was 0a for 379, 0b for 848, I for 81, II for 98, III for 130, IV for 454, and V for 72. Three groups were created in accordance with the similar outcomes noted on a preliminary analysis: (1) extent 0a and 0b; (2) extent I, II, and III; and (3) extent IV and V. The mean survival time for the extent 0a and 0b group was 70.7 ± 1.43 months and was 48.6 ± 1.65 months for the extent I, II, and III group and 57.6 ± 1.24 months for the extent IV and V group. The corresponding 1-year mortality was 8.4%, 18.4%, and 7.8%. Cox regression analysis identified the following preoperative factors were associated with mortality: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.70; P .001), Crawford extent I to III (OR, 1.64; P = .015), preexisting chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.37; P = .024), and age per year (OR, 1.03; P .001). A number of postoperative factors were also associated with mortality.Similar to open TAAA repair, patients with more extensive aortic disease treated with endovascular repair had worse 1-year and long-term survival. The extent of aortic disease and anticipated postoperative survival should factor prominently into the surgical decision-making process for elective endovascular TAAA repair.

Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes of iliac vein stents placed for iliocaval venous obstruction (ICVO) and to determine if routine follow-up surveillance is warranted on the basis of timing of stent failure. Methods All patients who underwent iliac vein stenting from 2003 to 2015 were identified from a prospectively maintained registry. Demographics of the patients, venous risk factors, prior venous interventions, indications, imaging, anatomic location of the ICVO, operative findings, procedural success, complications, and clinical follow-up were recorded. Clinical and ultrasound surveillance was performed at first postoperative follow-up and at routine subsequent intervals. Continuous data were analyzed with Student t-tests or Mann-Whitney U test, and frequency data were analyzed with χ2 analysis or Fisher exact test. Primary patency was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Results Seventy-four limbs in 70 patients who underwent iliac vein stenting for ICVO were identified; 36 limbs (48.6%) were stented for nonthrombotic venous compression (stent-VC), and 38 limbs (51.4%) were stented for venous thrombosis (stent-VT). Twenty-seven limbs (71.1%) of the stent-VT group were treated for acute venous thrombosis requiring lysis followed by stenting for underlying venous lesions. The median number of follow-up visits for the stent-VC and stent-VT groups was two (interquartile range [IQR], 1-4) and two (IQR, 1-3), whereas the mean length of follow-up was 19.6 ± 29.5 months and 19.8 ± 26.5 months (P = .972), respectively. During the first 6 months, one limb (2.8% [n = 36]) in the stent-VC group occluded, whereas 13.2% (5/38) of the limbs in the stent-VT group occluded. In the stent-VT group, 57% of limbs (4 of 7) with acute venous thrombosis requiring thrombolytic therapy had limb occlusion at >6 months (median, 18.1 months; IQR, 16.6-30.1). Overall patency rates for the stent-VC and stent-VT groups were 97.2% (1/36) and 73.7% (10/38) at 36 months (standard error, ≤10%; P = .001), respectively. Conclusions Iliac vein stents placed for nonthrombotic iliac vein compression had statistically higher patency than those placed for venous thrombosis, with few stent failures, all occurring within 6 months. Iliac vein stents placed for venous thrombosis continued with stent failure after 6 months and may benefit from extended surveillance.

The CEAP (Clinical-Etiology-Anatomy-Pathophysiology) classification is an internationally accepted standard for describing patients with chronic venous disorders and it has been used for reporting clinical research findings in scientific journals. Developed in 1993, updated in 1996, and revised in 2004, CEAP is a classification system based on clinical manifestations of chronic venous disorders, on current understanding of the etiology, the involved anatomy, and the underlying venous pathology. As the evidence related to these aspects of venous disorders, and specifically of chronic venous diseases (CVD, C2-C6) continue to develop, the CEAP classification needs periodic analysis and revisions. In May of 2017, the American Venous Forum created a CEAP Task Force and charged it to critically analyze the current classification system and recommend revisions, where needed. Guided by four basic principles (preservation of the reproducibility of CEAP, compatibility with prior versions, evidence-based, and practical for clinical use), the Task Force has adopted the revised Delphi process and made several changes. These changes include adding Corona phlebectatica as the C4c clinical subclass, introducing the modifier "r" for recurrent varicose veins and recurrent venous ulcers, and replacing numeric descriptions of the venous segments by their common abbreviations. This report describes all these revisions and the rationale for making these changes.

Prior studies have evaluated the effects of statin and antiplatelet agent (APA) medications on patients with peripheral arterial disease. Although the benefits of statin and APA use are well-described, there is a paucity of research into the specific outcomes of patients who are not compliant or those who are unable to take the medication owing to intolerance. Here we examine the outcomes of patients intolerant to statin and APA and compare them with patients who are compliant or noncompliant with these therapies.Patients treated from 2005 to 2018 in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry were included. Patients with missing data or deaths within 30 days of procedure were removed. Patients were considered noncompliant if they were previously prescribed a medication at discharge but were not taking it at 1-year follow-up or if the patient was reported to be noncompliant in the registry. Medication intolerance was defined if listed as "no, for medical reasons," and mortality data were ascertained using the Social Security Death Index, which is regularly cross-referenced to the Vascular Quality Initiative registry.We identified 105,628 patients who met our inclusion criteria. Statin intolerance was noted in 2.3% at discharge and 2.1% at the 1-year follow-up, with 0.7% listed as intolerant at all stages. Factors associated with increased risk of intolerance to statins included female gender (P = .001), discharge APA intolerance (P = .004), insurance status (non-U.S. insurance) (P .001), discharge APA noncompliance (P = .019), and discharge angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor noncompliance (P = .005). Patients who were compliant with statins showed a 91% survival at 5 years vs 87% survival in noncompliant patients and 87% in intolerant patients at 5 years (P .001). Patients with statin intolerance have a similar survival curve as noncompliant patients across all registry cohorts. Noncompliance with statins was correlated with noncompliance with APA medications (R = 0.16, P .001). Factors associated with increased risk of statin noncompliance included preoperative ambulatory status (requiring assistance) (P = .039), female sex (P .001), peripheral vascular intervention (P .001) or infrainguinal open bypass procedure surgery (P = .001), discharge status (to nursing home) (P = .006) and insurance (self-pay) (P .001).Patients not taking statin and APA medications have a substantially decreased 5-year survival irrespective of the reason for not taking. Importantly, patients noted to be intolerant have a similar survival curve as noncompliant patients across all registry cohorts. Intolerant patients may benefit from attempts to alter statin dose, type (hydrophilic vs lipophilic), or from newer agents such as PCSK9 inhibitors.

Objective Patients with vascular disease often have multisystem atherosclerosis and multiple comorbidities requiring comprehensive interdisciplinary specialty care. Consultation is a critical component of a tertiary vascular surgery practice, but analysis of this service is under-reported in the literature. After-hours inpatient consultations and interhospital transfers are associated with urgent patient care. Methods A retrospective analysis of vascular surgery consultations was carried out from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2013. Consultations included inpatient services, the emergency department, surgical and medical intensive care unit, and interhospital transfers. Data analysis included number of consults, time of consultation (during hours, 0700-1859; after hours, 1900-0659), referring service, nature, and outcome of consultation. Consultations were then classified as urgent if vascular surgical intervention was required as an intraoperative consultation, within 24 hours, or during the same hospitalization. Patients without a same-hospital vascular surgical intervention were classified as nonurgent. Results During a 1-year period, 823 independent consult requests of 749 patients were analyzed. It was found that 57.8% of after-hours consults resulted in urgent patient care ( P = .003); 29.7% of medicine, 33.3% of medical intensive care unit, 41.9% of trauma surgery, and 60% of emergency department after-hours consultations were urgent; 73% of surgery and 79.2% of interhospital after-hours consults required urgent vascular surgical intervention. Extremity ischemia, aortic disease, and iatrogenic consults accounted for 44.8%, 20.4%, and 11.1% of after-hours consults, with 57.9%, 56.4%, and 70% requiring urgent vascular surgical intervention, respectively. Conclusions After-hours consultations are not always associated with an urgent vascular surgical intervention. Nonurgent after-hours consultations are requested more frequently from some services and may present an opportunity for education that could improve workflow of the vascular workforce.

Objective Coverage of celiac artery (CA) during thoracic endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (TEVAR) has been performed to extend the distal seal zone for which preliminary results and short-term follow-up have been reported. We aim to show the outcomes up to 81 months after CA coverage during TEVAR. Methods Patients undergoing TEVAR with coverage of the CA origin from 2005 to 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. Points of analysis include indications for covering the CA, demonstration of collateral circulation between the CA and superior mesenteric artery (SMA), anatomic features of the distal landing zone, rate of reintervention, technical success, presence of clinical ischemic symptoms after the procedure, and mortality. Results During the 9-year period, 366 patients underwent TEVAR, 18 (5%) of whom had CA coverage. Eleven (61%) had TEVAR with CA coverage due to a thoracic aneurysm, three (17%) had thoracic aortic dissection related to aneurysm, and four (22%) had previous TEVAR with a type Ib endoleak (EL) requiring distal coverage. Mesenteric angiography in preparation for TEVAR with CA coverage diagnosed a critical SMA stenosis in one patient that was treated with stenting before the index procedure. At the conclusion of the indicated procedure, two patients (11%) had a type Ia EL and two patients (11%) had a type Ib EL. Three of the type I ELs required reintervention. Two patients (11%) had a type II EL, both of which were managed with observation and resolved. Reintervention was required in 27% of patients. Postoperative complications included visceral ischemia in 2 (11%), weight loss in 1 (5%), spinal cord ischemia in 2 (11%), a cerebrovascular event in 1 (6%), and death in 1 (6%). The mean follow-up period was 38 months (range, 0.5-81 months). Conclusions This analysis of outcomes up to 81 months supports the suitability of covering the CA in selected patients for extending the distal landing zone to the visceral aortic level above the SMA or when alternative branch vessel treatment is unavailable. Preoperative angiographic evaluation of the mesenteric collaterals and early postoperative surveillance may limit postoperative complications. Once the CA is covered, new symptoms do not develop unless the SMA is compromised.

Introduction. Infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair warrants lifelong surveillance. Secondary aortic intervention (SAI) outcomes may be affected by the therapeutic approach. We compared short- and long-term mortality in patients who underwent SAIs after initial aortic repair, either endovascular (EVAR) or open. Methods. Patients who underwent AAA repair between 1986 and 2010 were retrospectively identified in a vascular surgery database as well as those who underwent SAIs. All-cause mortality and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were calculated. Results. We identified 149 patients who underwent either open AAA repair or EVAR followed by open or endovascular SAI. Seventy-seven patients (51.7%) underwent initial EVAR while 72 patients (48.3%) underwent open repair. Sixty (78%) initial EVAR patients underwent secondary EVAR while 17 (22%) patients had an open SAI. Initial open repair patients were evenly distributed between EVAR and open SAIs. Compared to EVAR, patients who underwent initial open repair had longer intervals between primary aortic interventions (PAIs) and SAIs. Multivariable-adjusted all-cause mortality was significantly higher for patients who underwent initial open AAA repair followed by EVAR when compared to patients who underwent endovascular PAI and SAI. Conclusion. Long-term mortality in patients with infrarenal aortic aneurysms who require SAI may be improved by an EVAR-first algorithm.

The Wound, Ischemia, and foot Infection (WIfI) classification system was created to encompass demographic changes and expanding techniques of revascularization to perform meaningful analyses of outcomes in the treatment of the threatened limb. The WIfI index is intended to be analogous to the TNM staging system for cancer, with restaging to be done after control of infection and after revascularization. Our goal was to evaluate the effectiveness of WIfI restaging after therapy in the prediction of limb outcomes.Preoperative WIfI scoring was performed prospectively for all critical limb ischemia patients who underwent revascularization from January 2014 to June 2015. WIfI restaging and assessment of outcomes were performed retrospectively through August 2016. WIfI classification was determined at the following intervals: preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and 1 month and 6 months after intervention. Amputation-free survival (AFS) was the primary end point. Kaplan-Meier plot analysis and comparisons of preoperative grades with respective postoperative grades were performed using paired t-test, χA total of 180 limbs and 172 critical limb ischemia patients underwent revascularization, of which 29 limbs had major amputations (16%). Wound grades generally improved after surgery across the entire cohort. Major amputation was associated with preoperative wound grade and remained associated with wound grade at postoperative restaging at 1 month and beyond on the basis of amputation frequency analysis (preoperatively, 1 month, and 6 months, P = .03, .001, and .001, respectively). Wound grade was significantly associated with AFS at 1 month and 6 months after intervention (log-rank, P .001 for restaging intervals). Ischemia grades improved initially with a slight decline across the cohort at 6 months. Ischemia grade at 1 month postoperatively was associated with AFS (log-rank, P = .03). Foot infection grades also improved at each time interval. Foot infection grade was associated with AFS at 1 month postoperatively (log-rank, P .001) and at 6 months (log-rank, P = .017).WIfI restaging is an important tool for predicting limb loss and assessing adequacy of intervention, more so than baseline WIfI alone. The 1- and 6-month postoperative ischemia grade correlated with AFS, whereas preoperative grade did not. The 1- and 6-month postoperative wound and foot infection grades additionally correlated with AFS. WIfI restaging at 1 month and 6 months postoperatively may help identify a cohort that remains at higher risk for limb loss and may merit more expeditious reintervention.

Background: Statin use is recommended in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) due to its morbidity and mortality benefits. However, the effect of statins on limb salvage in PAD is unclear. We examined the effect of statins on survival and limb salvage among PAD patients undergoing surgical or endovascular intervention. Methods: PAD patients were identified who underwent intervention between 2009 and 2010. Information was collected from electronic medical records and the Social Security Death Index. Univariate analysis was used to determine predictors of ongoing statin use. Survival and freedom from amputation were determined using KM plots and adjusted hazard ratios by Cox regression. Results: A total of 488 PAD patients underwent surgical (n=297) or endovascular (n=191) intervention. 39% were African-American, 44% were female, 41% received statins, 56% received antiplatelet medications, 26% received oral anticoagulants, 9% required a major amputation, and 11% died during follow-up of up to 88 months. Statin users were more often male (p=0.03), caucasian (p=0.03), smokers (p Conclusion: Statin use in PAD patients with interventions was associated with improved limb-salvage and survival. Despite existing guidelines, statin therapy was disappointingly low in our PAD population, and efforts will be made to increase use across our health system.

Background Bedside inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) placement by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance has previously been shown to be a safe and effective technique, especially for critically ill patients, with initial experience of a prospectively implemented algorithm. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of IVUS-guided filter placement in critically ill patients with experience now extending out 5 years from implementation. Methods All patients undergoing bedside IVUS-guided IVCF placement from 2008 to 2012 were identified. Records were reviewed on the basis of IVCF reporting standards. Outcomes data including technical success, complications, and mortality were analyzed at 30 days. Results During the 5-year period, 398 patients underwent attempted bedside IVCF placement by IVUS. Technical feasibility was possible in 396 cases (99.5%); two bedside procedures were aborted because of inadequate IVUS visualization. Overall technical success was achieved in 393 of 396 (99.2%), with malpositioned IVCF in three cases. An optional IVCF was used in 372 (93.9%) and a permanent IVCF in 24 (6.1%). Single-puncture technique was performed in 388 (97.4%); additional dual access was required in 10 (2.6%). Periprocedural complications were rare (3.0%) and included malpositioning that required retrieval and repositioning or an additional IVCF (3), filter tilt ≥20 degrees (4), arteriovenous fistulas (2), insertion site thrombosis (2), and hematoma (1). Comparison of the first 100 procedures performed within the sample population with the last 100 procedures revealed an overall success rate of 96% in the first 100 compared with 100% in the last 100 (P = .043). There were no deaths related to pulmonary embolism or IVCF-related problems. Conclusions On the basis of 5 years of experience with bedside IVCF placement in critically ill patients, the IVUS-guided IVCF technique continues to be a safe and effective option in this high-risk population, with a time-dependent improvement in outcome measures.

Size threshold for operative repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) has been determined based on risks and outcomes of open repair vs surveillance. The influence of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) on this threshold is less established. The purpose of this study is to determine whether long-term outcomes following EVAR are affected by maximum diameter at the time of treatment.Patients undergoing EVAR with modular stent grafts from 2000 to 2011 were identified from a prospectively maintained database and stratified by maximum aortic diameter at the time of repair: small (4.0-4.9 cm), medium (5.0-5.9 cm), and large (≥6.0 cm). Comparisons of demographics, indications for repair, perioperative complications, and long-term outcomes were made using analysis of variance, χ(2), and Kaplan-Meier plots.Seven hundred forty patients were identified: 157 (21.2%) small, 374 (50.5%) medium, and 209 (28.2%) large. Patients differed by mean age (69.3 ± 8.09, 71.7 ± 8.55, and 73.6 ± 8.77 years for small, medium, and large, respectively; P .001), coronary artery disease (42% small, 57% medium, 51.2% large; P = .01), prior coronary angioplasty (14.6% small, 18.2% medium, 9.6% large; P = .02), congestive heart failure (5.7% small, 15.2% medium, 19.6% large; P = .01), prior vascular surgery (7% small, 15.8% medium, 10% large; P = .016), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (21% small, 27% medium, 33% large; P = .038). Small AAAs were more frequently symptomatic (19.7% small, 7.5% medium, 8.1% large; P .001). There was no difference in perioperative complication rates (P = .399), expansion ≥5 mm (2.6% small, 5.6% medium, 7.2% large; P = .148), or all-type endoleak (40.8% small, 41.7% medium, 44.5% large; P = .73). Small AAAs developed fewer type I endoleaks (5.1% vs 6.95% medium and 14.8% large; P = .001). Compared with small AAAs, both medium (P = .39) and large (P .001) required secondary intervention more frequently, with hazard ratios of 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.045-5.156) and 4.74 (95% confidence interval, 2.115-10.637), respectively. Ten-year survival was 72%, 63.1%, and 49.8% in the small, medium, and large groups, respectively (P .001) with one rupture-related death after EVAR in the large group. All-cause mortality differed among the 75- to 84-year-old patients (30.4% small, 51.6% medium, 55.7% large; P = .017).EVAR for small AAAs shows improved long-term outcomes than for age-matched patients with larger aneurysms.

Background Lipid-modifying drug therapy (LMDT) is recommended in all patients having coronary or noncoronary atherosclerotic disease. However, the effect of LMDT after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, especially in the absence of other atherosclerotic manifestations, is unclear. We examined the distribution of prevalence of LMDT among patients undergoing AAA repair and its effect on survival in the presence and absence of other atherosclerotic diseases. Methods We identified patients treated at University of Alabama at Birmingham between 1985 and 2010 who had a prior AAA repair. Information was collected from health system medical charts, medical communication, and national death indices. We assessed the predictors of prevalence of LMDT by univariate analysis using t -test for continuous and χ 2 test for categorical variables, and then performed multivariate logistic regression. The survival was determined using Kaplan-Meier plots, and adjusted hazard ratios were calculated using Cox proportion regression. Results A total of 2063 patients underwent AAA repair procedure. Of these, 9% were African-American, and 20% were female. Thirty-five percent received LMDT, and 32% died during the follow-up period of up to 240 months. Significant predictors for being on LMDT included white race (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.2), presence of other atherosclerotic disease or diabetes (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.9-3.0), hypertension (OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 3.1-5.2), smoking (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.1), and endovascular AAA repair (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.5-2.3). LMDT was associated with improved survival (hazard ratio, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.8) after controlling for traditional risk factors, diabetes, and other atherosclerotic diseases. Conclusions LMDT after AAA is associated with an increased survival compared with patients who were not using drug therapy for dyslipidemia. Aggressive management of dyslipidemia should be considered in all patients undergoing AAA repair irrespective of other atherosclerotic disease status and risk factor profile.

The Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) was designed and validated as an objective measure of disease severity in patients with chronic venous disease (CVD). Recently, a revision of the VCSS (rVCSS) was performed to resolve ambiguity in the clinical descriptors and improve clarity and ease of use. This new revised VCSS requires validation to determine its repeatability and reproducibility in clinical evaluation of patients with varying levels of CVD.A prospective multicenter protocol was designed to enroll patients undergoing evaluation for CVD at venous practices with experience using the original VCSS. At the time of initial evaluation, two clinicians independently assessed both lower extremities to determine the rVCSS and the CEAP clinical score. Between 1 and 6 weeks, patients returned and received repeat assessment of the rVCSS by the same two clinicians independently. Patients were excluded if any venous intervention occurred between the two separate evaluation visits. Scores were compared to determine inter- and intra-observer variability overall and within each CEAP clinical class.Seven centers enrolled a total of 136 limbs yielding 248 paired evaluations for interobserver variability and 258 paired evaluations for intraobserver variability. The mean interobserver rVCSS difference was 1.4 ± 1.7 and the mean intraobserver variability was 1.3 ± 1.6. Statistical assessment with weighted kappa yielded good repeatability (κ = 0.68; P .0001) and good reproducibility (κ = 0.72; P .000001) for the rVCSS. The rVCSS correlated well with the CEAP clinical class with significant differences between rVCSS in increasing classes. (P .0001).In this multicenter evaluation, the rVCSS was demonstrated to be a reliable and reproducible instrument for documentation of the severity of symptoms in patients with lower extremity venous insufficiency.

BackgroundSeveral standard venous assessment tools have been used as independent determinants of venous disease severity, but correlation between these instruments as a global venous screening tool has not been tested. The scope of this study is to assess the validity of Venous Clinical Severity Scoring (VCSS) and its integration with other venous assessment tools as a global venous screening instrument.MethodsThe American Venous Forum (AVF), National Venous Screening Program (NVSP) data registry from 2007 to 2009 was queried for participants with complete datasets, including CEAP clinical staging, VCSS, modified Chronic Venous Insufficiency Quality of Life (CIVIQ) assessment, and venous ultrasound results. Statistical correlation trends were analyzed using Spearman's rank coefficient as related to VCSS.ResultsFive thousand eight hundred fourteen limbs in 2,907 participants were screened and included CEAP clinical stage C0: 26%; C1: 33%; C2: 24%; C3: 9%; C4: 7%; C5: 0.5%; C6: 0.2% (mean, 1.41 ± 1.22). VCSS mean score distribution (range, 0-3) for the entire cohort included: pain 1.01 ± 0.80, varicose veins 0.61 ± 0.84, edema 0.61 ± 0.81, pigmentation 0.15 ± 0.47, inflammation 0.07 ± 0.33, induration 0.04 ± 0.27, ulcer number 0.004 ± 0.081, ulcer size 0.007 ± 0.112, ulcer duration 0.007 ± 0.134, and compression 0.30 ± 0.81. Overall correlation between CEAP and VCSS was moderately strong (rs = 0.49; P < .0001), with highest correlation for attributes reflecting more advanced disease, including varicose vein (rs = 0.51; P < .0001), pigmentation (rs = 0.39; P < .0001), inflammation (rs = 0.28; P < .0001), induration (rs = 0.22; P < .0001), and edema (rs = 0.21; P < .0001). Based on the modified CIVIQ assessment, overall mean score for each general category included: Quality of Life (QoL)-Pain 6.04 ± 3.12 (range, 3-15), QoL-Functional 9.90 ± 5.32 (range, 5-25), and QoL-Social 5.41 ± 3.09 (range, 3-15). Overall correlation between CIVIQ and VCSS was moderately strong (rs = 0.43; P < .0001), with the highest correlation noted for pain (rs = 0.55; P < .0001) and edema (rs = 0.30; P < .0001). Based on screening venous ultrasound results, 38.1% of limbs had reflux and 1.5% obstruction in the femoral, saphenous, or popliteal vein segments. Correlation between overall venous ultrasound findings (reflux + obstruction) and VCSS was slightly positive (rs = 0.23; P < .0001) but was highest for varicose vein (rs = 0.32; P < .0001) and showed no correlation to swelling (rs = 0.06; P < .0001) and pain (rs = 0.003; P = .7947).ConclusionsWhile there is correlation between VCSS, CEAP, modified CIVIQ, and venous ultrasound findings, subgroup analysis indicates that this correlation is driven by different components of VCSS compared with the other venous assessment tools. This observation may reflect that VCSS has more global application in determining overall severity of venous disease, while at the same time highlighting the strengths of the other venous assessment tools.

IntroductionSince the development of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), there remains concerns regarding its durability, need for secondary procedures, and associated long-term morbidity. We compared these two approaches to evaluate secondary interventions and their respective long-term durability.MethodsAll patients who had undergone endovascular and open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair were identified from a prospectively maintained registry. Health system charts, medical communication, and national death indexes were reviewed. Secondary interventions were classified as vascular (aortic graft or remote) and nonvascular (incisional or gastrointestinal).ResultsBetween July 1985 and September 2009, 1908 patients underwent 1986 AAA repair procedures (EVAR = 1066; open = 920). Patients were followed up to 290 months (mean 27.6 ± 35.9) and identified with 427 surgical encounters (EVAR 233% to 21.9%; open 194% to 21.1%). Most encounters (338% to 74.6%) were related to vascular disease: 178 (EVAR = 131; open = 47) related to the aortic graft; 160 (EVAR = 93; open = 67) were related to nonaortic vascular disease. The remaining 89 surgical encounters included incisional hernias, small bowel obstruction, intra-abdominal abscesses, and wound dehiscence requiring operation. Of these 89 encounters (EVAR = 9; open = 80), 44 patients required surgical intervention and 36 required hospitalization without surgical procedure. Over the period of 100 months, the all-cause mortality rate was 25.2% after EVAR and 39.1% after open repair. One-year survival was 88.0% (SE 0.01) and 85.0% (SE 0.01), while 5-year survival was 58.0% (SE 0.02) and 53.0% (SE 0.02) for EVAR and open repair, respectively (log-rank P value < .0164). Seven-year survival was 46% (SE 0.03) for EVAR and 36% (SE 0.03) for open AAA repair.ConclusionEVAR requires more late secondary vascular interventions than open AAA repair, but patients who undergo open repair have more nonvascular long-term morbidity. Long-term survival is better after EVAR compared to open repair in this selected patient group.

The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) and the American Venous Forum (AVF) have developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with varicose veins of the lower limbs and pelvis. The document also includes recommendations on the management of superficial and perforating vein incompetence in patients with associated, more advanced chronic venous diseases (CVDs), including edema, skin changes, or venous ulcers. Recommendations of the Venous Guideline Committee are based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system as strong (GRADE 1) if the benefits clearly outweigh the risks, burden, and costs. The suggestions are weak (GRADE 2) if the benefits are closely balanced with risks and burden. The level of available evidence to support the evaluation or treatment can be of high (A), medium (B), or low or very low (C) quality. The key recommendations of these guidelines are: We recommend that in patients with varicose veins or more severe CVD, a complete history and detailed physical examination are complemented by duplex ultrasound scanning of the deep and superficial veins (GRADE 1A). We recommend that the CEAP classification is used for patients with CVD (GRADE 1A) and that the revised Venous Clinical Severity Score is used to assess treatment outcome (GRADE 1B). We suggest compression therapy for patients with symptomatic varicose veins (GRADE 2C) but recommend against compression therapy as the primary treatment if the patient is a candidate for saphenous vein ablation (GRADE 1B). We recommend compression therapy as the primary treatment to aid healing of venous ulceration (GRADE 1B). To decrease the recurrence of venous ulcers, we recommend ablation of the incompetent superficial veins in addition to compression therapy (GRADE 1A). For treatment of the incompetent great saphenous vein (GSV), we recommend endovenous thermal ablation (radiofrequency or laser) rather than high ligation and inversion stripping of the saphenous vein to the level of the knee (GRADE 1B). We recommend phlebectomy or sclerotherapy to treat varicose tributaries (GRADE 1B) and suggest foam sclerotherapy as an option for the treatment of the incompetent saphenous vein (GRADE 2C). We recommend against selective treatment of perforating vein incompetence in patients with simple varicose veins (CEAP class C2; GRADE 1B), but we suggest treatment of pathologic perforating veins (outward flow duration >500 ms, vein diameter >3.5 mm) located underneath healed or active ulcers (CEAP class C5-C6; GRADE 2B). We suggest treatment of pelvic congestion syndrome and pelvic varices with coil embolization, plugs, or transcatheter sclerotherapy, used alone or together (GRADE 2B). (J Vasc Surg 2011;53:2S-48S.)

Background Selecting patients for iliofemoral vein stenting has traditionally relied on the identification and quantification of stenotic lesions with imaging such as multiplanar venography. Recently, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) imaging has become more available. However, to date, the usefulness of these imaging modalities using the customary >50% treatment threshold for diameter (multiplanar venography) and area (IVUS) stenosis of iliofemoral veins has not been validated prospectively within the context of clinical improvement. Methods The multicenter Venogram Versus Intravascular Ultrasound for Diagnosing and Treating Iliofemoral Vein Obstruction (VIDIO) trial prospectively enrolled 100 symptomatic patients (Clinical Etiologic Anatomic Pathophysiologic [CEAP] classification of 4-6) with suspected iliofemoral venous outflow disease. Venous stenting for presumed significant iliofemoral vein stenosis, based on imaging and clinical findings, was performed on 68 patients. Based on imaging, stenosis was characterized as nonthrombotic in 48 patients and post-thrombotic in 20 patients. Each underwent baseline and poststenting venography and IVUS to compare the diagnostic and clinical usefulness of the tests. The revised Venous Clinical Severity Score was used to assess clinical patient outcome. A >4-point reduction in the revised Venous Clinical Severity Score between baseline and 6 months was used as an indicator of clinically meaningful improvement. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the optimal diameter and area thresholds for prediction of clinical improvement. Results Clinical improvement after stenting was best predicted by IVUS baseline measurement of area stenosis (area under the curve, 0.64; P = .04), with >54% estimated as the optimal threshold of stenosis indicating interventional treatment. With measurement of lumen gain from baseline to after the procedure, the optimal reduction in vein stenosis correlative of later clinical improvement was >41%; IVUS measurement of area stenosis was most predictive (area under the curve, 0.70; P = .004). Venographic measurements of baseline stenosis and stenotic change were not predictive of later improvement. In a 48-patient nonthrombotic subset analysis, IVUS diameter rather than area measurements of baseline stenosis were significantly predictive of clinical success, but indicated a higher optimal threshold of stenosis (>61%) may be necessary. Conclusions This study suggests that IVUS shows significant usefulness at predicting when stenting iliofemoral vein stenosis in patients clinical-etiologic-anatomic-pathophysiologic classification of 4-6 will result in significant symptom improvement. Our findings corroborate the conventional >50% cross-sectional area threshold by IVUS as defining a clinically significant iliofemoral stenosis that, when stented, has significant predictive value for symptom improvement. In nonthrombotic patients, however, a threshold of >61% diameter stenosis by IVUS may better predict clinical improvement.

Objective To evaluate the results of the expanded National Venous Screening Program (NVSP) as administered by the American Venous Forum. Methods Eighty-three physicians across 40 states participated in screening Americans for venous disease. The NVSP instrument included demographics, venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment, quality-of-life (QOL) assessment, duplex ultrasound scan for reflux and obstruction, and clinical inspection. Participants received educational materials and a report card to give their physician. Results A total of 2234 individuals underwent screening (mean, 26 people/site; range, 4-42). Demographic data observed included mean age of 60 years (range, 17-93 years); 77% female; 80% Caucasian; mean BMI of 29 (range, 11-68); 40% current or previous smoker; and 24% taking antiplatelet therapy and 4% taking warfarin. If placed in a situation conducive for VTE, 40% of participants were low risk, 22% were moderate risk, 21% were high risk, and 17% were very high risk. On a venous QOL assessment, 17% had a combined total score for all 11 questions of "very limited" or "impossible to do." Reflux or obstruction was noted in 37% and 5% of participants, respectively. CEAP class 0 to 6 was 29%, 29%, 23%, 10%, 9%, 1.5%, 0.5%, respectively. Discussion Despite a dramatic expansion in the second annual NSVP (from 17 to 83 centers), the presence of venous disease observed in a larger screened population continues to be high. The NVSP represents one pathway to increasing public awareness about venous disease.

Whereas advancements in medicine offer potential alternatives for better treatment outcomes, these additional therapeutic options can make health care decision-making more difficult for patients, referring physicians, payers, and policy makers. In a complex and ever-changing medical world, quantifying quality care is a challenge, while the need to promote higher quality care is even more important. Many of the key developments in the field have come into common use without the opportunity for formal training for physicians already in practice, regardless of specialty background. These techniques are often learned through postgraduate educational experiences. As a result, it is likely that there is a wide range of knowledge, skill, and experience among physicians offering vein services. Given that many of these services are provided in the office, there is no hospital or institutional supervision or accreditation. In an effort to improve quality of venous care, the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) established accreditation standards for superficial vein centers. This review discusses the process used to create the IAC Vein Center guidelines; summarizes important requirements for accreditation and their impact on quality of care; and examines the potential impact of IAC accreditation on patients, providers, and payers.

Bedside placement of inferior vena cava filters by using either transabdominal duplex ultrasonography or intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS) has been shown to be safe and effective. We review techniques for bedside filter placement with transabdominal duplex ultrasonography, IVUS with dual venous access, and IVUS with single venous access. Transabdominal duplex ultrasonography and IVUS remain our preferred techniques for filter placement when feasible, especially in critically ill and immobilized patients.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was the assessment of the safety, efficacy, and hospital charges of bedside duplex ultrasound–directed inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement. Methods: All duplex ultrasound–directed IVC filters that were placed from August 8, 1995, to December 31, 2000, are reviewed. Chart review combined with mailed questionnaires and telephone follow-up examinations were used to collect demographic and outcome data. Results: Three hundred twenty-five patients underwent evaluation, and 284 underwent duplex ultrasound–directed IVC filter placement. Two hundred three (71%) were male patients, and 81 (29%) were female patients. Poor IVC visualization, IVC thrombosis, and unsuitable anatomy prevented duplex-directed filter placement in 41 patients (12%). Indication for filter placement included venous prophylaxis in the absence of thromboembolism in 235 patients (83%), contraindication to anticoagulation therapy in 34 patients (12%), prophylaxis with therapeutic anticoagulation therapy in the presence of thromboembolism in 7 patients (2%), and complication of anticoagulation therapy in 8 patients (3%). There were no procedure-related deaths or septic complications. Technical complications occurred in 12 patients (4%). Filter misplacement occurred in 6 patients (2%), access thrombosis in 1 (

Thomas F. O’Donnell Jr, MD, Marc A. Passman, MD, William A. Marston, MD, William J. Ennis, DO, Michael Dalsing, MD, Robert L. Kistner, MD, Fedor Lurie, MD, PhD, Peter K. Henke, MD, Monika L. Gloviczki, MD, PhD, Bo G. Eklof, MD, PhD, Julianne Stoughton, MD, Sesadri Raju, MD, Cynthia K. Shortell, MD, Joseph D. Raffetto, MD, Hugo Partsch, MD, Lori C. Pounds, MD, Mary E. Cummings, MD, David L. Gillespie, MD, Robert B. McLafferty, MD, Mohammad Hassan Murad, MD, Thomas W. Wakefield, MD, and Peter Gloviczki, MD

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of Medicare coverage limitations and claim denials on noninvasive vascular diagnostic testing. Methods: All Medicare claims for noninvasive vascular diagnostic studies from January 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999, were identified from the hospital billing database according to Current Procedural Terminology codes for carotid artery duplex ultrasound scan, venous duplex ultrasound scan, and lower-extremity arterial Doppler scan. Reasons for Medicare denial of payment for these tests were reviewed and a cost analysis was performed. Results: During the 1-year period, there were 1096 noninvasive vascular diagnostic studies performed on Medicare patients. Of these 1096 tests, 176 (16.1%) were denied by Medicare (19.6% of 408 carotid duplex ultrasound scans, 16.8% of 345 venous duplex ultrasound scans, and 11.1% of 343 lower-extremity arterial Doppler scans). Of the noninvasive vascular tests denied by Medicare, an abnormal result was present in 72.5% of carotid duplex ultrasound scans, 32.8% of venous duplex ultrasound scans, and 78.9% of lower-extremity arterial Doppler scans. Overall, 88.1% of all initially denied claims (N = 176) were ultimately reimbursed by Medicare after resubmission, including 77.1% of the 118 claims denied based on compliance rules for "medical necessity." Conclusion: Because of coverage limitations, Medicare denials of noninvasive vascular diagnostic tests can lead to potential uncompensated physician and hospital technical fees if denied claims are unrecognized. Vascular laboratories performing these tests need to review compliance with Medicare guidelines. Improvements may need to be made at both the provider and Medicare carrier levels in obtaining reimbursement for appropriately ordered noninvasive vascular diagnostic studies. (J Vasc Surg 2001;34:846-53.)

Importance Because of the similarity in clinical outcomes after elective open and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), cost may be an important factor in choosing a procedure. Objective To compare total and AAA-related use of health care services, costs, and cost-effectiveness between groups randomized to open or endovascular repair. Design, Setting, and Participants This unblinded randomized clinical trial enrolled 881 patients undergoing planned elective repair of AAA who were candidates for open and endovascular repair procedures. Patients were randomized from October 15, 2002, to April 15, 2008, at 42 Veterans Affairs medical centers. Follow-up was completed on October 15, 2011, and data were analyzed from April 15, 2013, to April 15, 2016, based on intention to treat. Main Outcomes and Measures Mean total and AAA-related health care cost per life-year and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results A total of 881 patients (876 men [99.4%]; 5 women [0.6%]; mean [SD] age, 70 [7.8] years) were included in the analysis. After a mean of 5.2 years of follow-up, mean life-years were 4.89 in the endovascular group and 4.84 in the open repair group ( P = .68), and mean QALYs were 3.72 in the endovascular group and 3.70 in the open repair group ( P = .82). Total mean health care costs did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (endovascular group, $142 745; open repair group, $153 533; difference, −$10 788; 95% CI, −$29 796 to $5825; P = .25). Costs related to AAA, including the initial repair, constituted nearly 40% of total costs and did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (endovascular group, $57 501; open repair group, $57 893; difference, −$393; 95% CI, −$12 071 to $7928; P = .94). Lower costs due to shorter hospitalization for initial endovascular repair were offset by increased costs from AAA-related secondary procedures and imaging studies. The probability of endovascular repair being less costly and more effective was 56.8% when effectiveness was measured in life-years and 55.4% when effectiveness was measured in QALYs for total costs and 31.3% and 34.3%, respectively, for AAA-related costs. Conclusions and Relevance In this multicenter randomized clinical trial with follow-up to 9 years, survival, quality of life, costs, and cost-effectiveness did not differ between elective open and endovascular repair of AAA. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier:NCT00094575