Search

Objective: The Society for Vascular Surgery stated there are a lack of studies describing long-term surveillance for aortobifemoral (AoBF) bypasses. Our goal was to investigate the value of DU studies as a surveillance tool for AoBF bypasses. Methods: We retrospectively identified patients in our prospectively maintained database who underwent AoBF bypasses between 1995-2018. Surveillance was performed routinely with DU post-operatively, every 6 months for 1 year, and then annually. We considered "abnormal" DU findings to include peri-graft fluid, pseudoaneurysm or, peak systolic velocities (PSVs) > 350 cm/sec or PSV ratio > 3.5 anywhere from the proximal aortic to distal femoral anastomosis. If abnormalities were identified patients underwent intervention or shorter surveillance intervals. Results: Of 153 AoBF bypasses, 60 patients with 120 graft limbs fulfilled our post-operative surveillance protocol with a mean follow-up of 4.0 years (0.5-24 years). "Normal" DU surveillance studies were documented throughout follow-up in 112 (93%) limbs. Of these, 2 (1.7%) developed acute limb occlusion. Eight (6.7%) limbs had "abnormal" DU findings: 5 failing grafts with focal elevated PSVs, 2 with peri-graft fluid leading to a diagnosis of an infected graft, and 1 with a pseudoaneurysm (PSA). Contrast arteriography or CT-angiography confirmed > 75% diameter stenosis, fluid or PSA in all 8 limbs. Graft revision (5 endovascular, 2 surgical) was performed in 7 of the 8 limbs initially or after 2 successive "abnormal" DU studies within 6 weeks of each other; 1 patient refused intervention. Without surveillance, urgent or emergent treatment might have proved necessary in 7.5% (7 + 2 = 9/120) of cases instead of only 1.7% (2/120) of cases. Conclusion: Vascular surgeons should adopt DU as a useful surveillance tool to identify AoBF bypasses that are failing or have other problems not identified clinically. Persistence of "abnormal" DU findings should prompt operative or endovascular intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Traditionally, vascular surgery fellows (VSFs) have learned to perform peripheral arterial endovascular procedures in a hospital setting. Many vascular surgeons currently perform these procedures in an "outpatient" non-hospital-based setting. Loss of these cases from the hospital setting may impact vascular surgery fellowship endovascular volume. We assessed the safety of first-year VSFs performing peripheral endovascular procedures under the supervision of vascular surgery attending surgeons in a non-hospital-based facility. Methods: Between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016, 166 patients underwent 193 endovascular procedures in a non-hospital-based ambulatory facility: 136 interventions (65 femoral, 40 iliac, 13 popliteal, and 9 infrapopliteal arteries) and 31 diagnostic arteriograms for claudication (57.8%; 85), rest pain (11.6%; 17), tissue loss (12.9%; 19), and failing grafts (17.7%; 26). Interventions included balloon angioplasty alone in 8.8% (12/136) of cases, stents in 16.9% (23/136), covered stents in 14% (19/136), atherectomy in 60.3% (82/136), and mechanical thrombolysis in 0.7% (1/136). Results: First-year VSFs performed an increasing percentage of these procedures during this interval: academic year 2012 to 2013 = 0% (0/49), 2013 to 2014 = 31% (17/54), 2014 to 2015 = 93% (56/60), and 2015 to 2016 = 82% (57/70). All but 5 (3%) patients having 167 procedures were discharged home after 2 to 6 hours of bed rest without any 30-day adverse outcomes. Four patients were immediately transferred to our hospital after the intervention: 2 for respiratory issues (hypoxia), 1 for groin hematoma (observation only), and 1 for arterial occlusion (required tibial stent not available at outpatient center). One patient returned to our hospital with rest pain due to treatment site occlusion the following day. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that complex peripheral arterial endovascular procedures can be performed safely by first-year VSFs under vascular attending supervision in an outpatient, non-hospital-based setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We report two cases of primary inferior vena cava (IVC) leiomyosarcoma. The first patient was a 60-year-old female who presented with abdominal pain. The patient was initially diagnosed with a retroperitoneal sarcoma that may have involved the right renal vessels and the IVC. The Vascular Surgery Service was consulted intra-operatively when it became evident that the IVC was primarily involved. The patient was treated with total en-bloc excision of the infrarenal IVC tumor with concomitant interposition polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) graft caval replacement. The second patient was a 58-year-old female who presented with general malaise and anemia. This tumor began in the distal infrarenal IVC and extended cephalad to the suprahepatic IVC, ending approximately 2 cm below the right atrium. Intrapericardial IVC clamping was required for cephalad control in this patient, who was then treated with excision of the tumor and concomitant interposition PTFE graft caval replacement with reimplantation of the right renal vein. A review of this rare tumor is presented. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) appointed a committee of experts to formulate evidence-based clinical guidelines for the management of carotid stenosis. In formulating clinical practice recommendations, the committee used systematic reviews to summarize the best available evidence and the GRADE scheme to grade the strength of recommendations (GRADE 1 for strong recommendations; GRADE 2 for weak recommendations) and rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, and very low quality). In symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with low-grade carotid stenosis (<50% in symptomatic and <60% in asymptomatic patients), we recommend optimal medical therapy rather than revascularization (GRADE 1 recommendation, high quality evidence). In symptomatic patients with moderate to severe carotid stenosis (more than 50%), we recommend carotid endarterectomy plus optimal medical therapy (GRADE 1 recommendation, high quality evidence). In symptomatic patients with moderate to severe carotid stenosis (≥50%) and high perioperative risk, we suggest carotid artery stenting as a potential alternative to carotid endarterectomy (GRADE 2 recommendation, low quality evidence). In asymptomatic patients with moderate to severe carotid stenosis (≥60%), we recommend carotid endarterectomy plus medical management as long as the perioperative risk is low (GRADE 1 recommendation, high quality evidence). We recommend against carotid artery stenting for asymptomatic patients with moderate to severe (≥60%) carotid artery stenosis (GRADE 1 recommendation, low quality evidence). A possible exception includes patients with ≥80% carotid artery stenosis and high anatomic risk for carotid endarterectomy. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

In the last few years, the Association of Program Directors in Vascular Surgery has become increasingly concerned that the number of applicants to vascular surgery residencies has remained stable, while the number of available positions has increased substantially and quality of applicants has diminished. What factors are relevant for residents and medical students whether they do or do not choose vascular surgery as a specialty? In this article, we cite specific reasons that played key roles in this decision-making process, based on various surveys and reports addressing this issue. Technical aspects of vascular surgery, the role of mentors, and lifestyle issues were shown to be critical factors in the choice of potential trainees. Different training paradigms were also shown to be favored by residents and students, depending on their level of training. The findings in these surveys have helped vascular surgery program directors devise new and innovative training paradigms and to develop strategies to attract future trainees. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The management of infected prosthetic grafts is one of the most challenging problems facing vascular surgeons. High mortality and morbidity rates with traditional treatment have led many surgeons to consider different and novel strategies. Diagnosis is usually straightforward, but occasionally is unclear even after extensive clinical and radiologic investigations. Although routine total graft excision for all infected aortic grafts is still favored by some vascular surgeons, most favor only partial graft excision if only the distal limb of the graft is involved. Placement of in situ autologous vein or cryopreserved grafts have gained popularity, and investigations are continuing regarding the use of in situ antibiotic and silver-coated prosthetic grafts. In this article the authors review the incidence and etiology of aortic graft infections, methods to prevent these complications, the diagnosis of infected aortic grafts, and lastly the management of these complicated cases, including total graft excision and partial and complete graft preservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Infected false aneurysm after carotid endarterectomy is extremely rare, with only 14 cases having been reported in the English-language literature. These can occur even in the absence of prosthetic material. Presentation may be early or delayed, and most patients will develop a tender, pulsatile cervical mass. Surgical therapy can be challenging, with aneurysm excision and autologous interposition grafting the favored approach. The authors report herein a case of postendarterectomy carotid artery infection diagnosed by color-duplex ultrasound, and they review the published experience with this entity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recognizing the impact of the decision making by the dialysis access surgeon on the successful placement of autogenous arteriovenous hemodialysis access, the Society for Vascular Surgery assembled a multispecialty panel to develop practice guidelines in arteriovenous access placement and maintenance with the aim of maximizing the percentage and functionality of autogenous arteriovenous accesses that are placed. The Society commissioned the Knowledge and Encounter Research Unit of the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota, to systematically review the available evidence in three main areas provided by the panel: timing of referral to access surgeons, type of access placed, and effectiveness of surveillance. The panel then formulated practice guidelines in seven areas: timing of referral to the access surgeon, operative strategies to maximize the placement of autogenous arteriovenous accesses, first choice for the autogenous access, choice of arteriovenous access when a patient is not a suitable candidate for a forearm autogenous access, the role of monitoring and surveillance in arteriovenous access management, conversion of a prosthetic arteriovenous access to a secondary autogenous arteriovenous access, and management of the nonfunctional or failed arteriovenous access. For each of the guidelines, the panel stated the recommendation or suggestion, discussed the evidence or opinion upon which the recommendation or suggestion was made, detailed the values and preferences that influenced the group''s decision in formulating the relevant guideline, and discussed technical remarks related to the particular guideline. In addition, detailed information is provided on various configurations of autogenous and prosthetic accesses and technical tips related to their placement. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]