Association of Elective Surgical Volume with State Executive Order Curtailing Elective Surgery in Michigan During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate changes in elective surgical volume in Michigan while an Executive Order (EO) was in place curtailing elective surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Many state governors enacted EOs curtailing elective surgery to protect scare resources and generate hospital capacity for patients with COVID-19. Little is known of the effectiveness of an EO on achieving a sustained reduction in elective surgery. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of data from a statewide claims-based registry in Michigan includes claims from the largest private payer in the state for a representative set of elective operations on adult patients from February 2 through August 1, 2020. We reported trends in surgical volume over the period the EO was in place. Estimated backlogs in elective surgery were calculated using case counts from the same period in 2019. RESULTS: Hospitals achieved an 91.7% reduction in case volume before the EO was introduced. By the time the order was rescinded, hospitals were already performing elective surgery at 60.1% of pre-pandemic case rates. We estimate that a backlog of 6,419 operations was created while the EO was in effect. Had hospitals ceased elective surgery during this period, an additional 18% of patients would have experienced a delay in surgical care. CONCLUSIONS: Both the introduction and removal of Michigan's EO lagged behind the observed ramp-down and ramp-up in elective surgical volume. These data suggest that EOs may not effectively modulate surgical care and could also contribute to unnecessary delays in surgical care.

Society for Vascular Surgery appropriate use criteria for management of intermittent claudication.

The Society for Vascular Surgery appropriate use criteria (AUC) for the management of intermittent claudication were created using the RAND appropriateness method, a validated and standardized method that combines the best available evidence from medical literature with expert opinion, using a modified Delphi process. These criteria serve as a framework on which individualized patient and clinician shared decision-making can grow. These criteria are not absolute. AUC should not be interpreted as a requirement to administer treatments rated as appropriate (benefit outweighs risk). Nor should AUC be interpreted as a prohibition of treatments rated as inappropriate (risk outweighs benefit). Clinical situations will occur in which moderating factors, not included in these AUC, will shift the appropriateness level of a treatment for an individual patient. Proper implementation of AUC requires a description of those moderating patient factors. For scenarios with an indeterminate rating, clinician judgement combined with the best available evidence should determine the treatment strategy. These scenarios require mechanisms to track the treatment decisions and outcomes. AUC should be revisited periodically to ensure that they remain relevant. The panelists rated 2280 unique scenarios for the treatment of intermittent claudication (IC) in the aortoiliac, common femoral, and femoropopliteal segments in the round 2 rating. Of these, only nine (0.4%) showed a disagreement using the interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry formula, indicating an exceptionally high degree of consensus among the panelists. Post hoc, the term "inappropriate" was replaced with the phrase "risk outweighs benefit." The term "appropriate" was also replaced with "benefit outweighs risk." The key principles for the management of IC reflected within these AUC are as follows. First, exercise therapy is the preferred initial management strategy for all patients with IC. Second, for patients who have not completed exercise therapy, invasive therapy might provide net a benefit for selected patients with IC who are nonsmokers, are taking optimal medical therapy, are considered to have a low physiologic and technical risk, and who are experiencing severe lifestyle limitations and/or a short walking distance. Third, considering the long-term durability of the currently available technology, invasive interventions for femoropopliteal disease should be reserved for patients with severe lifestyle limitations and a short walking distance. Fourth, in the common femoral segment, open common femoral endarterectomy will provide greater net benefit than endovascular intervention for the treatment of IC. Finally, in the infrapopliteal segment, invasive intervention for the treatment of IC is of unclear benefit and could be harmful.

Elective Surgical Delays Due to COVID-19: The Patient Lived Experience.

BACKGROUND: This qualitative research explored the lived experiences of patients who experienced postponement of elective cardiac and vascular surgery due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We know very little about patients during the novel coronavirus pandemic. Understanding the patient voice may play an important role in prioritization of postponed cases and triage moving forward. METHODS: Utilizing a hermeneutical phenomenological qualitative design, we interviewed 47 individuals who experienced a postponement of cardiac or vascular surgery due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were analyzed and informed by phenomenological research methods. RESULTS: Patients in our study described 3 key issues around their postponement of elective surgery. Patients described robust narratives about the meanings of their elective surgeries as the chance to "return to normal" and alleviate symptoms that impacted everyday life. Second, because of the meanings most of our patients ascribed to their surgeries, postponement often took a toll on how patients managed physical health and emotional well-being. Finally, paradoxically, many patients in our study were demonstrative that they would "rather die from a heart attack" than be exposed to the coronavirus. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several components of the patient experience, encompassing quality of life and other desired benefits of surgery, the risks of COVID, and difficulty reconciling the 2. Our study provides significant qualitative evidence to inform providers of important considerations when rescheduling the backlog of patients. The emotional and psychological distress that patients experienced due to postponement may also require additional considerations in postoperative recovery.

Modeling the elective vascular surgery recovery after coronavirus disease 2019: Implications for moving forward.

OBJECTIVE: The delays in elective surgery caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have resulted in a substantial backlog of cases. In the present study, we sought to determine the estimated time to recovery for vascular surgery procedures delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic in a regional health system. METHODS: Using data from a 35-hospital regional vascular surgical collaborative consisting of all hospitals performing vascular surgery in the state of Michigan, we estimated the number of delayed surgical cases for adults undergoing carotid endarterectomy, carotid stenting, endovascular and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, and lower extremity bypass. We used seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average models to predict the surgical volume in the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic and historical data to predict the elective surgical recovery time. RESULTS: The median statewide monthly vascular surgical volume for the study period was 439 procedures, with a maximum statewide monthly case volume of 519 procedures. For the month of April 2020, the elective vascular surgery procedural volume decreased by ∼90%. Significant variability was seen in the estimated hospital capacity and estimated number of backlogged cases, with the recovery of elective cases estimated to require ∼8 months. If hospitals across the collaborative were to share the burden of backlogged cases, the recovery could be shortened to ∼3 months. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study of vascular surgical volume in a regional health collaborative, elective surgical procedures decreased by 90%, resulting in a backlog of >700 cases. The recovery time if all hospitals in the collaborative were to share the burden of backlogged cases would be reduced from 8 months to 3 months, underscoring the necessity of regional and statewide policies to minimize patient harm by delays in recovery for elective surgery.