Incidence and outcomes of intraoperative vascular surgery consultations.

OBJECTIVE: Vascular surgeons may aid in primarily nonvascular procedures. Such activity has not been quantified, and hospital administrators may be unaware of the importance of vascular surgeons to support other hospital-based surgical programs. This study reviewed intraoperative consultations by vascular surgeons to support other surgical services. METHODS: Intraoperative vascular consultations were reviewed from January 2006 to January 2014 for consulting service, indication, and whether consultation occurred with advanced notice. Patient demographics, operative times, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and relative value units (RVUs) assigned for each consultation were also assessed. Consultations for trauma and iatrogenic injuries occurring outside the operating theater were excluded. RESULTS: Vascular surgeons performed 225 intraoperative consultations in support of procedures by nonvascular surgeons. Requesting services were surgical oncology (46%), orthopedics (17%), urology (11%), otolaryngology (7%), and others (19%). Reasons for consultation overlapped and included vascular reconstruction (53%), control of hemorrhage (39%), and assistance with difficult dissections (43%). Seventy-four percent were for intra-abdominal procedures, and venous (53%) and arterial (50%) problems were encountered equally with some overlap. Most patients were male (59%), overweight (56%; body mass index ≥25 kg/m(2)), had previous surgery (72%) and were undergoing elective procedures (89%). Mean total procedural anesthesia time was 9.4 hours, mean procedural operating time was 7.9 hours, and mean total and vascular-related estimated blood loss was 1702 mL and 327 mL, respectively. Mean length of stay was 14.7 days, mean intensive care unit stay was 2.9 days, and 30-day mortality was 6.2%. Mean nonvascular RVUs per operation were 46.0, and mean vascular RVUs per operation were 30.9. CONCLUSIONS: Unexpected intraoperative need for vascular surgical expertise occurs often enough that vascular surgeons should be regarded as an essential operating room resource to the general operating room, nonvascular surgeons, and their patients. Intraoperative vascular surgical consultation in support of other surgeons requires a high level of open technical operative skills and is time and labor intensive.

Outcomes of open operation for aortoiliac occlusive disease after failed endovascular therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare patient outcomes of primary open operation for aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) with those of secondary open operations for failed endovascular therapy (ET) of AIOD. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was performed analyzing demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and outcomes. SETTING: Affiliated Veterans Affairs Hospital from January 1, 1998, through March 31, 2010. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent primary open operation for AIOD or secondary open operation for failed ET of AIOD. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall survival and limb salvage. RESULTS: Primary open operations (n = 153) were 67 aortobifemoral grafts (43.8%), 38 axillobifemoral grafts (24.8%), and 48 femoral-femoral grafts (31.4%). Secondary open operations (n = 35) were 28 aortobifemoral grafts (80.0%), 5 axillobifemoral grafts (14.3%), and 2 femoral-femoral grafts (5.7%). Mean (SD) 5-year survival was 48.2% (5.6%) and 66.8% (10.0%), respectively, for patients undergoing primary vs secondary open surgery for AIOD (P = .01). There were 7 amputations during a mean follow-up of 3 years, all in the primary open surgery group. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher proportion of coronary artery disease and a 20% conversion of claudication to critical limb ischemia after failed ET for AIOD, survival was longer in patients undergoing secondary vs primary open surgery. Patients who underwent open surgery after failed ET for AIOD did not require amputation. Failed ET for AIOD does not lead to worse outcomes for patients undergoing open surgery for AIOD.

Factors affecting career choice among the next generation of academic vascular surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have examined factors that influence an individual's decision to enter an academic medical career after residency training. We sought to evaluate whether sex, ethnicity, child care issues, and debt burden influenced residents' choice for a career in academic vascular surgery. METHODS: A 39-item Web survey, designed to elucidate which factors motivated residents to seek a career in academic vascular surgery, was sent to 295 vascular surgery residents currently enrolled in Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education-accredited training programs. RESULTS: A total of 128 responses (43%) were received. Of these, 53% of respondents were white and 47% were nonwhite and 34 (27%) were women and 94 (73%) were men. Fifty-seven percent of minorities anticipate a career in academic vascular surgery. There were no statistical differences between sex and ethnicity for factors influencing career choice, including training paradigm, presence of a life partner or dependents, mentorship role, participation in research, service, and teaching, anticipated salary, and debt burden (P > .05). Seventy-seven percent of respondents carry significant debt; of those with debt, 81% owe >$100,000 and 40% owe >$200,000. Seventy-three percent of 0+5 trainees anticipated choosing an academic practice compared with 42% of 5+2 trainees (P < .01). Respondents planning an academic career cited procedural variation, breadth and depth of practice/tertiary referral experience, and research opportunities as the most important drivers of career choice. Income potential, strength of the job market, and child care needs were deemed less important. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that academic vascular surgery is a popular career option for current vascular surgery trainees, especially those in 0+5 programs. Choosing a career in academic vascular surgery appears not to be influenced by sex, ethnicity, child care concerns, salary expectations, or debt burden, even though most trainees carry enormous debt. The data imply future academic vascular surgeons will likely have greater gender and ethnic variability than is currently seen.

Comparing patient outcomes between multiple ipsilateral iliac artery stents and isolated iliac artery stents.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular stents are accepted therapy for iliac artery stenoses and occlusions. Surgery is the recommended therapy for patients with severe iliac artery disease, including those with the combination of ipsilateral common iliac artery (CIA) and external iliac artery (EIA) stenoses/occlusions. This study compared patient outcomes, including late open conversion rates, for combined ipsilateral CIA and EIA stenting vs CIA or EIA stents alone. METHODS: Between 1998 and 2010, 588 patients underwent iliac artery stenting at two institutions. Patient comorbidities and outcomes were retrospectively reviewed, and analyses were performed using multivariate regression and Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: There were 436 extremities with CIA stents, 195 with EIA stents, and 157 with CIA and EIA stents. The groups did not differ significantly in demographics, comorbidities, or treatment indications. During follow-up, 183 patients died, 95 underwent an endovascular reintervention, and 48 required late open conversion. For patients in the CIA or EIA stent group, the mean ± standard error survival was 5.3 ± 0.3 years, secondary endovascular intervention-free survival was 7.4 ± 0.6 years, late open conversion-free survival was 9.8 ± 0.4 years, and amputation-free survival was 7.6 ± 0.4 years. In the CIA and EIA stent group, survival was 6.1 ± 0.6 years, secondary endovascular intervention-free survival was 7.2 ± 0.6 years, late open conversion-free survival was 9.0 ± 1.1 years, and amputation-free survival was 8.4 ± 0.5 years. Survival, reintervention-free survival, late open conversion-free survival, and amputation-free survival were all similar between patient groups (all P > .05). CIA and EIA stenting in combination was not a predictor of death, reintervention, late open conversion, or amputation. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes are similar for patients with CIA or EIA stents and for those with combined ipsilateral CIA and EIA stents. Late open conversions for iliac artery stent failure are uncommon and not influenced by the location or extent of prior iliac artery stent placement. Endovascular therapy for aortoiliac disease should be extended to consider selected patients with ipsilateral CIA and EIA stenoses/occlusions.