Outcomes of atherectomy for lower extremity ischemia in an office endovascular center.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of infrainguinal artery revascularization via atherectomy supplemented with other endovascular techniques in an office endovascular center (OEC) setting. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted examining 352 lower extremity atherectomy revascularization procedures between 2011 and 2016 at an OEC by five board-certified vascular surgeons. Patients received laser atherectomy or orbital atherectomy followed by angioplasty or angioplasty and stent placement as needed. Reintervention was indicated based on evidence of clinical symptoms and imaging studies. Demographics, vessel-specific data, treatment information, and outcome of procedures were recorded. Data analysis was carried out using Kaplan-Meier survival curves. RESULTS: Lower extremity atherectomy was carried out in 282 patients in 352 limbs with average age of 69 ± 11 years. Technical success of <30% residual stenosis by angiogram was achieved in 571/594 vessels treated. Within 30 days of procedure, 23/352 limbs required major amputation resulting from pre-existing disease, ranging from 3 Rutherford class 4, 17 Rutherford class 5, to 3 Rutherford class 6 limbs. No 30-day mortality was noted. The primary patency of the 571 treated vessels at 12 months was 90%, and 84% at 29 months. The patency of treated vessels that reached >50% stenosis on follow-up and required reintervention (51/571 vessels) or did not require reintervention (79/571) was 72% and 87% at 23 months' follow-up, respectively, with no difference in risk of occlusion identified (P = .181). There was a significantly increased risk of occlusion for vessels treated with laser atherectomy as compared with orbital atherectomy (odds ratio, 2.552; 95% confidence interval, 1.375-4.735; P = .003). No significant difference in risk of occlusion was found between treatment with atherectomy and angioplasty (466/571 vessels) compared with atherectomy, angioplasty, and stenting (102/571) with secondary patency of 90% and 85% at 6 months' follow-up, respectively. There was no difference in patency between claudicants and patients with critical limb ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: Atherectomy in conjunction with angioplasty and/or stenting has satisfactory patency with minimal complications when the procedure is carried out in an OEC. Asymptomatic >50% restenosis of treated vessels does not warrant reintervention unless the patient presents with clinical symptoms. Various atherectomy devices may result in different outcomes.

Analysis of the retrograde tibial artery approach in lower extremity revascularization in an office endovascular center.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a retrograde tibial approach in revascularization of lower extremities for treatment of ischemia in anatomically challenging patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 57 procedures performed between 2012 and 2016 using the retrograde approach to treat patients with flush occlusion, inability to cross the lesion, failed bypass, or hostile groin. Demographic data, Rutherford classes, vessels treated, and approach were noted. Type of procedure, complications, amputations, deaths, and patency of access tibial vessels and treated vessels were recorded. Ultrasound-guided tibial access was achieved through the anterior tibial artery, posterior tibial artery, or peroneal artery. Technical success was defined as residual stenosis of <30%. Restenosis was defined as two times increase in velocity at the site of treatment. In follow-up, access vessel patency and treated vessel patency were evaluated by physical examination and ultrasound. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to assess proportional hazards before using the marginal Cox model to determine statistical significance in risk of postintervention occlusion. RESULTS: In 53 patients (32 men) with an average age of 67 ± 10.6 years, Rutherford categories were as follows: class 2, n = 1; class 3, n = 37; class 4, n = 5; class 5, n = 12; and class 6, n = 2. Tibial arteries were successfully accessed in all limbs. Lesions were crossed in 56 of 57 limbs. One procedure was terminated because of local arterial dissection. Revascularization was achieved in 55 of 57 limbs. Within 30 days of the procedure, 2 of 2 Rutherford class 6 patients and 1 of 12 class 5 patients needed major amputation because of pre-existing disease. There was no 30-day mortality. Of 103 vessels treated, technical success was achieved in 97 (94%). Secondary patency for 103 vessels was 79% with mean follow-up of 6.66 ± 5.4 months. The primary patency was 90% compared with a primary assisted patency of 51%. There was no statistically significant difference in access vessel primary patency in follow-up: 86% (30/35) for anterior tibial artery, 80% (16/20) for posterior tibial artery, and 100% (2/2) for peroneal artery. In addition, in follow-up, there was no significant difference in incidence of occlusion of target vessels based on choice of access vessel used (P = .109). CONCLUSIONS: In this group of anatomically challenging patients, a retrograde tibial approach was safely used. Accessing the tibial artery does not usually cause access vessel occlusion and resulted in no adverse outcomes. The majority of access vessels remained patent for future bypass if necessary.

Guidelines for hospital privileges in vascular surgery and endovascular interventions: Recommendations of the Society for Vascular Surgery.

The Hospital Privileges Practice Guideline Writing Group of the Society for Vascular Surgery is making the following five recommendations concerning guidelines for hospital privileges for vascular surgery and endovascular therapy. Advanced endovascular procedures are currently entrenched in the everyday practice of specialized vascular interventionalists, including vascular surgeons, but open vascular surgery remains uniquely essential to the specialty. First, we endorse the Residency Review Committee for Surgery recommendations regarding open and endovascular cases during vascular residency and fellowship training. Second, applicants for new hospital privileges wishing to perform vascular surgery should have completed an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited vascular surgery residency or fellowship or American Osteopathic Association-accredited training program before 2020 and should obtain American Board of Surgery certification in vascular surgery or American Osteopathic Association certification within 7 years of completion of their training. Third, we recommend that applicants for renewal of hospital privileges in vascular surgery include physicians who are board certified in vascular surgery, general surgery, or cardiothoracic surgery. These physicians with an established practice in vascular surgery should participate in Maintenance of Certification programs as established by the American Board of Surgery and maintain their respective board certification. Fourth, we provide recommendations concerning guidelines for endovascular procedures for vascular surgeons and other vascular interventionalists who are applying for new or renewed hospital privileges. All physicians performing open or endovascular procedures should track outcomes using nationally validated registries, ideally by the Vascular Quality Initiative. Fifth, we endorse the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission recommendations for noninvasive vascular laboratory interpretations and examinations to become a Registered Physician in Vascular Interpretation, which is included in the requirements for board eligibility in vascular surgery, but recommend that only physicians with demonstrated clinical experience in the diagnosis and management of vascular disease be allowed to interpret these studies.

The Clinical Impact of Cardiology Consultation Prior to Major Vascular Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To understand statewide variation in preoperative cardiology consultation prior to major vascular surgery and to determine whether consultation was associated with differences in perioperative myocardial infarction (poMI). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Medical consultation prior to major vascular surgery is obtained to reduce perioperative risk. Despite perceived benefit of preoperative consultation, evidence is lacking specifically for major vascular surgery on the effect of preoperative cardiac consultation. METHODS: Patient and clinical data were obtained from a statewide vascular surgery registry between January 2012 and December 2014. Patients were risk stratified by revised cardiac risk index category and compared poMI between patients who did or did not receive a preoperative cardiology consultation. We then used logistic regression analysis to compare the rate of poMI across hospitals grouped into quartiles by rate of preoperative cardiology consultation. RESULTS: Our study population comprised 5191 patients undergoing open peripheral arterial bypass (n = 3037), open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (n = 332), or endovascular aneurysm repair (n = 1822) at 29 hospitals. At the patient level, after risk-stratification by revised cardiac risk index category, there was no association between cardiac consultation and poMI. At the hospital level, preoperative cardiac consultation varied substantially between hospitals (6.9%-87.5%, P <0.001). High preoperative consulting hospitals (rate >66%) had a reduction in poMI (OR, 0.52; confidence interval: 0.28-0.98; P <0.05) compared with all other hospitals. These hospitals also had a statistically greater consultation rate with a variety of medical specialties. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative cardiology consultation for vascular surgery varies greatly between institutions, and does not appear to impact poMI at the patient level. However, reduction of poMI was noted at the hospitals with the highest rate of preoperative cardiology consultation as well as a variety of medical services, suggesting that other hospital culture effects play a role.

Predictors of surgical site infection after open lower extremity revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical site infection (SSI) after open lower extremity bypass (LEB) is a serious complication leading to an increased rate of graft failure, hospital readmission, and health care costs. This study sought to identify predictors of SSI after LEB for arterial occlusive disease and also potential modifiable factors to improve outcomes. METHODS: Data from a statewide cardiovascular consortium of 35 hospitals were used to obtain demographic, procedural, and hospital risk factors for patients undergoing elective or urgent open LEB between January 2012 and June 2015. Bivariate comparisons and targeted maximum likelihood estimation were used to identify independent risk factors of SSI. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for patient demographics, comorbidities, operative details, and hospital-level factors. RESULTS: Our study population included 3033 patients who underwent 703 femoral-femoral bypasses, 1431 femoral-popliteal bypasses, and 899 femoral-distal vessel bypasses. An SSI was diagnosed in 320 patients (10.6%) ≤30 days after the index operation. Adjusted patient and procedural predictors of SSI included renal failure currently requiring dialysis (OR, 4.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.45-5.47; P < .001), hypertension (OR, 4.29; 95% CI, 2.74-6.72; P < .001), body mass index ≥25 kg/m2 (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.23-2.57; P = .002), procedural time >240 minutes (OR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.89-4.62; P < .001), and iodine-only skin preparation (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.02-2.91; P = .04). Hospital factors associated with increased SSI included hospital size <500 beds (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.09-4.55; P = .028) and major teaching hospital (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.07-2.58; P = .024). SSI resulted in increased risk of major amputation and surgical reoperation (P < .01), but did not affect 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: SSI after LEB is associated with an increase in rate of amputation and reoperation. Several patient, operative, and hospital-related risk factors that predict postoperative SSI were identified, suggesting that targeted improvements in perioperative care may decrease complications and improve vascular patient outcomes.

Single-specialty versus multispecialty vascular surgery group model.

The shift in employment options for vascular surgeons in the current era of major health care reform is being widely debated. After the decision to seek hospital employment or independent practice, the choice of then practicing in a single-specialty or a multispecialty practice remains a difficult decision. Although the trend is toward medium-sized to large-sized groups, only 1.2% of medical practices currently have >11 physicians. Barring the large multispecialty groups, such as Kaiser Permanente, Cleveland Clinic, or Mayo Clinic, most vascular practices are constituted as small groups. Which format prospers will depend on adroit management of financial and intellectual capital and nimbleness in adapting to rapidly changing market conditions. In this report, two practicing vascular surgeons debate the merits of single or multispecialty practice, with a commentary to follow.

Changing practice paradigms: negotiating your future.

There are many recent and ongoing changes in the practice of medicine from a business standpoint as well as in overall practice management. Economic and lifestyle desires have pushed many physicians to a decision point of whether or not to join a large multispecialty group or to sell their practice and become an employee of a hospital system. There are advantages and disadvantages to both options; however, deciding on the most appropriate path for each individual can be a daunting task. At our recent breakfast session at the vascular annual meeting in Chicago, Illinois, in June 2011, we brought to light these topics to try and help enlighten physicians on which option may be right for them. There is no single answer/option that will fit every practice, but discussion for various practice management designs are outlined and critiqued. This article cannot fully discuss each view in the allotted space, but it is designed to encourage thought and discussion among the vascular surgical community as a whole.

Future of vascular surgery is in the office.

OBJECTIVE: The practice of vascular surgery is under pressure from various specialties and payers. Our group started office-based procedures in May 2007. This article reports our study of the effect of this change on our case volume, office revenue, and the financial impact on the health care system. METHODS: Between May 1, 2006, and April 30, 2007 (period 1), and between June 1, 2007, and May 31 2008 (period 2), 3041 and 3351 cases, respectively, were performed. In period 1, only venous cases could be done in the office. Before arteriogram, serum levels of urea nitrogen and creatinine were obtained. The number of percutaneous cases done in the hospital and office setting was analyzed, and revenue was calculated based on the 2008 Medicare fee schedule for our region. Amputation and mortality rates at 30 days were documented. Hospital DRG payment schedule was obtained. RESULTS: In period 1, 670 (22% of total) percutaneous procedures were performed compared with 1502 (44.8%) in period 2, a twofold increase. In period 1, 1.5% of total cases were done in the office compared with 31% in period 2. There was a fivefold increase in revenue from these procedures. No deaths or amputations occurred as a result of procedures performed in the office. No anesthesiologist's expense and minimal preprocedural expenses were incurred. Total payment by Medicare, DRG payment to the hospital, and the physician component were higher in all the cases. CONCLUSIONS: A vascular surgery practice can benefit from office-based procedures. Procedures can be done safely. It results in an increase in the number of percutaneous procedures and revenue with a significant savings to the health care system. Surgeons can control their schedule. Every vascular surgeon should consider doing these procedures in office.

Optimizing your vascular practice: how to communicate with referring doctors, increase referrals, and work with cardiologists and interventional radiologists.

After the fellowship in vascular surgery is completed there is the daunting task of going into practice and succeeding. There are various tools that one can use to succeed in practice and also work closely with other specialists. The key to success is marketing and innovation. Using the two together any vascular surgeon can succeed. Marketing has multiple facets not to be confused with advertising. Total marketing revolves around the surgeon. It involves personal attributes, running of the office, behavior in the hospital, working with other physicians, and using advertising channels. Innovation is required as the art and science of the specialty continues to evolve. Vascular surgeons need to be on the cutting edge of providing latest technology as well as latest methods of delivering care.

Fistulogram after arteriovenous dialysis graft thrombectomy should be mandatory.

The purpose of this study was to determine if fistulogram after prosthetic arteriovenous dialysis graft thrombectomy would reveal underlying lesions, which need correction, and if revision would improve graft patency. One hundred and ninety-two open thrombectomy procedures in 61 patients from January 1, 2000 to July 31, 2005 were reviewed retrospectively. All of the study patients were divided into two groups: In Group I fistulogram was carried out and in Group II no fistulogram was performed. Based on the fistulogram or clinical findings, appropriate intervention was carried out. In Group I, of 99 thrombectomy procedures, a significant lesion was identified and revision was carried out in 77 cases (78%). In Group II, of 93 thrombectomy procedures, a significant lesion was identified and revised in 53 cases (57%). A significant abnormality was more likely to be encountered by routine fistulogram than surgical exploration alone, 78 per cent versus 57 per cent (P < 0.05). Assisted primary patency is significantly increased in Group I and II when revision was performed (4.84 months) compared with when no fistulogram and no revision was performed (2.9 months), P < 0.05. Routine fistulogram after thrombectomy of an arteriovenous dialysis graft increases the likelihood of identifying a significant stenosis. Revision of the graft increases the longevity. We recommend routine use of fistulogram during thrombectomy.