Objective: Frailty, a clinical syndrome associated with loss of metabolic reserves, is prevalent among patients who present to vascular surgery clinics for evaluation. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a rapid assessment method shown to be highly specific for identifying frail patients. In this study, we sought to evaluate whether the preoperative CFS score could be used to predict loss of independence after major vascular procedures. Methods: We identified all patients living independently at home who were prospectively assessed using the CFS before undergoing an elective major vascular surgery procedure (admitted for >24 hours) at an academic medical center between December 2015 and December 2017. Patient-and procedure-level clinical data were obtained from our institutional Vascular Quality Initiative registry database. The composite outcome of discharge to a nonhome location or 30-day mortality was evaluated using bivariate and multivariate regression models. Results: A total of 134 independent patients were assessed using the CFS before they underwent elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (8%), endovascular aneurysm repair (26%), thoracic endovascular aortic repair (6%), suprainguinal bypass (6%), infrainguinal bypass (16%), carotid endarterectomy (19%), or peripheral vascular intervention (20%). Among 39 (29%) individuals categorized as being frail using the CFS, there was no significant difference in age or American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status compared with nonfrail patients. However, frail patients were significantly more likely to need mobility assistance after surgery (62% frail vs 22% nonfrail; P < .01) and to be discharged to a nonhome location (22% frail vs 6% nonfrail; P ¼ .01) or to die within 30 days after surgery (8% frail vs 0% nonfrail; P < .01). Preoperative frailty was associated with a >12-fold higher risk (odds ratio, 12.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.17-66.96; P < .01) of 30-day mortality or loss of independence, independent of the vascular procedure undertaken. Conclusions: The CFS is a practical tool for assessing preoperative frailty among patients undergoing elective major vascular surgery and can be used to predict likelihood of requiring discharge to a nursing facility or death after surgery. The identification of frail patients before major surgery can help manage postoperative expectations and optimize transitions of care.

Our data show that two-stage BVTs are more durable and cost-effective than one-stage procedures, with significantly higher patency and lower rates of failure among comparable risk-stratified patients. These findings suggest that additional upfront costs and resources associated with creating two-stage BVTs are justified by their long-term outcomes.

Objective: During the COVID-19 pandemic, central venous access line teams were implemented at many hospitals throughout the world to provide access for critically ill patients. The objective of this study was to describe the structure, practice patterns, and outcomes of these vascular access teams during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, self-reported study of central venous access line teams in hospitals afflicted with the COVID-19 pandemic. To participate in the study, hospitals were required to meet one of the following criteria: development of a formal plan for a central venous access line team during the pandemic; implementation of a central venous access line team during the pandemic; placement of central venous access by a designated practice group during the pandemic as part of routine clinical practice; or management of an iatrogenic complication related to central venous access in a patient with COVID-19. Results: Participants from 60 hospitals in 13 countries contributed data to the study. Central venous line teams were most commonly composed of vascular surgery and general surgery attending physicians and trainees. Twenty sites had 2657 lines placed by their central venous access line team or designated practice group. During that time, there were 11 (0.4%) iatrogenic complications associated with central venous access procedures performed by the line team or group at those 20 sites. Triple lumen catheters, Cordis (Santa Clara, Calif) catheters, and nontunneled hemodialysis catheters were the most common types of central venous lines placed by the teams. Eight (14%) sites reported experience in placing central venous lines in prone, ventilated patients with COVID-19. A dedicated line cart was used by 35 (59%) of the hospitals. Less than 50% (24 [41%]) of the participating sites reported managing thrombosed central lines in COVID-19 patients. Twentythree of the sites managed 48 iatrogenic complications in patients with COVID-19 (including complications caused by providers outside of the line team or designated practice group). Conclusions: Implementation of a dedicated central venous access line team during a pandemic or other health care crisis is a way by which physicians trained in central venous access can contribute their expertise to a stressed health care system. A line team composed of physicians with vascular skill sets provides relief to resource-constrained intensive care unit, ward, and emergency medicine teams with a low rate of iatrogenic complications relative to historical reports. We recommend that a plan for central venous access line team implementation be in place for future health care crises.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: To determine outcomes of aneurysmal common iliac arteries (aCIA) used for landing zones (LZs) during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Methods: This single-center study retrospectively compared 57 EVAR patients (mean age 72±8 years; 56 men) with 70 aCIAs (diameter ≥20 mm) to 25 control EVAR subjects (mean age 73±7 years; 20 men) with 50 normal (≤15-mm) CIA LZs treated consecutively during the same time interval. The CIA LZ measurements were analyzed using random effects linear mixed models to determine diameter change over time. Life tables were used to estimate freedom from endoleak, reintervention, and all-cause mortality. Results: The mean maximum preoperative CIA diameter in the aCIA LZ group was 24.8±4.5 mm (range 20.0-47.3, median 23.9) vs 13.6±1.5 mm (range 9.2-15.0, median 13.9; p<0.001) in the controls. Nineteen aCIA LZs were treated outside the instructions for use of the device. Median follow-up in the aCIAs LZ cohort was 39.2 months [interquartile range (IQR) 15, 61] vs 49.3 months (IQR 36, 61) in the controls (p=0.06). The rate of aCIA LZ change (0.09 mm/mo, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.1) was significantly greater than controls (0.03 mm/mo, 95% CI -0.009 to 0.07; p<0.0001). No type Ib endoleaks developed in either group; however, aCIA LZ patients had 6 (11%) iliac limb-related reinterventions. There were significantly more endograft-related reinterventions in the aCIA LZ patients (n=10, 14%) compared with controls (n=2, 4%; p=0.06). There was no difference in mortality or freedom from any post-hospital discharge endoleak. Conclusion: Aneurysmal CIA LZs used during EVAR experience greater dilatation compared with normal LZs, but no significant difference in outcome was noted in midterm follow-up. However, an increased incidence of graft limb complications or endograft-related reintervention may be encountered. Use of aCIA LZs appears to be safe; however, greater patient numbers and longer follow-up are needed to understand the clinical implications of morphologic changes in these vessels when used during EVAR.

Our data suggest that AV fistula thrombectomy is successful in up to 70% of cases, with significantly improved risk-adjusted 1-year primary and secondary patency rates for upper arm fistulas compared with grafts. Whereas the risk of access failure is high after thrombectomy, efforts to salvage upper arm AV fistulas are effective in most patients and should be undertaken when feasible.