Related Articles

Trends in vena caval interruption.

J Vasc Surg. 2010 Mar 19;

Authors: Moore PS, Andrews JS, Craven TE, Davis RP, Corriere MA, Godshall CJ, Edwards MS, Hansen KJ

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the national use of vena cava filters (VCFs) from 1998 to 2005. METHODS: Methods for complex surveys were used to examine hospital discharge data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) to determine the use of VCFs for the years 1998 to 2005. VCF placement in the absence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolus (PE) was categorized as prophylactic. RESULTS: During the study period, the estimated rate of hospitalizations per year with a diagnosis of DVT (odds ratio [OR], 1.025; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.019-1.032; P < .01) or PE (OR, 1.076; 95% CI, 1.069-1.083; P < .01) rose significantly. The estimated weighted frequency of VCF placement increased from 52,860 procedures in 1998 to 104,114 procedures in 2005 (0.15% and 0.27% of all discharges, respectively), representing an 80% increase. VCF placement significantly increased during hospitalizations with any diagnosis of DVT or PE, or both, and no DVT or PE (P < .01 for each). Logistic regression models revealed that the rate of prophylactic VCF placement increased at a significantly higher rate than VCF placement associated with DVT or PE (157% vs 42%; P < .01), after adjusting for age, gender, and hospital characteristics. Prophylactic VCF placement in the setting of morbid obesity (P < .01) and head injury (P = .03) rose significantly over time. CONCLUSIONS: From 1998 to 2005, the estimated rates of prophylactic VCF placement increased at a significantly higher rate than VCF placement in the setting of DVT or PE. Significant increases in the use of prophylactic VCFs were seen in the setting of morbid obesity and head injury.

PMID: 20304583 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

[Read more →]

Related Articles

New developments in the preoperative evaluation and perioperative management of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing vascular surgery.

J Vasc Surg. 2010 Jan;51(1):242-51

Authors: Bauer SM, Cayne NS, Veith FJ

BACKGROUND: Preoperative evaluation and perioperative management of cardiac disease in patients undergoing vascular surgery (VS) is important for patients and vascular surgeons. Recent evidence has emerged that has allowed us to develop contemporary paradigms for evaluating and managing coronary artery disease in VS patients perioperatively. METHODS: The utility of stress testing, the role of preoperative coronary revascularization, the optimal use of beta-blockers and statins, and the role of antiplatelet therapy in VS patients were reviewed in the literature. RESULTS: The revised Lee cardiac risk index, based on the number of risk factors (high-risk surgery, ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, renal failure, hypertension, and age >75) quantitates cardiac risk. Stress testing is not predictive of myocardial ischemia/infarction (MI) or death and is only recommended in patients with unstable angina or an active arrhythmia. Stress testing for patients with 0 to 2 risk factors delays VS up to 3 weeks. In high-risk patients (>or=3 risk factors), it helps to identify patients who may develop myocardial ischemia and would benefit from a 30-day period to optimize medical therapy before VS. Stress testing and coronary catheterization do not predict which coronary artery to revascularize to prevent MI or death. Revascularization does not decrease MI or death rates at 1 month or 6 years. Although beta-blocker treatment decreases cardiac risk with VS, timing and dosage (titration) influence outcomes, improper usage may increase stroke and death rate, and not all VS patients should be taking these drugs. Patients with >or=1 risk factor should be considered to begin a low dose beta-blocker 1 month before VS. Preoperative statin use sharply decreases MI, stroke, and death perioperatively and long-term postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Routine stress testing should not be performed before VS. The Lee index should be used to stratify risk in patients undergoing VS. Patients with >or=3 risk factors or active cardiac conditions should undergo stress testing, if VS can be delayed. All VS patients, except those with 0 risk factors, should be considered for a beta-blocker (bisoprolol, 2.5-5 mg/d started 1 month before VS, titrated to a pulse <70 beats/min and a systolic blood pressure >or=120 mm Hg). Intermediate risk factors may not require aggressive heart rate control but simply maintenance on a low-dose beta-blocker. Statins should be started (ideally 30 days) before all VS using long-acting formulations such as fluvastatin (80 mg/d) for patients unable to take oral medication.

PMID: 19954922 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Read more →]

Related Articles

Combined use of pretest clinical probability score and latex agglutination D-dimer testing for excluding acute deep vein thrombosis.

J Vasc Surg. 2009 Nov;50(5):1099-105

Authors: Yamaki T, Nozaki M, Sakurai H, Kikuchi Y, Soejima K, Kono T, Hamahata A, Kim K

OBJECTIVE: Currently, the latex agglutination D-dimer assay is widely used for excluding deep vein thrombosis (DVT) but is considered less sensitive than the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-based D-dimer test. The purpose of the present study was to determine if a combination of different cutoff points, rather than a single cutoff point of 1.0 microg/mL, on the latex agglutination D-dimer assay and the pretest clinical probability (PTP) score would be able to reduce the use of venous duplex ultrasound (DU) scanning in patients with suspected DVT. METHODS: The PTP score and D-dimer testing were used to evaluate 989 consecutive patients with suspected DVT before venous DU scanning. After calculating the clinical probability scores, patients were divided into low-risk (< or =0 points), moderate-risk (1-2 points), and high-risk (> or =3 points) pretest clinical probability groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to determine the appropriate D-dimer cutoff point for each PTP with a negative predictive value of >98% for a positive DU scan. RESULTS: There were 886 patients enrolled. The study group included 609 inpatients (68.7%) and 277 outpatients (31.3%). The prevalence of DVT in this series was 28.9%. There were 508 patients (57.3%) classified as low-risk, 237 (26.8%) as moderate-risk, and 141 (14.9%) as high-risk PTP. DVT was identified in 29 patients (5.7%) with low-risk, 118 (49.8%) with moderate-risk, and 109 (77.3%) with high-risk PTP scores. ROC curve analysis was used to select D-dimer cutoff points of 2.6, 1.1, and 1.1 microg/mL for the low-, moderate- and high-risk PTP groups, respectively. In the low-risk PTP group, specificity increased from 48.9% to 78.2% (P < .0001) with use of the different D-dimer cutoff value. In the moderate- and high-risk PTP groups, however, the different D-dimer levels did not achieve substantial improvement. Despite this, the overall use of venous DU scanning could have been reduced by 43.0% (381 of 886) if the different D-dimer cutoff points had been used. CONCLUSIONS: Combination of a specific D-dimer level with the clinical probability score is most effective in low-risk PTP patients for excluding DVT. In moderate- and high-risk PTP patients, however, the recommended cutoff points of 1.0 microg/mL may be preferable. These results show that different D-dimer levels for patients differing in risk is feasible for excluding DVT using the latex agglutination D-dimer assay.

PMID: 19703748 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Read more →]

Related Articles

Mesenteric revascularization: management and outcomes in the United States, 1988-2006.

J Vasc Surg. 2009 Aug;50(2):341-348.e1

Authors: Schermerhorn ML, Giles KA, Hamdan AD, Wyers MC, Pomposelli FB

BACKGROUND: Recent reports have suggested that angioplasty, with and without stenting (PTA/S), may have a lower perioperative mortality rate than open surgery for revascularization of acute (AMI) and chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI). It is unclear if there has been nationwide adoption of this methodology or whether there is actually a mortality benefit. METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing surgical (bypass, endarterectomy, or embolectomy) or PTA/S mesenteric revascularization from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 1988 to 2006. A diagnosis by International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revisioncoding of AMI or CMI was required for inclusion. We evaluated trends in management during this period and compared in-hospital death and complications between surgical bypass and PTA/S for the years 2000 to 2006. RESULTS: From 1988 to 2006, there were 6342 PTA/S and 16,071 open surgical repairs overall. PTA/S increased steadily, surpassing all surgery for CMI in 2002. PTA/S for AMI has also increased and surpassed bypass in 2002 but has not surpassed all surgical procedures for AMI even in 2006. The mortality rate was lower after PTA/S than after bypass for CMI (3.7% vs 13%, P < .01) and AMI (16% vs 28%, P < .01). Bowel resection was more common after bypass than PTA/S for CMI (7% vs 3%, P < .01). This subgroup showed an increased in-hospital mortality rate for both repair types (54% and 25%, respectively). CONCLUSION: PTA/S is being used with increasing frequency for revascularization of CMI and AMI. The lower in-hospital mortality rate for patients, as they are currently being selected, shows that PTA/S is appropriate therapy for selected patients with CMI. Longitudinal data are needed to determine the durability of this benefit. The greater proportion of patients undergoing bowel resection with bypass for AMI suggests a more advanced level of ischemia in this group, making comparison with PTA/S difficult. However, PTA/S may be useful in selected patients with AMI and appropriate anatomy. Further data with greater detail regarding symptomatology and anatomy will clarify appropriate patient selection.

PMID: 19372025 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Read more →]

Related Articles

Leg ulcer treatment.

J Vasc Surg. 2009 Mar;49(3):804-8

Authors: Coleridge-Smith PD

Venous ulcers continue to cause problems for patients and health care systems. These are painful and unpleasant for the patient and expensive for health care providers to treat. This brief review highlights effective methods of management. There is level 1 evidence of the efficacy of compression (bandaging or stockings) in healing ulcers as well as maintaining healing. Patients with superficial saphenous reflux, with or without perforating and deep vein incompetence, benefit from superficial venous surgery. This does not speed ulcer healing but is effective at preventing recurrence after healing with compression. Minimally invasive methods of managing incompetence of superficial saphenous trunks, including endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, and foam sclerotherapy are probably also effective in treating patients with venous leg ulcers. Perforating vein ligation is commonly combined with superficial venous surgery for leg ulcer patients, but no systematic data are available to define the role of this treatment. Some centers use deep vein reconstruction to restore competence to deep vein valves. Insufficient data have been published to allow any general recommendation to be made for this treatment. A limited number of drugs have efficacy in promoting leg ulcer healing. They may be used in combination with compression treatment in patients with ulcers refractory to other methods of management. No particular ulcer dressing has been shown to be effective in speeding ulcer healing.

PMID: 19268785 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Read more →]

Related Articles

Long-term results of carotid artery stenting.

J Vasc Surg. 2008 Dec;48(6):1431-40; discussion 1440-1

Authors: de Donato G, Setacci C, Deloose K, Peeters P, Cremonesi A, Bosiers M

OBJECTIVE: Data regarding the long-term efficacy of carotid artery stenting (CAS) are still scarce. As demonstrated by several major randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing the efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) vs medical therapy, even after successful carotid revascularization late ipsilateral stroke occurs in 5-13% at 5 years. Therefore, major concerns also remain about the durability of the CAS procedure in terms of stroke prevention. The purpose of this study was to review long-term results after carotid stent implantation in a large cohort of patients. METHODS: This retrospective investigation involved 3179 CAS procedures performed at four European carotid high-volume centers. Echo-duplex scan using modified velocity criteria to recognize in-stent restenosis (ISR) and neurological examinations of all patients were carried out every 6 months after the procedure. Life-table analysis was used to determine freedom from mortality, stroke-related death, ipsilateral fatal/major stroke, and any ipsilateral stroke. Freedom from ISR and from reintervention were also reported. The secondary aim was to identify predictive risk factors for neurological complications and ISR. RESULTS: At 5 years freedom from mortality, stroke-related death, ipsilateral fatal/major stroke, and any stroke rate were 82%, 93.5%, 93.3%, and 91.9%, respectively. The only predictor for neurological complications was the presence of neurological symptoms before CAS (hazard ratio 1.38 [CI 1.05, 1.82] P = .02). Freedom from restenosis at 1, 3, and 5 years was, respectively, 98.4%, 96.1%, and 94%. Uni- and multi-variate analyses showed that stent characteristics (material/design/free-cell area) were not significantly associated with time to in-stent restenosis or time to reintervention. CONCLUSION: Our long-term results in a large cohort of patients validated CAS as a durable procedure for stroke prevention. The annual rate of neurological complications after CAS was comparable to that of conventional surgery as demonstrated by large RCTs involving both symptomatic patients (North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial [NASCET] and European Carotid Surgery Trial [ECST]) and asymptomatic patients (Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study [ACAS] and Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial [ACST]).

PMID: 18848755 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Read more →]

Related Articles

Arterial trauma during central venous catheter insertion: Case series, review and proposed algorithm.

J Vasc Surg. 2008 Oct;48(4):918-25; discussion 925

Authors: Guilbert MC, Elkouri S, Bracco D, Corriveau MM, Beaudoin N, Dubois MJ, Bruneau L, Blair JF

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous catheterization is a frequently-used technique to gain access to the central venous circulation. Inadvertent arterial puncture is often without consequence, but can lead to devastating complications if it goes unrecognized and a large-bore dilator or catheter is inserted. The present study reviews our experience with these complications and the literature to determine the safest way to manage catheter-related cervicothoracic arterial injury (CRCAI). METHODS: We retrospectively identified all cases of iatrogenic carotid or subclavian injury following central venous catheterization at three large institutions in Montreal. We reviewed the French and English literature published from 1980 to 2006, in PubMed, and selected studies with the following criteria: arterial misplacement of a large-caliber cannula (>/=7F), adult patients (>18 years old), description of the method for managing arterial trauma, reference population (denominator) to estimate the success rate of the therapeutic option chosen. A consensus panel of vascular surgeons, anesthetists and intensivists reviewed this information and proposed a treatment algorithm. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were treated for CRCAI in participating institutions. Five of them underwent immediate catheter removal and compression, and all had severe complications resulting in major stroke and death in one patient, with the other four undergoing further intervention for a false aneurysm or massive bleeding. The remaining eight patients were treated by immediate open repair (six) or through an endovascular approach (two) for subclavian artery trauma without complications. Five articles met all our inclusion criteria, for a total of 30 patients with iatrogenic arterial cannulation: 17 were treated by immediate catheter removal and direct external pressure; eight (47%) had major complications requiring further interventions; and two died. The remaining 13 patients submitted to immediate surgical exploration, catheter removal and artery repair under direct vision, without any complications (47% vs 0%, P = .004). CONCLUSION: During central venous placement, prevention of arterial puncture and cannulation is essential to minimize serious sequelae. If arterial trauma with a large-caliber catheter occurs, prompt surgical or endovascular treatment seems to be the safest approach. The pull/pressure technique is associated with a significant risk of hematoma, airway obstruction, stroke, and false aneurysm. Endovascular treatment appears to be safe for the management of arterial injuries that are difficult to expose surgically, such as those below or behind the clavicle. After arterial repair, prompt neurological evaluation should be performed, even if it requires postponing elective intervention. Imaging is suggested to exclude arterial complications, especially if arterial trauma site was not examined and repaired.

PMID: 18703308 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Read more →]

Related Articles

Endarterectomy vs stenting for carotid artery stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

J Vasc Surg. 2008 Aug;48(2):487-93

Authors: Murad MH, Flynn DN, Elamin MB, Guyatt GH, Hobson RW, Erwin PJ, Montori VM

OBJECTIVES: The relative efficacy and safety of endarterectomy and stenting in patients with carotid stenosis remain unclear. In this review we synthesize the available evidence derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the two procedures in terms of the risks of death, stroke (disabling and nondisabling), and nonfatal myocardial infarction. METHODS: We searched for RCTs in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, and Cochrane CENTRAL; expert files, and bibliographies of included articles. Two reviewers, working independently, determined trial eligibility and extracted descriptive, methodologic, and outcome data from each eligible RCT. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to assess relative and absolute risks and the I(2) statistic was used to assess heterogeneity of treatment effect among trials. RESULTS: Ten RCTs with 3182 participants proved eligible. At 30 days and compared with endarterectomy, carotid stenting was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of death (relative risk [RR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-1.37; I(2) = 0%), a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction (RR, 0.43; 95% CI 0.17-1.11; I(2) = 0%), and a nonsignificant increase in the risk of any stroke (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.73-2.26; I(2) = 40%) and major/disabling stroke (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.32-3.52; I(2) = 45%). If one considers the two procedures equivalent if the absolute difference in events is <2%, these results provide moderate-quality evidence for equivalence with respect to death (risk difference [RD] -0.40, 95% CI -1.02 to 0.40) and nonfatal myocardial infarction (RD, -0.70; 95% CI -1.90 to 0.50), but because of much wider CI, only low-quality evidence of equivalence in stroke (RD, 1.00; 95% CI, -1.00 to 3.10). CONCLUSION: In RCTs, carotid stenting and carotid endarterectomy seem equivalent in terms of death and nonfatal myocardial infarction. Although the impact on stroke remains unestablished, results are consistent with a clinically important increase in stroke risk with stenting, an intervention that aims at reducing the risk of stroke.

PMID: 18644495 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Read more →]