Despite the publication of several national/international guidelines, the optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) remains controversial. This article compares 3 recently released guidelines (the 2020 German–Austrian, the 2021 European Stroke Organization [ESO], and the 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery [SVS] guidelines) vs the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) guidelines regarding the optimal management of AsxCS patients. The 2017 ESVS guidelines defined specific imaging/clinical parameters that may identify patient subgroups at high future stroke risk and recommended that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) should or carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered for these individuals. The 2020 German–Austrian guidelines provided similar recommendations with the 2017 ESVS Guidelines. The 2021 ESO Guidelines also recommended CEA for AsxCS patients at high risk for stroke on best medical treatment (BMT), but recommended against routine use of CAS in these patients. Finally, the SVS guidelines provided a strong recommendation for CEA+BMT vs BMT alone for low-surgical risk patients with >70% AsxCS. Thus, the ESVS, German–Austrian, and ESO guidelines concurred that all AsxCS patients should receive risk factor modification and BMT, but CEA should or CAS may also be considered for certain AsxCS patient subgroups at high risk for future ipsilateral ischemic stroke.
Relationships between the use of pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis, sonographic findings, and clinical outcomes in patients with acute proximal DVT: Results from the ATTRACT Multicenter Randomized Trial
Few studies have documented relationships between endovascular therapy, duplex ultrasonography (DUS), post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), and quality of life (QOL). The Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal with Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis (ATTRACT) trial randomized 692 patients with acute proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) to receive anticoagulation or anticoagulation plus pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT). Compression DUS was obtained at baseline, 1 month and 12 months. Reflux DUS was obtained at 12 months in a subset of 126 patients. Clinical outcomes were collected over 24 months. At 1 month, patients who received PCDT had less residual thrombus compared to Control patients, evidenced by non-compressible common femoral vein (CFV) (21% vs 35%, p < 0.0001), femoral vein (51% vs 70%, p < 0.0001), and popliteal vein (61% vs 74%, p < 0.0001). At 12 months, in the ultrasound substudy, valvular reflux prevalence was similar between groups (85% vs 91%, p = 0.35). CFV non-compressibility at 1 month was associated with higher rates of any PTS (61% vs 46%, p < 0.001), a higher incidence of moderate-or-severe PTS (30% vs 19%, p = 0.003), and worse QOL (difference 8.2 VEINES-QOL (VEnous INsufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study on Quality of Life) points; p = 0.004) at 24 months. Valvular reflux at 12 months was associated with moderate-or-severe PTS at 24 months (30% vs 0%, p = 0.01). In summary, PCDT results in less residual thrombus but does not reduce venous valvular reflux. CFV non-compressibility at 1 month is associated with more PTS, more severe PTS, and worse QOL at 24 months. Valvular reflux may predispose to moderate-or-severe PTS. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00790335.
Program requirements for fellowship education in venous and lymphatic medicine
Background In every field of medicine, comprehensive education should be delivered at the graduate level. Currently, no single specialty routinely provides a standardized comprehensive curriculum in venous and lymphatic disease. Method The American Board of Venous & Lymphatic Medicine formed a task force, made up of experts from the specialties of dermatology, family practice, interventional radiology, interventional cardiology, phlebology, vascular medicine, and vascular surgery, to develop a consensus document describing the program requirements for fellowship medical education in venous and lymphatic medicine. Result The Program Requirements for Fellowship Education in Venous and Lymphatic Medicine identify the knowledge and skills that physicians must master through the course of fellowship training in venous and lymphatic medicine. They also specify the requirements for venous and lymphatic training programs. The document is based on the Core Content for Training in Venous and Lymphatic Medicine and follows the ACGME format that all subspecialties in the United States use to specify the requirements for training program accreditation. The American Board of Venous & Lymphatic Medicine Board of Directors approved this document in May 2016. Conclusion The pathway to a vein practice is diverse, and there is no standardized format available for physician education and training. The Program Requirements for Fellowship Education in Venous and Lymphatic Medicine establishes educational standards for teaching programs in venous and lymphatic medicine and will facilitate graduation of physicians who have had comprehensive training in the field.
Impact of Institutional Volume on Outcomes of Catheter Directed Thrombolysis in the Treatment of Acute Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis
Background— The use of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) in the treatment of acute proximal lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis is increasing in the United States and has been linked to higher bleeding rates. Whether this relationship is interrelated with institution volume of CDT is unknown. Methods and Results— The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was used to identify all patients admitted with a principal diagnosis of proximal or inferior vena caval deep vein thrombosis and treated with CDT from 2005 to 2010. Institutions were divided into high-volume (≥6 procedures a year) and low-volume (<6 procedures a year) centers. Propensity score matching was used to create 2 matched groups for comparative analysis. A total of 90 618 patients were hospitalized for proximal lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis, and 3649 patients (4.1%) underwent CDT. In-hospital mortality was significantly lower at high-volume centers (0.6% versus 1.5%; P =0.04) with a trend toward lower intracranial hemorrhage rates compared with low-volume centers (0.4% versus 1%; P =0.07). No significant difference was seen with blood transfusion (10.4% versus 10.8%; P =0.70), gastrointestinal bleeding (1.4% versus 1.8%; P =0.35), or pulmonary embolism rates (18.4% versus 17.9%; P =0.72). Median length of stay was similar (6 days) and hospital charges were higher ($65 500 versus $75 870) at high-volume centers. Conclusions— In this observational study, we found that an increase in institutional volume of CDT was associated with lower in-hospital mortality and lower intracranial hemorrhage rates. Further studies are needed to assess whether standardization of CDT protocols across all institutions in the United States improves outcomes.
Why the US Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Should Not Extend Reimbursement Indications for Carotid Artery Angioplasty/Stenting