The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on vascular registries and clinical trials.

Quality improvement programs and clinical trial research experienced disruption due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Vascular registries showed an immediate impact with significant declines in second-quarter vascular procedure volumes witnessed across Europe and the United States. To better understand the magnitude and impact of the pandemic, organizations and study groups sent grass roots surveys to vascular specialists for needs assessment. Several vascular registries responded quickly by insertion of COVID-19 variables into their data collection forms. More than 80% of clinical trials have been reported delayed or not started due to factors that included loss of enrollment from patient concerns or mandated institutional shutdowns, weighing the risk of trial participation on patient safety. Preliminary data of patients undergoing vascular surgery with active COVID-19 infection show inferior outcomes (morbidity) and increased mortality. Disease-specific vascular surgery study collaboratives about COVID-19 were created for the desire to study the disease in a more focused manner than possible through registry outcomes. This review describes the pandemic effect on multiple VASCUNET registries including Germany (GermanVasc), Sweden (SwedVasc), United Kingdom (UK National Vascular Registry), Australia and New Zealand (bi-national Australasian Vascular Audit), as well as the United States (Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative). We will highlight the continued collaboration of VASCUNET with the Vascular Quality Initiative in the International Consortium of Vascular Registries as part of the Medical Device Epidemiology Network coordinated registry network. Vascular registries must remain flexible and responsive to new and future real-world problems affecting vascular patients

A Primary Retroperitoneal Mucinous Tumor

A twenty-five-year-old female presented with a large retroperitoneal mass. Workup included history and physical exam, imaging, biopsy, colonoscopy, and gynecologic exam. After surgical resection, the mass was determined to be a primary retroperitoneal mucinous tumor (PRMT). Clinically and histologically, these tumors are similar pancreatic and ovarian mucinous neoplasms. PRMTs are rare and few case reports have been published. PRMTs are divided into mucinous cystadenomas, mucinous borderline tumors of low malignant potential, and mucinous carcinoma. These tumors have malignant potential so resection is indicated and in some cases adjuvant chemotherapy and/or surveillance imaging

Aortic Neck IFU Violations During EVAR for Ruptured Infrarenal Aortic Aneurysms are Associated with Increased In-Hospital Mortality

ObjectiveVascular surgeons treating patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm must make rapid treatment decisions and sometimes lack immediate access to endovascular devices meeting the anatomic specifications of the patient at hand. We hypothesized that endovascular treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rEVAR) outside manufacturer instructions-for-use (IFU) guidelines would have similar in-hospital mortality compared to patients treated on-IFU or with an infrarenal clamp during open repair (ruptured open aortic aneurysm repair [rOAR]).MethodsVascular Quality Initiative datasets for endovascular and open aortic repair were queried for patients presenting with ruptured infrarenal AAA between 2013-2018. Graft-specific IFU criteria were correlated with case-specific proximal neck dimension data to classify rEVAR cases as on- or off-IFU. Univariate comparisons between the on- and off-IFU groups were performed for demographic, operative and in-hospital outcome variables. To investigate mortality differences between rEVAR and rOAR approaches, coarsened exact matching was used to match patients receiving off-IFU rEVAR with those receiving complex rEVAR (requiring at least one visceral stent or scallop) or rOAR with infrarenal, suprarenal or supraceliac clamps. A multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with in-hospital mortality.Results621 patients were treated with rEVAR, with 65% classified as on-IFU and 35% off-IFU. The off-IFU group was more frequently female (25% vs. 18%, P = 0.05) and had larger aneurysms (76 vs. 72 mm, P= 0.01) but otherwise was not statistically different from the on-IFU cohort. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in patients treated off-IFU vs. on-IFU (22% vs. 14%, P= 0.02). Off-IFU rEVAR was associated with longer operative times (135 min vs. 120 min, P= 0.004) and increased intraoperative blood product utilization (2 units vs. 1 unit, P= 0.002). When off-IFU patients were matched to complex rEVAR and rOAR patients, no baseline differences were found between the groups. Overall in-hospital complications associated with off-IFU were reduced compared to more complex strategies (43% vs. 60-81%, P< 0.001) and in-hospital mortality was significantly lower for off-IFU rEVAR patients compared to the supraceliac clamp group (18% vs. 38%, P= 0.006). However, there was no significantly increased mortality associated with complex rEVAR, infrarenal rOAR or suprarenal rOAR compared to off-IFU rEVAR (all P> 0.05). This finding persisted in a multivariate logistic regression.ConclusionsOff-IFU rEVAR yields inferior in-hospital survival compared to on-IFU rEVAR but remains associated with reduced in-hospital complications when compared with more complex repair strategies. When compared with matched patients undergoing rOAR with an infrarenal or suprarenal clamp, survival was no different from off-IFU rEVAR. Taken together with the growing available evidence suggesting reduced long-term durability of off-IFU EVAR, these data suggest that a patient's comorbidity burden should be key in making the decision to pursue off-IFU rEVAR over a more complex repair when proximal neck violations are anticipated preoperatively

Managing central venous access during a health care crisis

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. Twenty-three 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