Updated Research Priorities of the Society for Vascular Surgery

Practice Patterns and Barriers to Vascular Genetic Testing Among Vascular Surgeons

INTRODUCTION

Engaging patients living with or at risk of aortic dissection via the Aortic Dissection Collaborative, physician education in vascular genetics was identified as a research priority. We surveyed vascular surgeons to characterize practice patterns, motivations, and barriers regarding aortopathy genetic testing.

METHODS

An anonymous 27-question survey was distributed on social media platforms between November and December 2022. Domains included demographics, vascular genetic education, testing attitudes and utilization, and experience in treating patients with genetic vascular aortopathies. The analysis included summary statistics and unpaired t-test to compare responses by interest in incorporating testing and practice type.

RESULTS

A total of 171 vascular surgeons from 15 countries responded to the survey (23% trainees). Over half received vascular genetics education during training (59%), and most (86%) were interested in incorporating genetic testing into their practice. Academic surgeons were more likely to have cared for a patient with a known genetic aortopathy over the past year than surgeons in hospital-based and private practices (83% vs. 56% vs. 27%; P < 0.01), to have ever made a referral to a medical geneticist (78% vs. 51% vs. 9%; P < 0.01), and have access to genetic counselors or geneticists (66% vs. 46% vs. 0%; P < 0.01). Barriers to genetic testing were rated as more significant by surgeons in nonacademic practices, with top barriers being insurance coverage of testing, cost of genetic testing, and access to genetic counselors. Evidence-based professional society guidelines were the strongest rated motivating factor for testing incorporation among respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

Vascular surgeon attitudes are not major barriers to incorporating genetic testing for patients with aortopathies; however, practical challenges regarding genetic testing and counseling are barriers to implementation especially for vascular surgeons in nonacademic practices. Future efforts should focus on evidence-based society guidelines, continuing medical education to increase adoption, and facilitating access to genetic counseling.

National Institutes of Health funding among vascular surgeons is rare

BACKGROUND

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is an essential source of funding for vascular surgeons conducting research. NIH funding is frequently used to benchmark institutional and individual research productivity, help determine eligibility for academic promotion, and as a measure of scientific quality. We sought to appraise the current scope of NIH funding to vascular surgeons by appraising the characteristics of NIH-funded investigators and projects. In addition, we also sought to determine whether funded grants addressed recent Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) research priorities.

METHODS

In April 2022, we queried the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) database for active projects. We only included projects that had a vascular surgeon as a principal investigator. Grant characteristics were extracted from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results database. Principal investigator demographics and academic background information were identified by searching institution profiles.

RESULTS

There were 55 active NIH awards given to 41 vascular surgeons. Only 1% (41/4037) of all vascular surgeons in the United States receive NIH funding. Funded vascular surgeons are an average of 16.3 years out of training; 37% (n = 15) are women. The majority of awards (58%; n = 32) were R01 grants. Among the active NIH-funded projects, 75% (n = 41) are basic or translational research projects, and 25% (n = 14) are clinical or health services research projects. Abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease are the most commonly funded disease areas and together accounted for 54% (n = 30) of projects. Three SVS research priorities are not addressed by any of the current NIH-funded projects.

CONCLUSIONS

NIH funding of vascular surgeons is rare and predominantly consists of basic or translational science projects focused on abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease research. Women are well-represented among funded vascular surgeons. Although the majority of SVS research priorities receive NIH funding, three SVS research priorities are yet to be addressed by NIH-funded projects. Future efforts should focus on increasing the number of vascular surgeons receiving NIH grants and ensuring all SVS research priorities receive NIH funding.

Patients from distressed communities are more likely to be symptomatic at endovascular aneurysm repair and have an increased risk of being lost to long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the preferred modality to repair abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). However, the effect of the distressed communities index (DCI) on the outcomes of EVAR is still unknown. In the present study, we investigated the effect of DCI on the postoperative outcomes after EVAR.

METHODS

The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database was used for the present study. Patients who had undergone EVAR from 2003 to 2021 were selected for analysis. The study cohort was divided into two groups according to their DCI score. Patients with DCI scores ranging from 61 to 100 were assigned to group I (DCI >60), and those with DCI scores ranging from 0 to 60 were assigned to group II (DCI ≤60). The primary outcomes included the 30-day and 1-year mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events at 30 days. Regression analyses were performed to study the postoperative outcomes. P values ≤ .05 were deemed statistically significant for all analyses in the present study.

RESULTS

A total of 60,972 patients (19.5% female; 80.5% male) had undergone EVAR from 2003 to 2021. Of these patients, 18,549 were in group I (30.4%) and 42,423 in group II (69.6%). The mean age of the study cohort was 73 ± 8.9 years. Group I tended to be younger (mean age, 72.6 vs 73.7 years), underweight (3.5% vs 2.5%), and African American (10.8% vs 3.5%) and were more likely to have Medicaid insurance (3.6% vs 1.9%; P < .05 for all). Group I had had more smokers (87.3% vs 85.3%), a higher rate of comorbidities, including hypertension (84.5% vs 82.9%), diabetes (21.7% vs 19.7%), coronary artery disease (30.3% vs 28.6%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (36.9% vs 31.8%), and moderate to severe congestive heart failure (2.6% vs 2%; P < .05 for all). The group I patients were more likely to undergo EVAR for symptomatic AAAs (11.1% vs 7.9%; P < .001; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.37; P < .001) with a higher risk of mortality at 30 days (aOR, 3.98; 95% CI, 2.23-5.44; P < .001) and 1 year (aOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.43-2.13; P < .001). A higher risk of being lost to follow-up (28.9% vs 26.3%; P < .001) was also observed in group I.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients from distressed communities who require EVAR tended to have multiple comorbidities. These patients were also more likely to be treated for symptomatic AAAs, with a higher risk of mortality. An increased incidence of lost to long-term follow-up was also observed for this population. Surgeons and healthcare systems should consider these outcomes and institute patient-centered approaches to ensure equitable healthcare.