Review of an emergency general surgery process improvement program at a verified military trauma center

INTRODUCTION

Decreasing combat-based admissions to our military facility have made it difficult to maintain a robust trauma process improvement (PI) program. Since emergency general surgery (EGS) and trauma patients share similarities, we merged the care of our EGS and trauma patients into one acute care surgery (ACS) team. An EGS PI program was developed based on trauma PI principles to facilitate continued identification of opportunities for improvement despite our decline in trauma admissions. Analysis of the first 18 months of combined ACS PI data is presented.

METHODS

EGS registry inclusion criteria was based on published Association for the Surgery of Trauma's recommendations. Program components and PI categories were based on our existing trauma PI program. Dedicated coordinators actively reviewed and cataloged patient care and outcomes. Deviations from standard practice patterns, unplanned interventions, and other complications were abstracted, categorized, and evaluated through levels of review similar to accepted trauma PI principles. Data for the first six quarters were collated and trends were analyzed.

RESULTS

Over 18 months, 696 EGS patients met registry inclusion criteria, with 468 patients (67%) undergoing operative intervention. Over the same time, 353 trauma patients were admitted with 158 undergoing operative intervention (56.4%). Of the 696 EGS patients and 353 trauma patients, 226 (32%) and 243 (69%) PI events were identified, respectively. Common events included unplanned therapies, re-admissions, and unplanned ICU admissions. Based on analysis of all events, four new areas for improvement initiatives were identified. Results of these initiatives included implementation of a multi-disciplinary EGS PI committee, consensus protocols, and departmental and hospital-wide actions.

CONCLUSION

In an 18-month period, integration of our EGS patients into a novel, combined ACS PI program facilitated recognition of an additional 226 PI events and provided a substrate for continued improvements in patient care.

Issues related to renal artery angioplasty and stenting

Renal artery stenosis may play a significant role in the pathogenesis of secondary hypertension, renal dysfunction, and flash pulmonary edema. Currently correction of renal arterial inflow stenosis is reserved for resistant hypertension patients who have failed maximal medical therapy, have worsening renal function and/or unexplained proximal congestive failure. With the recent advances in minimally invasive percutaneous stent placement techniques, open surgical revascularization has been largely replaced by renal artery stenting. The potential benefit of revascularization seemed intuitive; however, the initial enthusiasm and rise in the number of percutaneous interventions have been tempered by many subsequent negative randomized clinical trials that failed to prove the proposed benefits of the percutaneous intervention. The negative randomized trial results have fallen under scrutiny due to trial design concerns and inconsistent outcomes of these studies compared to pivotal trials undertaken under US Food and Drug Administration scrutiny. Treatment of atherosclerotic renal artery occlusive disease has become one of the most debatable topics in the field of vascular disease. The results from recent randomized clinical trials of renal artery stenting have basically limited the utilization of the procedure in many centers, but not every clinical scenario was covered in those trials. There are potential areas for improvement focusing mainly on procedural details and patient selection with respect to catheter based treatment of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. We believe, limiting patient selection, enrollment criteria and outcomes measured functioned to reduce the benefit of renal artery stenosis stenting by not enrolling patients likely to benefit. Future studies incorporating potential procedural improvements and that include patients more likely to benefit from renal stenting than were included in ASTRAL and CORAL are needed to more carefully examine specific patient subgroups so that “the baby is not thrown out with the bath water.” We also discuss several other concerns related to renal artery stenting which include diagnostic, procedure, indication, and reimbursement issues.

Issues related to renal artery angioplasty and stenting

Renal artery stenosis may play a significant role in the pathogenesis of secondary hypertension, renal dysfunction, and flash pulmonary edema. Currently correction of renal arterial inflow stenosis is reserved for resistant hypertension patients who have failed maximal medical therapy, have worsening renal function and/or unexplained proximal congestive failure. With the recent advances in minimally invasive percutaneous stent placement techniques, open surgical revascularization has been largely replaced by renal artery stenting. The potential benefit of revascularization seemed intuitive; however, the initial enthusiasm and rise in the number of percutaneous interventions have been tempered by many subsequent negative randomized clinical trials that failed to prove the proposed benefits of the percutaneous intervention. The negative randomized trial results have fallen under scrutiny due to trial design concerns and inconsistent outcomes of these studies compared to pivotal trials undertaken under US Food and Drug Administration scrutiny. Treatment of atherosclerotic renal artery occlusive disease has become one of the most debatable topics in the field of vascular disease. The results from recent randomized clinical trials of renal artery stenting have basically limited the utilization of the procedure in many centers, but not every clinical scenario was covered in those trials. There are potential areas for improvement focusing mainly on procedural details and patient selection with respect to catheter based treatment of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. We believe, limiting patient selection, enrollment criteria and outcomes measured functioned to reduce the benefit of renal artery stenosis stenting by not enrolling patients likely to benefit. Future studies incorporating potential procedural improvements and that include patients more likely to benefit from renal stenting than were included in ASTRAL and CORAL are needed to more carefully examine specific patient subgroups so that "the baby is not thrown out with the bath water." We also discuss several other concerns related to renal artery stenting which include diagnostic, procedure, indication, and reimbursement issues.

Novel Risk Score Model for Prediction of Survival Following Elective Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify significant predictors of long-term mortality after elective endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

We included all cases with elective EVAR based on a national data set from the Society for Vascular Surgery Patient Safety Organization. Clinical and anatomic variables were analyzed with a Kaplan-Meier and Cox-regression model to determine predictors of mortality and develop a score equation to categorize patients into low, medium, and high long-term mortality risk.

RESULTS

A total of 5678 patients with EVAR were included with an average age of 73.6 ± 8.2 years. The majority were male (81.6%) with a history of smoking (86.1%). There were 3 deaths within 30 days (0.1%). Several factors were associated with poor survival: unstable angina (hazard ratio [HR], 2.8; P = .008), dialysis (HR, 3.7; P < .001), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 (HR, 1.7; P = .044), eGFR 30 to 59 (HR, 1.4; P = .002), age >80 (HR, 3.2; P < .001), age 75 to 79 (HR, 2.2; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on oxygen (HR, 3.3; P < .001), aortic diameter >5.8 cm (HR, 1.2; P = .043), and high risk for surgery (HR, 1.4; P = .043). Preoperative aspirin use and body mass index 25 to 35 were both found to be protective (HR, 0.78; P = .017 and HR, 0.8; P = .024, respectively). With our scoring model, 5- and 10-year survival rates for patients with low, medium, and high risk were 89.2%, 80.7%, and 64.1% and 77.2%, 60.1%, and 40.1%, respectively (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Ten-year survival following EVAR in patients with a high-risk score utilizing the model provided was 40.1%. Patients with multiple comorbidities at risk for decreased long-term survival can be identified with our model, which is more applicable for high-volume contemporary institutions.

Update on intervention versus medical therapy for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis

Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis is known to be one of the most common causes of secondary hypertension, and early nonrandomized studies suggested that renal artery stenting (RASt) improved outcomes. The vascular community embraced this less invasive treatment alternative to surgery, and RASt increased in popularity during the late 1990s. However, recent randomized studies have failed to show a benefit regarding blood pressure or renal function when RASt was compared with best medical therapy, creating significant concerns about procedural efficacy. In the wake of these randomized trial results, hypertension and renal disease experts along with vascular interventional specialists now struggle with how to best manage atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. This review objectively analyzes the current literature and highlights each trial's design weaknesses and strengths. We have provided our recommendations for contemporary treatment guidelines based on our interpretation of the available empirical data.

Long-term Comparative Outcomes of Carotid Artery Stenting Following Previous Carotid Endarterectomy vs De Novo Lesions

PURPOSE

To report the long-term outcomes of patients who underwent carotid artery stenting (CAS) for de novo carotid stenosis vs patients treated for restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all 385 patients (mean age 68.6±9.6 years; 231 men) who underwent 435 CAS procedures at a large tertiary care center between January 1999 and December 2013. For analysis, patients were stratified based on their lesion type [de novo (dn) vs post-CEA restenosis (res)] and subclassified by symptoms status [symptomatic (Sx) or asymptomatic (Asx)], creating 4 groups: (1) CAS-dn Asx, (2) CAS-dn Sx, (3) CAS-res Asx, and (4) CAS-res Sx. For the CAS-res group, the mean elapsed time from CEA to CAS was 72.4±63.6 months. Outcomes included target vessel reintervention (TVR) and in-stent restenosis (ISR), the latter defined by a carotid duplex ultrasound velocity >275 cm/s.

RESULTS

The main indication for initial carotid angiography with possible revascularization was severe carotid stenosis (≥70%-99% on duplex) in both CAS-dn and CAS-res groups (83.6% vs 83.7%, p=0.999). There were no significant differences in the percentage of patients with postintervention residual stenosis (<30%; 100% each arm) or complications between CAS-res vs CAS-dn: in-hospital stroke (1.4% vs 1.8%, respectively), myocardial infarction (0.9% vs 0%), or death (0.9% vs 0%). Mean follow-up was 62.4±45.6 months (median 53.5, range 1-180). Average clinical/TVR follow-up was greater for the CAS-res group (71.9±48.6 months) compared with 53.3±40.5 months for the CAS-dn group (p<0.001). Across the 4 study groups, there were no differences in freedom from ISR (p=0.174) or TVR (p=0.856). Multivariate analysis found peripheral vascular disease (PVD) as the sole ISR independent predictor [hazard ratio (HR) 1.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 3.62, p=0.041], while significant predictors for TVR were age <65 years at the time of the procedure (HR 2.55, 95% CI 1.05 to 6.18, p=0.039) and PVD (HR 2.46, 95% CI 1.03 to 5.87, p=0.043).

CONCLUSION

The current study suggests that CAS is a feasible and durable therapeutic option for recurrent restenosis after CEA. Long-term outcomes were similar for patients treated for de novo lesions or post-CEA restenosis. Age and PVD appear to influence long-term CAS durability.

Natural history and outcome of patients with intramural hematomas and penetrating aortic ulcers

All pathologies of acute aortic syndromes should be precisely diagnosed for prompt therapy. Intramural hematomas, as well as penetrating ulcers can be encountered in these patients. Presentations, clinical scenarios, and proper management are outlined in this review, which sums up available current literature to provide the vascular specialist with an adequate understanding of these unique syndromes.