Screening, Management, and Acceptance of Patients with Aorto-Iliac Vascular Disease for Kidney Transplantation: A Survey among 161 Transplant Surgeons

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Aorto-iliac vascular disease (AVD) is frequently found during the workup for kidney transplantation. However, recommendations on screening and management are lacking. We aimed to assess differences in screening, management, and acceptance of these patients for transplantation by performing a survey among transplant surgeons. Second, we aimed to identify center- and surgeon-related factors associated with decline or acceptance of kidney transplant candidates with AVD. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A survey was sent to transplant surgeons and urologists. The survey contained general questions (part I) and 2 patient-based cases (part II) with Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) D and B AVD supported with videos of their CT scans. <b><i>Results:</i></b> One hundred ninety-one (20.3%) participants responded; 171 were currently involved in kidney transplantation: 161 (94.2%) completed part I and 145 (84.8%) part II. Screening for AVD was often (38.5%) restricted to high-risk patients. The majority of respondents (67.7%) rated “technical problems” as the most important concern in case of AVD, followed by “increased mortality risk because of cardiovascular comorbidity” (29.8%). Pretransplant vascular interventions to facilitate transplantation were infrequently performed (71.4% mentioned &#x3c;10 per year). Ninety (64.3%) respondents answered that an open vascular procedure should preferably be performed prior to kidney transplantation while 42 (30.0%) respondents preferred a simultaneous open vascular procedure. The decline rate was higher in the TASC D case compared to the TASC B case (26.9% and 9.7%, respectively). Respondents from centers with expertise in pretransplant vascular interventions were more likely to accept both patients with TASC D and B for transplantation. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> There is no uniformity in the screening, management, and acceptance of patients with AVD for transplantation. If a center declines a patient with AVD because of technical concerns, the patient should be referred for a second opinion to a tertiary center with expertise in pretransplant vascular interventions. Multidisciplinary meetings including a vascular surgeon and a cardiologist could help optimize these patients for transplantation.

Intensive versus standard blood pressure control and vascular procedures: insights from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial

Background The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) found that intensive versus standard blood pressure control reduced cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. Previous studies have shown that control of blood pressure reduces the risk of stroke and is one of the most modifiable risk factors for carotid artery disease. On the other hand, data on effect of blood pressure control on peripheral artery disease are more diverse. In addition, it is unknown whether intensive blood pressure control affects the risk of vascular procedures. Purpose To assess the relationship between intensive blood pressure control and incident vascular procedures. Methods SPRINT was a randomized, controlled trial comprising 9,361 individuals ≥50 years of age at high CV risk but without diabetes who had a systolic BP (SBP) 130–180 mmHg. Patients were randomized to intensive (target SBP &lt;120mmHg) or standard antihypertensive treatment (target SBP &lt;140mmHg). The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from CV causes. The primary safety endpoint was the composite of serious adverse events. We examined the risk of composite and individual vascular procedures with intensive versus standard blood pressure control. We further examined subgroup heterogeneity using interaction analyses. Results During a median follow-up time of 3.3 years (range 0–5.5 years), a total of 174 (1.9%) composite vascular procedures were recorded. Intensive blood pressure control did not significantly reduce the risk of composite vascular procedures (intensive blood pressure control, 76 (1.6%) versus standard blood pressure control, 98 (2.1%), hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 1.03; P=0.08) (Figure 1). Similarly, the risks of the individual endpoints of carotid angioplasty, carotid endarterectomy, peripheral angioplasty or thrombolysis, lower extremity amputation for ischemia and gangrene, surgical or vascular procedure for abdominal aortic aneurysm, surgical or vascular procedure for thoracic aortic aneurysm, and surgical or vascular procedure for other problems were not significantly affected (P≥0.05 for all). Intensive blood pressure control reduced the risk of peripheral vascular surgery (intensive blood pressure control, 7 (0.2%) versus standard blood pressure control, 21 (0.5%), hazard ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval, 0.14 to 0.77; P=0.01), though this was based on a small number of events. The safety and efficacy of intensive BP lowering was not modified by chronic kidney disease, age, sex, race, previous cardiovascular disease, or baseline systolic blood pressure tertile (P≥0.05 for all). Conclusions In SPRINT, intensive versus standard blood pressure control did not reduce the risk of composite incident vascular procedures. Figure 1. Vascular procedures Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Perioperative Management of DOACs in Vascular Surgery: A Practical Approach

Background: Approximately 10–15% of patients on DOACs have to interrupt their anticoagulant before an invasive procedure every year. The perioperative management and monitoring of DOACs have proved to be challenging, as differences in patients’ status and in the invasiveness of each procedure develop different situations that need a tailored therapeutic approach to each patient’s needs. Methods: This review aims to summarize current evidence on the perioperative management of DOACs in patients undergoing a vascular surgical procedure focusing with a practical approach on three key clinical questions: (i) can we stop DOAC therapy before the vascular procedure? (ii) is bridging therapy necessary? and (iii) which is the best perioperative strategy for interruption and resumption of the anticoagulant therapy? Results: No specific data exist for the perioperative management of vascular surgery patients on DOACs, as most studies include low number of such patients. Therapeutic strategy on how to handle DOACs perioperatively must be based on their half-life, the bleeding risk of the invasive procedures, and on the thromboembolic risk of the patient. Renal function plays a crucial role in such situations, increasing thromboembolic and bleeding risk. In general, DOACs should be stopped 2 days for high bleed risk, 1 day for low risk and should be resumed 48-72 hrs after high risk, 24 hrs after low-risk procedure. Bridging is almost never needed. Conclusion: Further perioperative research studies on patients undergoing vascular surgery are needed to confirm whether currently accepted therapeutic perioperative strategy is appropriate for these patients.