Evaluation of EndoAnchor Aortic Wall Penetration After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

Purpose: To analyze aortic wall penetration of Heli-FX EndoAnchors after use in seal zones in the aortic arch or descending thoracic aorta during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Materials and Methods: From May 2014 to May 2019, 25 patients (mean age 70.5±10 years; 16 women) were treated with TEVAR and adjunctive use of the Heli-FX device in 3 academic vascular surgery departments. Computed tomography scans were retrospectively reviewed to determine the location [arch or descending thoracic aorta (DTA)] of the EndoAnchors and the adequacy of aortic wall penetration, defined as adequate (≥2 mm), partial (<2 mm), or inadequate wall penetration (including loss). Endoleaks, reinterventions, and mortality were assessed. Results: A total of 161 EndoAnchors were deployed (median 7 per patient, range 4–9). Twenty-two EndoAnchors were place in the arch (zones 0–2) and 139 in the DTA (zones 3–5). A larger proportion of arch deployments (27%) had suboptimal penetration compared with the DTA (6.5%; p<0.005), resulting in a 91% adequate wall penetration rate for the series overall. Three EndoAnchors were lost (and only 1 retrieved) in 3 different patients, with no additional morbidity; thus, an overall deployment success rate of 88% was achieved. At a mean follow-up of 16.6±14 months, 4 patients required 5 (successful) reinterventions, including one for a type Ia endoleak treated with chimney TEVAR. One patient died 10 months after treatment due to endograft infection, without an opportunity for surgical correction. Conclusion: EndoAnchors have a higher risk of maldeployment in the arch, though this may be attributable to the small learning curve experience in this location. The best aortic wall penetration for this series was in the DTA, where EndoAnchors proved useful for distal endograft fixation during TEVAR.

Impact on physician workload and revenue following the creation of a specialty vein clinic within an academic vascular practice

Objective: To evaluate the impact of creating a new specialty vein clinic within an academic-based vascular practice on clinical volume, physician workload and financial parameters. Methods: All patients evaluated and treated for varicose vein related problems within an academic vascular surgery practice were identified from institutional billing databases. Data were stratified according to the time period prior to establishing a vein clinic (PRE-VC) (1999–2001) and after creation of a vein clinic (POST-VC) (2002–2004). Clinical volume, physician workload and financial parameters were evaluated. Comparisons were made between vein (VEIN) and overall vascular (VASC) practice trends. Results: Comparison of clinical volume, physician workload and financial parameters in both the clinic and operative settings showed larger and more rapid expansion of the VEIN practice than VASC practice between PRE-VC and POST-VC time periods (VEIN vs. VASC growth, respectively: new patient clinic volume +162 vs. +18%; clinic relative value units (RVUs) +131 vs. +1%, clinic revenue +201 vs. +44%; procedure volume +348 vs. +19%; procedure RVUs +129 vs. +11%; procedure revenue +93 vs. +10%). Comparing the beginning of PRE-VC to the end of POST-VC time periods, an increasing trend was also present for the percentage of VEIN practice accounting for the total VASC practice (%VEIN PRE-VC to POST-VC, respectively: new patient clinic volume 11.6–30.2%; clinic RVUs 3.2–48.2%; clinic revenue 17.6–31.2%; procedure volume 3.1–14.3%; procedure RVUs 2.8–9.8%; procedure revenue 3.3–11.7%). Conclusion: Establishing a specialty vein clinic within an academic vascular practice can lead to a rapid expansion of clinical volume with associated increase in physician workload and reimbursement at a rate greater than that for the overall vascular practice.