Objective Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most common post-operative complications following vascular reconstruction, producing significant morbidity and hospital readmission. In contrast to SSI that develops while patients are still hospitalized, little is known about the cohort of patients that develop SSI following discharge. In this study, we explore the factors that lead to post-discharge SSI, investigate the differences between risk factors for in-hospital versus post-discharge SSI, and develop a scoring system to identify patients that might benefit from post-discharge monitoring of their wounds. Methods Patients who underwent major vascular surgery from 2005–2012 for aneurysm and lower extremity occlusive disease were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Files. Patients were categorized as having no SSI, in-hospital SSI, or SSI after hospital discharge. Predictors of post-discharge SSI were determined by multivariable logistic regression and internally validated by bootstrap resampling. Risk scores were assigned to all significant variables in the model. Summative risk scores were collapsed into quartile-based ordinal categories and defined as low-, low/moderate-, moderate/high-, and high-risk. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine predictors of in-hospital SSI. Results Of the 49,817 patients who underwent major vascular surgery, 4,449 (8.9%) were diagnosed with SSI (2.1% in-hospital; 6.9% post-discharge). By multivariable analysis, factors significantly associated with increased odds of post-discharge SSI include female gender, obesity, diabetes, smoking, hypertension, coronary artery disease, critical limb ischemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dyspnea, neurological disease, prolonged operative time >4 hours, American Society of Anesthesiology classification IV or V, lower extremity revascularization or aortoiliac procedure, and groin anastomosis. The model exhibited moderate discrimination (bias-corrected c-statistic, 0.691) and excellent internal calibration. The post-discharge SSI rate was 2.1% for low-risk patients, 5.1% for low/moderate-risk patients, 7.8% for moderate/high risk patients, and 14% for high-risk patients. In a comparative analysis, comorbidities were the primary driver of post-discharge SSI whereas in-hospital factors (operative time, emergency case status) and complications predicted in-hospital SSI. Conclusions The majority of SSIs after major vascular surgery develop following hospital discharge. We have created a scoring system that can select a cohort of patients at high-risk for SSI following discharge. These patients can be targeted for transitional care efforts focused on early detection and treatment with the goal of reducing morbidity and preventing readmission secondary to SSI.

No abstract

Background Information technology is transforming healthcare communication. Using smartphones to remotely monitor incisional wounds via digital photos as well as collect post-operative symptom information has the potential to improve patient outcomes and transitional care. We surveyed a vulnerable patient population to evaluate smartphone capability and willingness to adopt this technology. Methods We surveyed 53 patients over a 9-month period on the vascular surgery service at a tertiary-care institution. Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe survey item response. Results 94% (50 out of 53) of recruited patients participated. The cohort was 50% female, and the mean age was 70 years old (range: 41–87). The majority of patients owned cellphones (80%) and 23% of these cellphones were smartphones. 90% of patients had a friend or family-member that could help take and send photos with a smartphone. 92% of patients reported they would be willing to take a digital photo of their wound via smartphone (68% daily, 22% every-other day, 2% less than every-other day, 8% not at all). All patients reported they would be willing to answer questions related to their health via smartphone. Patient’s identified several potential difficulties with regard to adopting a smartphone wound-monitoring protocol including logistics related to taking photos, health-related questions, and coordination with caretakers. Conclusions Our survey demonstrates that an older patient cohort with significant comorbidity is able and willing to adopt a smartphone-based post-operative monitoring program. Patient training and caregiver participation will be essential to the success of this intervention.

Introduction Despite significant advances in vascular biology, bioengineering and pharmacology, restenosis remains a limitation to the overall efficacy of vascular reconstructions, both percutaneous and open. Although the pathophysiology of intimal hyperplasia is complex, a number of drugs and/or molecular tools have been identified that can prevent restenosis. Moreover, the focal nature of this process lends itself to treatment with local drug administration. In this article we provide a broad overview of current and future techniques for local drug delivery that have been developed to prevent restenosis following vascular intervention. Methods A systematic electronic literature search using PubMed was performed for all accessible published articles through September 2012. In an effort to remain current, additional searches were performed for abstracts presented at relevant societal meetings, filed patents, clinical trials and funded NIH awards. Results The efficacy of local drug delivery has been demonstrated in the coronary circulation with the current clinical use of drug-eluting stents (DES). Until recently, however, DES were not found to be efficacious in the peripheral circulation. Further pursuit of intraluminal devices has led to the development of balloon-based technologies with a recent surge in trials involving drug-eluting balloons. Early data appears encouraging, particularly for treatment of lesions in the superficial femoral artery, with several devices having recently received the CE mark in Europe. Investigators have also explored periadventitial application of biomaterials containing anti-restenotic drugs, an approach that could be particularly useful for surgical bypass or endarterectomy. In the past systemic drug delivery has been unsuccessful, however, there has been recent exploration of intravenous delivery of drugs designed specifically to target injured or reconstructed arteries. Our review revealed a multitude of additional interesting strategies including more than 65 new patents issued over the past two years for approaches to local drug delivery focused on preventing restenosis. Conclusion Restenosis following intraluminal or open vascular reconstruction remains an important clinical problem. Success in the coronary circulation has not translated into solutions for the peripheral arteries. However, our review of the literature reveals a number of promising approaches including drug-eluting balloons, periadventitial drug delivery as well as targeted systemic therapies. These innovations as well as others suggest that the future is bright and a solution for preventing restenosis in peripheral vessels will soon be at hand.

Objective Reducing readmissions represents a unique opportunity to improve care and reduce health care costs and is the focus of major payers. A large number of surgical patients are readmitted to hospitals other than where the primary surgery was performed, resulting in clinical decisions that do not incorporate the primary surgeon and potentially alter outcomes. This study characterizes readmission to primary versus different hospitals after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair and examines the implications with regard to mortality and cost. Methods Patients who underwent open or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for AAA were identified from the CMS Chronic Conditions Warehouse (CCW), a random 5% national sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 2005-2009. Outcomes for patients who underwent AAA repair and were readmitted within 30 days of initial discharge were compared based on readmission location (primary vs. different hospital). Results 885 patients underwent AAA repair and were readmitted within 30 days. 626 (70.7%) returned to the primary facility, and 259 (29.3%) returned to a different facility. Greater distance from patient residence to the primary hospital was the strongest predictor of readmission to a different facility. Patients living 50-100 miles from the primary hospital were more likely to be readmitted to a different hospital compared to patients living <10 miles away (OR = 8.50, P <.001). Patients with diagnoses directly related to the surgery (e.g. wound infection) were more likely to be readmitted to the primary hospital whereas medical diagnoses (e.g. pneumonia and congestive heart failure) were more likely to be treated at a different hospital. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality between patients readmitted to a different or the primary hospital. Median total 30-day payments were significantly lower at different versus primary hospitals ($11,978, primary vs. $11,168, different, P = .04). Conclusion Readmission to a different facility after AAA repair is common and occurs more frequently than for the overall Medicare population. Patients travelling a greater distance for AAA repair are more likely to return to different versus the primary hospital when further care is required. For AAA repair, quality healthcare may be achieved at marginally lower cost and with greater patient convenience for selected readmissions at hospitals other than where the initial procedure was performed.