Infective native arterial aneurysms and inflammatory aortic aneurysms are rare but morbid pathologies seen by vascular surgeons in the emergency setting. Presentation is not always clear, and a full workup must be obtained before adopting a management strategy. Treatment is multidisciplinary and is tailored to every case based on workup findings. Imaging with computed tomography, magnetic resonance, or with fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography aids in diagnosis and in monitoring response to treatment. Open surgery is traditionally performed for definitive management. Endovascular surgery may offer an alternative treatment in select cases with acceptable outcomes. Neither technique has been proven to be superior to the other. Physicians should consider patient\'s anatomy, comorbidities, life expectancy, and goals of care before selecting an approach. Long-term pharmacological treatment, with antibiotics in case of infective aneurysms and immunosuppressants in case of inflammatory aneurysms, is usually required and should be managed in collaboration with infectious disease specialists and rheumatologists.

Chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) poses a significant treatment challenge for vascular surgeons, interventionalists, podiatrists, and associated medical specialists. The evidence for what constitutes appropriate care is rapidly evolving and new treatment options are in constant development. This review examines the current guidelines for CLTI care, as well as reported outcomes for multiple care strategies in this patient population, including revascularization and medical optimization. We performed a literature review of the PubMed database, reviewing articles that reported outcomes for CLTI care between 2000 and 2023, and described these outcomes as they relate to the current state of CLTI treatment. Significant data are still forthcoming regarding CLTI care, but widespread adoption of appropriate CLTI care is essential for the treatment of this vulnerable population.

Aortic dissection is a catastrophic, life-threatening event. Its management depends on the anatomic location of the intimal tear (type A v B) and the clinical presentation in type B aortic dissection. In this article, the current evidence supporting clinical practice, gaps in knowledge, and the need for more rigorous research and higher-quality studies are reviewed.

There is variation in the management of small aneurysms in the United States today, with some surgeons moving forward with elective repair and others practice ongoing surveillance. Literature exists to suggest that small aneurysms are repaired at a higher rate than should be considered acceptable, and this represents a deviation from current standards of care. To best understand the optimal care of this patient population, this article aims to evaluate the current management of small aneurysms, review contemporary guidelines and the literature behind them, and assess the appropriateness of surgical management of small aneurysms.

Fenestrated and branched endovascular repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms is increasingly replacing open repair as the primary modality of treatment. Mid- and long-term results are encouraging and support its use in the correct settings. Nevertheless, appropriateness of indication for treatment, patient selection, and surgeon and hospital performance has not been clearly evaluated and reviewed. The objective of this review article was to identify areas in which appropriateness of care is relevant and can be optimized when considering treatment of patients with fenestrated and branched endovascular repair for complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

Intermittent claudication (IC) is a phenotype of peripheral artery disease that is characterized by pain in the lower extremity muscles during activity that is relieved by rest. Medical management, risk factor control, smoking cessation, and exercise therapy have historically been the mainstays of treatment for IC, but advances in endovascular technology have led to increasing use of peripheral vascular interventions in this patient population. There are meaningful differences in published society guidelines and appropriate use criteria relevant to the management of IC, especially regarding indications for peripheral vascular interventions. The current review aims to highlight similarities and differences between major society recommendations for the management of IC, and to discuss practice trends, disparities, and evidence gaps in the use of peripheral vascular interventions for IC in the context of existing guidelines.

Carotid artery stenosis is one of the most common diagnoses treated by vascular specialists in the United States. The optimal management of carotid stenosis remains controversial, however, with notable variation surrounding diagnostic imaging modalities, longitudinal surveillance, medical therapies, and procedural interventions. Data from high-quality randomized controlled trials and observational studies form the foundation for current management paradigms and societal guidelines that inform clinical practice. Presently, a diagnosis of carotid disease is most often established with duplex ultrasound and supplemental cross-sectional imaging using computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography as needed to provide additional anatomic information. All patients with documented occlusive disease should receive goal-directed medical therapy with antiplatelet agents and a lipid-reduction strategy, most commonly with a statin. Those with severe carotid stenosis and an acceptable life expectancy may be considered for carotid artery revascularization. The proceduralist should optimally consider a shared decision-making approach in which the tradeoffs of revascularization can be carefully considered with the patient to optimize informed therapeutic decision making. In current practice, three distinct procedure options exist to treat carotid artery stenosis, including carotid endarterectomy, transfemoral carotid artery stenting, and transcarotid artery revascularization. It should be noted that each procedure, although often used interchangeably in most clinical settings, carry technical nuances and outcome disparities. In this review, each of these topics are explored and various approaches are outlined surrounding the appropriate use of treatments for patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

In the past decade, technologies to treat venous pathologies have increased dramatically, to the benefit of an often underserved and overlooked population of patients with venous disease. However, given the rapid release of various technologies, including venous-dedicated stents and thrombectomy devices across varied venous pathologies, evidence-based guidelines have been slow to develop. When discussing appropriateness of care, one needs to consider optimal patient selection, technical approach, medical management, and surveillance protocols, to name a few. All of which, in the venous space, are currently widely varied in practice. The future of deep venous work is limitless, but multicenter, randomized controlled trials are needed to optimally treat patients with venous disease.

A dramatic increase in the number of vascular procedures performed in the office-based laboratory setting has been observed since 2008, when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services increased reimbursement for procedures performed in the ambulatory setting. We sought to evaluate the appropriateness of arterial intervention in the office-based laboratory and patient selection. This systematic review was conducted with a search of Google Scholar and PubMed using the following search terms: office-based lab, outpatient, angioplasty, patient selection, arterial, and appropriateness. More than 500 publications were screened and 14 publications related to the topic were selected. The existing literature that examined patient selection for intervention in the outpatient setting, rates of complications after outpatient procedures, and short-term data on the safety and efficacy of these procedures is discussed. Gaps were identified in current knowledge about the long-term outcomes of peripheral arterial interventions performed in the office-based laboratory setting, as well as existing guidelines for the management of patients with peripheral arterial disease.

Vascular surgeons have the ability to manage and intervene on numerous vascular diseases of both the arterial and venous systems. With the growing number of interventions available as endovascular technology evolves, it is important to determine when a procedure is safely indicated for a vascular surgery patient. Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) offer synthesized clinical information and practice standards that can aid clinicians in making these management decisions. Professional societies, such as the Society for Vascular Surgery, bring experts in the field together to collaborate and create AUC for various vascular diseases and interventions. It is essential to publish these criteria in peer-reviewed journals, as well as make them available on public websites so the information is available to vascular surgeons and interventionalists from other specialties who also treat patients with vascular disease. Cardiology, interventional radiology, and interventional nephrology are some other specialties that perform procedures for vascular disease, and vascular interventions by nonsurgeon specialists continue to increase. The Society for Vascular Surgery has published AUC on intermittent claudication, carotid disease, and abdominal aneurysm management. These are intended to guide practice, but also have highlighted areas for improvement that would allow for more universal implementation of AUC in vascular patient care across medical specialties. Increased intersocietal participation and perhaps inclusion of government and other payer participation will allow professional society-sponsored AUC to evolve, resulting in coordinated, appropriate care for vascular surgery patients.