End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is a common and morbid disease that affects patients' quality and length of life, representing a large portion of health care expenditure in the United States. These patients commonly have associated diabetes and cardiovascular disease, with high rates of cardiovascular-related death. Management of ESKD requires renal replacement therapy via dialysis or transplantation. While transplantation provides the greatest improvement in survival and quality of life, the vast majority of patients are treated initially with hemodialysis. However, outcomes differ significantly among patient populations. Barriers in access to care have particularly affected at-risk populations, such as Black and Hispanic patients. These patients receive less pre-ESKD nephrology care, are less likely to initiate dialysis with a fistula, and wait longer for transplants-even in pediatric populations. Priorities for ESKD care moving into the future include increasing access to nephrology care in underprivileged populations, providing patient-centered care based on each patient's "life plan," and focusing on team-based approaches to ESKD care. This review explores ESKD from the perspective of epidemiology, costs, vascular access, patient-reported outcomes, racial disparities, and the impact of the COVID-19 crisis.

A previously published review focused on generic and disease-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) relevant to vascular surgery but limited to arterial conditions. The objective of this project was to identify all available PROMs relevant to diseases treated by vascular surgeons and to evaluate vascular surgeon perceptions, barriers to widespread implementation, and concerns regarding PROMs. We provide an overview of what a PROM is and how they are developed, and summarize currently available PROMs specific to vascular surgeons. We also report results from a survey of 78 Society for Vascular Surgery members serving on committees within the Policy and Advocacy Council addressing the barriers and facilitators to using PROMs in clinical practice. Finally, we report the qualitative results of two focus groups conducted to assess granular perceptions of PROMS and preparedness of vascular surgeons for widespread implementation of PROMs. These focus groups identified a lack of awareness of existing PROMs, knowledge of how PROMs are developed and validated, and clarity around how PROMs should be used by the clinician as main subthemes for barriers to PROM implementation in clinical practice.

Objective

During the COVID-19 pandemic, central venous access line teams were implemented at many hospitals throughout the world to provide access for critically ill patients. The objective of this study was to describe the structure, practice patterns, and outcomes of these vascular access teams during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional, self-reported study of central venous access line teams in hospitals afflicted with the COVID-19 pandemic. To participate in the study, hospitals were required to meet one of the following criteria: development of a formal plan for a central venous access line team during the pandemic; implementation of a central venous access line team during the pandemic; placement of central venous access by a designated practice group during the pandemic as part of routine clinical practice; or management of an iatrogenic complication related to central venous access in a patient with COVID-19.

Results

Participants from 60 hospitals in 13 countries contributed data to the study. Central venous line teams were most commonly composed of vascular surgery and general surgery attending physicians and trainees. Twenty sites had 2657 lines placed by their central venous access line team or designated practice group. During that time, there were 11 (0.4%) iatrogenic complications associated with central venous access procedures performed by the line team or group at those 20 sites. Triple lumen catheters, Cordis (Santa Clara, Calif) catheters, and nontunneled hemodialysis catheters were the most common types of central venous lines placed by the teams. Eight (14%) sites reported experience in placing central venous lines in prone, ventilated patients with COVID-19. A dedicated line cart was used by 35 (59%) of the hospitals. Less than 50% (24 [41%]) of the participating sites reported managing thrombosed central lines in COVID-19 patients. Twenty-three of the sites managed 48 iatrogenic complications in patients with COVID-19 (including complications caused by providers outside of the line team or designated practice group).

Conclusions

Implementation of a dedicated central venous access line team during a pandemic or other health care crisis is a way by which physicians trained in central venous access can contribute their expertise to a stressed health care system. A line team composed of physicians with vascular skill sets provides relief to resource-constrained intensive care unit, ward, and emergency medicine teams with a low rate of iatrogenic complications relative to historical reports. We recommend that a plan for central venous access line team implementation be in place for future health care crises.