Bio


Dr. Mikkineni is a vascular surgeon who specializes in vascular disease including critical limb ischemia and limb salvage, abdominal and thoracic aortic aneurysms. Specific areas of interest include: endovascular procedures for peripheral vascular disease, management of carotid disease, thoracic outlet syndrome, mesenteric ischemia.

Additional areas of interest encompass hemodialysis access and venous disorders such as varicose veins. His special interest include fenestrated and branched endografts in management of aortic and thoracic aneurysms, and aortic disease.

Dr. Mikkineni’s research topics include abdominal aortic aneurysm and vascular conduits for bypass. He has published on the surgical treatment of aortic aneurysms and the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Clinical Focus


  • Vascular Surgery

Academic Appointments


Professional Education


  • Board Certification: Vascular Surgery, American Board of Surgery (2019)
  • Residency:Allegheny General Hospital Vascular Surgery Residency (2017) PA
  • Residency:New York Presbyterian Queens Surgery Residency (2012) NY
  • Residency, Temple and Drexel University College of Medicine, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, Integrated Vascular Surgery (2017)
  • Internship, New York Presbyterian Hospital , Weill Cornell Medical College, Surgery (2012)
  • MD, University of Health Sciences (2011)

All Publications


  • Secondary interventions in patients with implantable cardiac devices and ipsilateral arteriovenous access Dua, A., Rothenberg, K. A., Mikkineni, K., Sgroi, M. D., Sorial, E., Toca, M. MOSBY-ELSEVIER. 2019: 1242–46
  • Secondary interventions in patients with implantable cardiac devices and ipsilateral arteriovenous access. Journal of vascular surgery Dua, A., Rothenberg, K. A., Mikkineni, K., Sgroi, M. D., Sorial, E., Toca, M. G. 2019

    Abstract

    OBJECTIVE: The number of patients with end-stage renal disease who require implantable cardiac devices is increasing. Rates of secondary interventions or fistula failure are not well studied in patients who have arteriovenous fistula (AVF) access placed on the ipsilateral side as a pacemaker. This study aimed to compare central vein-related interventions and failure rates of arteriovenous access in patients with pacemakers placed on the ipsilateral vs contralateral side.METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database at a single high-volume dialysis institution was performed; all patients 18years or older who had both arteriovenous access and a pacemaker were included. Data points included the number of interventions such as thrombectomy, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, and stent placement, as well as time to first intervention and failure of the fistula or graft. Patients with an implantable cardiac device who had contralateral AVF access were compared with AVF ipsilateral access using a t-test and Kaplan-Meier curves for primary patency. Outcomes evaluated included number of interventions and time to intervention from access creation.RESULTS: A total of 32 patients were identified; 20 had arteriovenous access on the contralateral side from the pacemaker and 12 had access on the ipsilateral side. In the contralateral group, there were a mean of 3.6 percutaneous transluminal angioplasties per patient (range, 1-12). In the ipsilateral group, there were an average of 2.8 percutaneous transluminal angioplasties per patient (range, 1-6). There was no difference in intervention rates between these cohorts; however, the time to intervention was increased in patients who had arteriovenous access on the contralateral side to their pacemaker (9.5 vs 19.5months; P< .05). Patency rates did not differ (P= .068).CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in intervention rates between ipsilateral and contralateral patients; however, the time to intervention was increased in patients who had arteriovenous access on the contralateral side to their pacemaker (9.5months vs 19.5months). This study was limited by its lack of power. Patency rates did not differ (P= .068). Ipsilateral access placement should be considered rather than abandoning access in that extremity.

    View details for PubMedID 30850286