Objective: Acute venous thromboembolism and chronic venous diseases are common conditions that affect a large proportion of the United States population. The diagnosis of venous disease has improved, and the treatment options have rapidly evolved over the past decade. To date, it is unclear to what extent vascular surgeons have become involved in the modern management of venous disorders. This survey was undertaken to explore the current interest and practice of vascular surgeons in the contemporary care of venous disease.
Methods: A survey was administered via a web-based platform to active and candidate members of the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS). The survey included 30 questions investigating the characteristics of venous surgeons and scope of venous practice. Open-ended questions were also included for commentary.
Results: A total of 1879 surveys were sent to SVS members nationwide, and 385 members participated (response rate of 20.5%). The participants were mostly men (89.6%) with 37.7% practicing in an academic setting and 59.2% in private practice. The respondents treated superficial veins (92.9%) and deep veins (85.8%) in clinical practice, with 89.9% having their own vascular laboratory. A wide spectrum of interventions for superficial (91.9%), deep (85.8%), and perforator veins (52.7% endovenous, 19.4% subfascial endoscopic perforator surgery) are being performed by respondents. Only 26.2% had learned endovenous thermal ablation in their training program; however, over 96% of those performing venous interventions utilized this technique. Overall, the majority (85.5%) devoted 50% or less of practice to venous disorders. Respondents indicated that limitations to expansion of vein practices mainly involved challenges with third party payers, local competition, and existing large volumes of arterial interventions needing to be performed. Despite the widespread incorporation of venous disease into current vascular practices, 66.1% are not members of the American Venous Forum (AVF) or other venous society. Many believe there is still a lack of standardization of care and guidelines for venous disease.
Conclusions: The care of patients with venous disease has become more widespread among SVS members, with most offering both deep and superficial venous interventions as well as incorporation of minimally invasive techniques into their treatment armamentarium. Dissemination and incorporation of protocols and guidelines into clinical practice as well as postgraduate courses in venous disease may be areas in which the SVS could facilitate members' involvement in the care of patients with venous disease.
Published by Elsevier Inc.