Venous ablation procedures by provider type, including advanced practice providers

Clay Wiske; Ethan Chervonski; Caron B Rockman; Glenn R Jacobowitz; Mikel Sadek

doi:10.1016/j.jvsv.2024.101872

Venous ablation procedures by provider type, including advanced practice providers

J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2024 Mar 20:101872. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2024.101872. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Clay Wiske¹, Ethan Chervonski², Caron B Rockman³, Glenn R Jacobowitz³, Mikel Sadek³

Affiliations

¹ Division of Vascular & Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY; Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA. Electronic address: clay.wiske@stanford.edu.
² New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY.
³ Division of Vascular & Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY.

PMID: 38518987
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2024.101872

Abstract

Objective: The necessary training and certification of providers performing venous ablation has become a topic of debate in recent years. As venous interventions have shifted away from the hospital, the diversity of provider backgrounds has increased. We aimed to characterize superficial venous ablation practice patterns associated with different provider types.

Methods: We analyzed Medicare Fee-For-Service data from 2010 through 2018. Procedures were identified by their Current Procedural Terminology code and included radiofrequency ablation, endovenous laser ablation, chemical adhesive ablation (ie, VenaSeal; Medtronic, Inc), and mechanochemical ablation. These procedures were correlated with the practitioner type to identify provider-specific trends.

Results: Between 2010 and 2018, the number of ablation procedures increased by 107% from 114,197 to 236,558 per year (P < .001). Most procedures were performed by surgeons without vascular board certification (28.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 28.7%-28.8%), followed by vascular surgeons (27.1%; 95% CI, 27.0%-27.2%). Traditionally noninterventional specialties, which exclude surgeons, cardiologists, and interventional radiologists, accounted for 14.1% (95% CI, 14.1%-14.2%), and APPs accounted for 3.5% (95% CI, 3.4%-3.5%) of all ablation procedures during the study period. The total number of ablations increased by 9.7% annually (95% CI, 9.7%-9.8%), whereas procedures performed by APPs increased by 62.0% annually (95% CI, 61.6%-62.4%). There were significant differences between specialties in the use of nonthermal ablation modalities: APPs had the highest affinity for nonthermal ablation (odds ratio [OR], 2.60; 95% CI, 2.51-2.69). Cardiologists were also more likely to use nonthermal ablation (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.59-1.66). Similarly, the uptake of new nonthermal technology (ie, chemical adhesives) was greatest among APPs (OR, 3.57; 95% CI, 3.43-3.70) and cardiologists (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.81-1.91). Vascular surgeons were less likely to use nonthermal modalities (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.97), including new nonthermal technology in the first year of availability (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.95).

Conclusions: The use of venous procedures has increased rapidly during the past decade, particularly as endovenous ablations have been performed by a wider practitioner base, including APPs and noninterventionalists. Practice patterns differ by provider type, with APPs and cardiologists skewing more toward nonthermal modalities, including more rapid uptake of new nonthermal technology. Provider-specific biases for specific ablation modalities might reflect differences in training, skill set, the need for capital equipment, clinical privileges, or reimbursement. These data could help to inform training paradigms, the allocation of resources, and evaluation of appropriateness in a real-world setting.

Keywords: Advanced practice provider; Endovenous ablation; Nonthermal ablation; Superficial venous reflux; VenaSeal.