Management and treatment outcomes of patients undergoing endovenous ablation are significantly different between Intersocietal Accreditation Commission-accredited and nonaccredited vein centers.
Ablation Techniques
/ adverse effects
Accreditation
/ standards
Chronic Disease
Endovascular Procedures
/ adverse effects
Health Facilities
/ standards
Healthcare Disparities
/ standards
Humans
Postoperative Complications
/ etiology
Quality Indicators, Health Care
/ standards
Registries
Saphenous Vein
/ diagnostic imaging
Severity of Illness Index
Societies, Medical
/ standards
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
United States
Varicose Veins
/ diagnostic imaging
Venous Insufficiency
/ diagnostic imaging
Chronic venous insufficiency
Endovenous ablation
Quality improvement
Varicose veins
Journal
Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders
ISSN: 2213-3348
Titre abrégé: J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101607771
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2021
03 2021
Historique:
received:
27
04
2020
accepted:
09
07
2020
pubmed:
30
7
2020
medline:
29
4
2021
entrez:
30
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Intersocietal Accreditation Commission of vein centers was instituted in 2014, yet data regarding impact of accreditation on patients undergoing superficial vein interventions are lacking. This study was undertaken to identify differences in patient outcomes and utilization index as a measure of appropriate use in accredited compared with nonaccredited centers. This study was performed with a matched control design using prospectively collected data from two major U.S.-based venous registries: the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative Varicose Vein Registry and the American Vein & Lymphatic Society PRO Venous Registry. A total of 39,001 patients treated between 2015 and 2018 in 192 centers were included in the study. The Vascular Quality Initiative Varicose Vein Registry provided information on 19,810 (50.8%) patients, and the American Vein & Lymphatic Society PRO Venous Registry provided information on 19,191 (49.2%) patients. Accredited centers were significantly more likely to treat patients with advanced venous disease as characterized by trophic skin changes (C4-C6, 38.1% vs 25.2%; P < .001). Percentage of patients treated 2 standard deviations above the Medicare-reported mean (3.4 utilization index) was significantly higher among patients treated at nonaccredited centers (3.3% vs 0.1%; P < .001). Venous Clinical Severity Score of those who were assessed between 1 month and 1 year after ablation decreased by 4.98 ± 4.01 in nonaccredited centers compared with 5.61 ± 3.64 in accredited centers (P < .001). Complications were low in both cohorts (nonaccredited centers, 71 [0.4%]; accredited centers, 17 [0.1%]; P < .001). One-year clinical follow-up was higher in nonaccredited centers (76.4% vs 31.5%; P < .001). Venous registries are a powerful tool for capturing and identifying significant variations in procedure utilization and complications in low-risk procedures. Intersocietal Accreditation Commission accreditation was associated with reduced use of endovenous therapies, slightly lower complication rates, lower 1-year follow up, and greater improvement in Venous Clinical Severity Score.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32721587
pii: S2213-333X(20)30417-0
doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2020.07.007
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
346-351Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.