OBJECTIVE:With health care rapidly expanding and patient accessibility needs increasing, there has been an influx of providers often lacking formal training in venous disease management. The aim of this study was to determine if centers that participate in an accreditation program exhibit increased quality, safety outcomes, and overall practice standards. METHODS:Of 325 accredited vein centers, 287 underwent reaccreditation within 3 years. Fifty-nine of them were compliant with Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) standards at the time of initial accreditation. Fifty-nine IAC-accredited centers participated in the American Vein and Lymphatic Society Pro Vein registry and had patient-level data. Sixteen were initially compliant with IAC standards (group 1; 4977 patients) and 43 had deficiencies (group 2; 11,179 patients). A stratified before-and-after design was used to analyze center-level and patient-level data (demographics, body mass index, and disease severity scores [Clinical-Etiological-Anatomical-Pathophysiological and revised Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS)]. Primary outcomes included compliance with IAC standards, treatment results (eg, VCSS changes, complications, endothermal heat-induced thrombosis >2), and interventional practice patterns, such as intervention rate and Utilization Index. RESULTS:Of the 287 IAC-accredited vein centers who pursued reaccreditation, 59 were compliant initially and at reaccreditation. The remaining centers (n = 229) had multiple deficiencies, with safety issues persisting in some centers at reaccreditation. Before accreditation, group 2 centers treated younger, lower body mass index patients with less severe disease, and group 1 centers saw more advanced cases. Over time, group 2 centers began treating more severe cases. Group 1 had higher intervention rates and lower use indices before accreditation. Post-treatment complication and endothermal heat-induced thrombosis rates were low and similar across both groups. Group 1 showed a greater VCSS score change after treatment, partly owing to higher baseline scores. Over time, group 2 showed a decrease in Utilization Index, without a post-treatment decrease in the revised VCSS change aligning with group 1, indicating improved practice patterns after accreditation. CONCLUSIONS:IAC accreditation plays a meaningful role in standardizing and improving the quality of outpatient venous care. It promotes safer procedural environments, encourages more selective use of interventions, and is associated with improved clinical outcomes-particularly among initially noncompliant centers. These findings support the expansion of accreditation programs and underscore their importance in maintaining high standards of care in an increasingly heterogeneous field.

Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) accredits vein centers based on their adherence to the IAC standards. Those standards are designed to ensure a reasonable level of quality of care across several aspects of practice. The aim of this study was to analyze if accredited centers maintain their compliance with IAC standards over time.

Background: Chronic venous disorders are common, with varicose veins occurring in similar to 40% of the population. Venous leg ulcers affect 1% to 2% of the population, with the prevalence increasing <= 4% for those aged >65 years. Both conditions are expensive and together are responsible for <= 2% of the annual healthcare budget expenditure of Western societies. The ESCHAR (effect of surgery and compression on healing and recurrence) and EVRA (early venous reflux ablation) trials demonstrated that surgical correction of superficial venous reflux reduced ulcer recurrence, resulted in faster healing times (EVRA), and was proved cost-effective. Largescale data regarding patients with chronic venous leg ulcers presenting to venous centers with treatable superficial venous insufficiency has not been previously reported. Our study was designed to evaluate the percentage of patients with leg ulcers presenting to dedicated vein centers who were found to have surgically correctable superficial venous insufficiency. Methods: The American Vein & Lymphatic Society Patient Reported Outcome Venous Registry began collecting data in 2014 and is one of two national registries focused on chronic venous disorders. The database was queried first for the presence of an ulcer using the CEAP (clinical, etiologic, anatomic, pathophysiologic) classification (C6 status). These deidentified data were further correlated by crossing the number of ulcers for the same limb using the revised venous clinical severity score (rVCSS). The demographics, index duplex ultrasound details, and rVCSS features for ulcer duration and compression use were analyzed. Once the presence of an ulcer had been validated by CEAP and rVCSS, the population was divided into groups according to the ultrasound-reported anatomic pathology (eg, normal, reflux, obstruction, reflux plus obstruction). The query was directed toward all patients seeking a venous evaluation at participating centers from January 2018 through January 2022. Results: More than 270,000 unique patient records were reviewed. Of the 270,000 records, 163,027 (60%) had had duplex ultrasound scans available, for 1794 unique patients (1879 limbs), representing 1.1% with a leg wound. Of these patients, 55.4% were men and 44.6% were women. Group S included patients with isolated superficial pathology (n = 1291; 68.7%). Group M included patients with mixed superficial and deep pathology (n = 238; 12.7%). Group D included patients with isolated deep vein pathology (n = 58; 3.1%). Finally, group N included patients with leg wounds but no venous pathology (n = 292; 15.5%). The rVCSSs for groups S and M were significantly higher than those for group N. In group S, the dominant patterns involved the great saphenous vein (GSV) above the knee (54.8%), the small saphenous vein (30.7%), and the anterior accessory GSV (14.4%). The frequency of single, double, and triple axial vein reflux identified 1.45 vessels eligible for ablation treatment per limb. In group M, the dominant patterns involved the GSV above the knee (61.7%), the small saphenous vein (26.2%), and the anterior accessory GSV (12.1%), for 1.52 axial segments per limb. Of the 84.4% of venous ulcer patients, duplex ultrasound analysis revealed that 97% of this large subset had had surgically correctable disease. Conclusions: The American Vein & Lymphatic Society Patient Reported Outcome Venous Registry demonstrated that 85% of the leg wounds in the present study were venous in origin and 97% possessed surgically correctable disease. Our findings support early referral to dedicated vein centers with appropriate venous reflux management as a part of the multidisciplinary team caring for patients with venous leg ulcers. (J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2023;11:511-6.)

IMPORTANCE The frequency of use of endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA) to treat chronic venous insufficiency has increased rapidly in the US. Wide variability in EVTA use among physicians has been documented, and standard EVTA rates were defined in the 2017 Medicare database. OBJECTIVE To assess whether providing individualized physician performance reports is associated with reduced variability in EVTA use and cost savings. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This prospective quality improvement study used data from all US Medicare patients aged 18 years or older who underwent at least 1 EVTA between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017, and between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019. All US physicians who performed at least 11 EVTAs yearly for Medicare patients in 2017 and 2019 were included in the assessment. INTERVENTION A performance report comprising individual physician EVTA use per patient with peer-benchmarking data was distributed to all physicians in November 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The mean number of EVTAs performed per patient was calculated for each physician. Physicians who performed 3.4 or more EVTA procedures per patient per year were considered outliers. The change in the number of procedures from 2017 to 2019 was analyzed overall and by inlier and outlier status. An economic analysis was also performed to estimate the cost savings associated with the intervention. RESULTS A total of 188 976 patients (102 222 in 2017 and 86 754 in 2019) who had an EVTA performed by 1558 physicians were included in the analysis. The median patient age was 72.2 years (IQR, 67.9-77.8 years); 67.3% of patients were female, and 84.9% were White. Among all physicians, the mean (SD) number of EVTAs per patient decreased from 2017 to 2019 (1.97 [0.85] vs 1.89 [0.77]; P < .001). There was a modest decrease in the mean number of EVTAs per patient among inlier physicians (1.83 [0.57] vs 1.78 [0.55]; P < .001) and a more substantial decrease among outlier physicians (4.40 [1.01] vs 3.67 [1.41]; P < .001). Outliers in 2017 consisted of 90 physicians, of whom 71 (78.9%) reduced their EVTA use after the intervention. The number of EVTAs per patient decreased by a mean (SD) of 0.09 (0.46) procedures overall (median, 0.10 procedures [IQR, -0.10 to 0.30 procedures]; P < .001). The estimated cost savings associated with the decrease was $6.3 million in 2019. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this quality improvement study, substantial variability in the number of EVTAs performed per patient was observed across the US. When physicians were provided with a 1-time peer-benchmarked performance report card, the timing of the intervention was associated with a significant decrease in the number of EVTAs performed per patient, particularly among outlier physicians. This quality improvement initiative was associated with reduced variability in EVTA use in the US and a substantial savings for Medicare.

BACKGROUND:Superficial venous disease of the lower extremity has a significant impact on quality of life. Both truncal and tributary vein reflux contribute to this disease process. Endovenous foam sclerotherapy is a widely used technique throughout the world for the management of superficial venous reflux and ultrasound guidance improves its safety and efficacy.METHODS:A PubMed search for ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) was conducted and all abstracts were reviewed to identify clinical trials and systematic reviews for a full-text analysis. Additional articles were also identified through searching the references of the selected studies.RESULTS:The production of foam for sclerotherapy in a 1:3 or 1:4 ratio of air to sclerosant is optimal in a low silicone, low-volume syringe system. Physiologic gas may decrease any side effects, with the trade-off of decreased foam stability. Proper technique with appropriate sterility and cleansing protocols are paramount for safe and effective treatment. The technical success of UGFS for great saphenous vein disease is inferior to endothermal and surgical modalities and retreatment is more common. However, the clinical improvement in patient-reported quality of life is similar between these three modalities. When used for tributary veins in combination with endothermal approaches of the truncal veins, UGFS has high rates of success with excellent patient satisfaction. UGFS has demonstrated an excellent safety profile comparable with or superior to other modalities.CONCLUSIONS:With proper technique, UGFS is safe and effective for the management of superficial venous disease.

Varicose veins afflict more than one in five Americans, and although varicose veins may be an asymptomatic cosmetic concern in some, many others experience symptoms of pain, aching, heaviness, itching, and swelling. More advanced venous disease can result from untreated venous insufficiency. The complications of chronic venous disease, including bleeding, thrombosis, and ulceration, are seen in up to 2 million Americans annually. Numerous reports have documented venous disease adversely affects quality of life and that treatment of venous disease can improve quality of life. It has previously been documented that private insurers, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services subcontractors for that matter, have disparate policies that in many instances are self-serving, contain mistakes, use outdated evidence, and disregard evidence-based guidelines. The two leading venous medical societies, the American Venous Forum and the American Venous and Lymphatic Society, have come together to review the varicose vein coverage policies of seven major U.S. private medical insurance carriers whose policies cover more than 150 million Americans. The authors reviewed the policies for venous disease and, if significant gaps or inconsistencies are found, we hope to point them out, and, finally, to propose a thoughtful and reasonable policy based on the best available evidence.

Background: Insurance approval for saphenous vein ablation is generally limited to junctional reflux involving the great saphenous vein (GSV) or small saphenous vein. This study was designed to investigate prevalence and disease severity of anterior accessory GSV (AAGSV) compared with GSV disease in patients presenting to dedicated outpatient vein centers. Methods: Deidentified data were pulled from the American Vein & Lymphatic Society PRO Venous Registry for first and second patient encounters. Variables included age, sex, and body mass index (BMI); clinical class of Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology (CEAP) classification; revised Venous Clinical Severity Score (rVCSS); and duplex ultrasound values for each limb. Data were further scrutinized according to duplex ultrasound findings. Patients with normal findings on duplex ultrasound examination or evidence of acute or chronic thrombosis were excluded. Patients were further characterized into two groups. The primary group had no prior vein treatment vs the progressive group, in which patients have had a superficial venous intervention at some point in the past. Results: There were 6836 unique patients with duplex ultrasound patterns of either AAGSV or GSV above the knee or both AAGSV and GSV in either group. This pool contained 2604 patients with recorded CEAP class and rVCSS, representing 2664 patient limbs in the final data set. In comparison to limbs in the progressive group, AAGSV reflux was more common in the primary group (78/563 vs 209/2101; P < .01). Demographic features of the groups demonstrated no significant difference. The primary group demonstrated a significantly higher rVCSS (6.95 vs 6.10; P < .01) than the progressive group. Patients in the primary group also demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of more advanced disease (CEAP class C4 and above; 43.1% vs 24.8%; P < .0001) than those in the progressive group. The primary group demonstrated no significant differences in age, sex proportions, or mean BMI. The mean rVCSS for GSV of these patients (7.22) was significantly higher than that of AAGSV patients (5.63; P < .01). The incidence of superficial vein thrombosis for the AAGSV patients (6.41%) was significantly higher than that of the GSV patients (2.17%; P< .05) in the progressive group. Patients in the progressive group demonstrated no significant difference in age, sex proportions, mean BMI, or average rVCSS. The proportion of AAGSV limbs with superficial thrombosis events (37/287 [12.9%]) was significantly higher than that for GSV (59/2214 [2.7%]; P < .01). Conclusions: AAGSV reflux is common and carries similar morbidity to GSV reflux. It is manifested with an alarming presence of superficial vein thrombosis.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has resulted in diversion of healthcare resources to the management of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus. Elective interventions and surgical procedures in most countries have been postponed and operating room resources have been diverted to manage the pandemic. The Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale was developed to provide an international standard to rationalise and harmonise the management of patients with venous and lymphatic disorders or vascular anomalies. Triage urgency was determined based on clinical assessment of urgency with which a patient would require medical treatment or surgical intervention. Clinical conditions were classified into six categories of: (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE), (2) chronic venous disease, (3) vascular anomalies, (4) venous trauma, (5) venous compression and (6) lymphatic disease. Triage urgency was categorised into four groups and individual conditions were allocated to each class of triage. These included (1) medical emergencies (requiring immediate attendance), example massive pulmonary embolism; (2) urgent (to be seen as soon as possible), example deep vein thrombosis; (3) semi-urgent (to be attended to within 30–90 days), example highly symptomatic chronic venous disease, and (4) discretionary/non-urgent- (to be seen within 6–12 months), example chronic lymphoedema. Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale aims to standardise the triage of patients with venous and lymphatic disease or vascular anomalies by providing an international consensus-based classification of clinical categories and triage urgency. The scale may be used during pandemics such as the current COVID-19 crisis but may also be used as a general framework to classify urgency of the listed conditions.

Guidelines are fundamental in addressing everyday clinical indications and in reporting the current evidence-based data of related scientific investigations. At the same time, a spatial and temporal issue can limit their value. Indeed, variability in the recommendations can be found both among the same nation different scientific societies and among different nations/continents. On the other side, Garcia already published in 2014 data showing how, after three years in average, one out of five recommendations gets outdated (Martinez Garcia LM, Sanabria AJ, Garcia Alvarez E, et al. The validity of recommendations from clinical guidelines: a survival analysis. CMAJ 2014;186(16):1211–1219). The present document reports a narrative literature revision on the major international recommendations in lower limb venous and lymphatic disease management, focusing on the different countries’ guidelines, trends and controversies from all the continents, while identifying new evidence-based data potentially influencing future guidelines. World renowned experts’ opinions are also provided. The document has been written following the recorded round tables scientific discussions held at the vWINter international meeting (22–26 January 2019; Cortina d’Ampezzo, Italy) and the pre- and post-meeting literature search performed by the leading experts.

The third year of reporting for the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (MACRA) Quality Payment Program (QPP) starts January 1, 2019. Under MACRA, Medicare providers must participate in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) or an Advanced Alternative Payment Model to avoid a 7% penalty in 2021 reimbursements.1