Management and treatment outcomes of patients undergoing endovenous ablation are significantly different between Intersocietal Accreditation Commission-accredited and nonaccredited vein centers

Abstract

ObjectiveThe 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. MethodsThis 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. ResultsA 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). ConclusionsVenous 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.