• Vascular Annual Meeting^®
• Registration
• Hotel Reservations
• Schedule-at-a-Glance
• Program-in-Detail
• Wednesday, June 9 - Postgraduate Courses Day
• Thursday, June 10
• Friday, June 11
• Saturday, June 12
• Sunday, June 13
• International Attendee Information
• General Information
• New in 2010
• Call for Abstracts
• Speaker Information
• Exhibitor Information
• Alumni Association Information
• Future Meeting Dates
• 2009 Meeting Information
• Contact Us

Home > Vascular Annual Meeting^® > PP24. Knowledge Deficit in Venous Disease Remarkable...

PP24. Knowledge Deficit in Venous Disease Remarkable in Current Vascular Trainees

Joann M. Lohr1, Michael C. Dalsing2, Thomas W. Wakefield3, Mark H. Meissner4, John V. White5
1Lohr Surgical Specialists, LLC, Cincinnati, OH; 2Indiana University Medical School, Indianapolis, IN; 3University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI; 4University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA;5Advocate-Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, IL

OBJECTIVES: The study was undertaken to assess knowledge and vascular resident perception of their current training program in venous disease.

METHODS: Vascular residents attending the AVF 2007 and 2008 Venous Fellow’s Course were surveyed prior to and after the course in Chicago.

RESULTS: One-third of respondents had completed six months of training while the remainder had completed eighteen months of training. Fifty-five percent reported inadequate training in venous disease. The vascular residents estimated less than ten percent of their time was devoted to venous disease. Forty-five percent of programs had a “vein specialist” or vein clinic experience. The average duration of vascular laboratory training was five weeks with only thirty-five percent having vascular laboratory interpretation training of venous studies. All respondents expect to include venous disease in their practices. One-third of the residents anticipated an academic career. Two-thirds of respondents had heard of CEAP, but only one-third could actually define it and ten percent could accurately classify patients. Venous anatomy questions were answered correctly by none of the respondents on the pre-test. Questions regarding sclerotherapy, idiopathic DVT, lytic access sites, thrombophilias, probe selection in vascular laboratory and thromboembolic prophylaxis were answered correctly fifty percent of the time. Assessment of iliac venous stenosis and the definition of pathologic venous reflux were answered correctly by thirty percent and ten percent of respondents respectively. Retesting after the course showed significant improvement in all question areas. The 2008 VSITE included fifteen percent venous questions and two percent lymphatic questions. Venous insufficiency items were correctly answered seventy-seven percent of the time while venous thrombosis questions were correctly answered eighty-three percent of the time. The physician interpretive examination or the RVT examination, were program requirements in half the programs represented.

CONCLUSIONS: These results show the need and benefit of the AVF vascular resident education program and the need for further curriculum expansion in venous disease.

AUTHOR DISCLOSURES: J.M. Lohr, None; M.C. Dalsing, None; T.W. Wakefield, None; M.H. Meissner, None; J.V. White, None.