The anterior saphenous vein. Part 3. Systematic review of the literature and payor coverage policies. Endorsed by the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, the American Venous Forum, and the International Union of Phlebology.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to systemically review the literature on Anterior Saphenous Vein (ASV) reflux treatment and insurance impediments to treatment coverage. METHODS: A literature search was performed using a PRISMA framework. In addition, a cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for ASV treatment was evaluated. RESULTS: Published evidence and treatment considerations in the literature for ASV treatment are discussed. In 155 of 226 (68.6%) insurance policies reviewed coverage of ASV ablation was allowed while 62/226 (27.4%) did not specify coverage and 9/226 (4.0%) specified ASV treatment was not covered. Of the 155 that provide ASV coverage, 98 (62.2%) provide coverage with criteria such as requiring prior treatment of the great saphenous vein. CONCLUSIONS: Vein treatment experts should continue to advocate to insurance carriers to update their varicose vein treatment policies to reflect the substantial clinical evidence so that patients with ASV reflux can be appropriately treated.

The Anterior Saphenous Vein. Part 2. Anatomic considerations in normal and refluxing patients. Endorsed by the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, the American Venous Forum and the International Union of Phlebology.

BACKGROUND: The term Anterior Accessory of the Great Saphenous Vein suggest this is a branch tributary vein despite this vessel's anatomic features of a truncal vein. A multisocietal group suggested to designate this the Anterior Saphenous Vein (ASV). This study was aimed to evaluate its ultrasound anatomy in normal and varicose limbs. METHODS: The clinical anatomy of the ASV was evaluated by narrative review of the literature. Additionally, the course of the ASV was evaluated in 62 limbs with no evidence of venous disease and 62 limbs with varicosities. RESULTS: The ASV length, patterns of origin and termination are reported in both normal and patients with varicose veins. Discussion of the patterns is supported by the narrative review of the literature. CONCLUSIONS: The ASV must be considered a truncal vein and its treatment modalities should be the same that for the great and small saphenous veins rather than a tributary vein.

The anterior saphenous vein. Part 3. Systematic review of the literature and payor coverage policies. Endorsed by the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, the American Venous Forum and the International Union of Phlebology.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to systemically review the literature on Anterior Saphenous Vein (ASV) reflux treatment and insurance impediments to treatment coverage. METHODS: A literature search was performed using a PRISMA framework. In addition, a cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for ASV treatment was evaluated. RESULTS: Published evidence and treatment considerations in the literature for ASV treatment are discussed. In 155 of 226 (68.6%) insurance policies reviewed coverage of ASV ablation was allowed while 62/226 (27.4%) did not specify coverage and 9/226 (4.0%) specified ASV treatment was not covered. Of the 155 that provide ASV coverage, 98 (62.2%) provide coverage with criteria such as requiring prior treatment of the great saphenous vein. CONCLUSIONS: Vein treatment experts should continue to advocate to insurance carriers to update their varicose vein treatment policies to reflect the substantial clinical evidence so that patients with ASV reflux can be appropriately treated.

The anterior saphenous vein. Part 4. Clinical and technical considerations in treatment. Endorsed by the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, the American Venous Forum, and the International Union of Phlebology.

BACKGROUND: The decision to treat a refluxing anterior saphenous vein (ASV) should be a clinical decision based on the assessment on the ASV's contribution to patient's signs and symptoms. Once the decision to treat has been made, there are anatomic, clinical, and technical considerations in treatment planning. METHODS: Clinical scenarios were discussed by a panel of experts and common anatomic, clinical, and technical considerations were identified. RESULTS: There are unique clinical considerations such as whether both the great saphenous vein (GSV) and ASV should be concomitantly treated, if a normal ASV should be treated when treating a refluxing GSV and when and how to treat the associated tributary varicose tributaries. Being aware of the anatomic, clinical, and technical considerations allows development of a treatment plan that optimizes long-term outcomes in patients with ASV reflux. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately the treatment plan should be tailored to address these types of variables in a patient-centered discussion.

The anterior saphenous vein. Part 2. Anatomic considerations in normal and refluxing patients. Endorsed by the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, the American Venous Forum, and the International Union of Phlebology.

BACKGROUND: The term Anterior Accessory of the Great Saphenous Vein suggests this is a branch tributary vein despite this vessel's anatomic features of a truncal vein. A multisocietal group suggested to designate this the anterior saphenous vein (ASV). This study was aimed to evaluate its ultrasound anatomy in normal and varicose limbs. METHODS: The clinical anatomy of the ASV was evaluated by narrative review of the literature. Additionally, the course of the ASV was evaluated in 62 limbs with no evidence of venous disease and 62 limbs with varicosities. RESULTS: The ASV length, patterns of origin and termination are reported in both normal and patients with varicose veins. Discussion of the patterns is supported by the narrative review of the literature. CONCLUSIONS: The ASV must be considered a truncal vein and its treatment modalities should be the same that for the great and small saphenous veins rather than a tributary vein.

The anterior saphenous vein. Part 1. A position statement endorsed by the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, the American Venous Forum, and the International Union of Phlebology.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of clarity regarding the terminology of the anterior accessory saphenous vein (AASV) that can impact treatment outcomes. Although use of the word "accessory" implies that the vein is a superficial tributary, evidence supports its role as a truncal vein, similar to the great and small saphenous veins, and warranting a change in terminology. METHODS: A multisocietal panel was convened by the American Vein and Lymphatic Society (AVLS), the Union International of Phlebology (UIP), and the American Venous Forum (AVF). The group was charged with reviewing the existing anatomic and clinical literature pertaining to the term "anterior accessory saphenous vein" and to consider the need for alternative terminology. CONCLUSION: Based on the insights gathered from the literature review and extensive discussions, the panel recommends changing the terminology such that the "anterior accessory saphenous vein" (AASV) now be designated the anterior saphenous vein (ASV).

The anterior saphenous vein. Part 1. A position statement endorsed by the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, the American Venous Forum, and the International Union of Phlebology.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of clarity regarding the terminology of the anterior accessory saphenous vein (AASV) that can impact treatment outcomes. Although use of the word "accessory" implies that the vein is a superficial tributary, evidence supports its role as a truncal vein, similar to the great and small saphenous veins, and warranting a change in terminology. METHODS: A multisocietal panel was convened by the American Vein and Lymphatic Society (AVLS), the Union International of Phlebology (UIP), and the American Venous Forum (AVF). The group was charged with reviewing the existing anatomic and clinical literature pertaining to the term "anterior accessory saphenous vein" and to consider the need for alternative terminology. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the insights gathered from the literature review and extensive discussions, the panel recommends changing the terminology such that the "anterior accessory saphenous vein" (AASV) now be designated the anterior saphenous vein (ASV).

The anterior saphenous vein. Part 4. Clinical and technical considerations in treatment. Endorsed by the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, the American Venous Forum, and the International Union of Phlebology.

BACKGROUND: The decision to treat a refluxing anterior saphenous vein (ASV) should be a clinical decision based on the assessment on the ASV's contribution to patient's signs and symptoms. Once the decision to treat has been made, there are anatomic, clinical, and technical considerations in treatment planning. METHODS: Clinical scenarios were discussed by a panel of experts and common anatomic, clinical, and technical considerations were identified. RESULTS: There are unique clinical considerations such as whether both the great saphenous vein (GSV) and ASV should be concomitantly treated, if a normal ASV should be treated when treating a refluxing GSV and when and how to treat the associated tributary varicose tributaries. Being aware of the anatomic, clinical, and technical considerations allows development of a treatment plan that optimizes long-term outcomes in patients with ASV reflux. CONCLUSION: Ultimately the treatment plan should be tailored to address these types of variables in a patient-centered discussion.

Pleural effusions are associated with adverse outcomes after cardiac surgery: a propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pleural effusions commonly occur in patients recovering from cardiac surgery; however, the impact on outcomes is not well characterized. The purpose of this study is to characterize the clinical outcomes of cardiac surgery patients with pleural effusion. METHODS: All patients undergoing cardiac surgery between 2006 and 2019 at a tertiary care university hospital were included in this observational, cross-sectional analysis using propensity matching. RESULTS: Of 11,037 patients that underwent cardiac surgery during the study period, 6461 (58.5%) had no pleural effusion (Group 0), 3322 (30.1%) had pleural effusion only (Group 1), and 1254 (11.4%) required at least one secondary drainage procedure after the index operation (Group 2). After propensity matching, the mortality of patients who underwent secondary drainage procedures was 6.1% higher than in Group 1 (p < 0.001). Intensive care unit (ICU) stay was longer for those with pleural effusions (18 [IQR 9-32] days in Group 2, 10 [IQR 6-17] days for Group 1, and 7 [IQR 4-11] days for Group 0, p < 0.001). Patients with pleural effusions had a higher incidence of hemodialysis (246 [20.0%] in Group 2, 137 [11.1%] in Group 1, 98 [7.98%] in Group 0), and a longer ventilation time in the ICU (57 [IQR 21.0-224.0] hours in Group 2, 25.0 [IQR 14.0-58.0] hours in Group 1, 16.0 [IQR 10.0-29.0] hours in Group 0). CONCLUSION: Pleural effusions, especially those that require a secondary drainage procedure during recovery, are associated with significantly worse outcomes including increased mortality, longer length of stay, and higher complication rates. These insights may be of great interest to scientists, clinicians, and industry leaders alike to foster research into innovative methods for preventing and treating pleural effusions with the aim of improving outcomes for patients recovering from cardiac surgery.

Evaluation of a Physician Peer-Benchmarking Intervention for Practice Variability and Costs for Endovenous Thermal Ablation.

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.