A review of United States endovenous ablation practice trends from the Medicare Data Utilization and Payment Database.

OBJECTIVE: The growth of endovenous ablation in the United States over the last few years has raised concerns of overuse by many vascular societies and payers. Reasons for such growth are unclear (ie, increased awareness, less invasive procedure, or inappropriate overuse). The Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment database was analyzed to define metrics of current practice trends in Medicare patients by providers. METHODS: The Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment database was queried for endothermal ablation Current Procedural Terminology codes (36475, 36476, 36478, and 36479) from 2012 through 2015. These results were imported into a relational database program. Queries were designed to ascertain the practice trends of all providers, inclusive of all specialties, and the data were exported to a spreadsheet program for analysis. Analysis for ablations per patient was calculated by assessing the number of beneficiaries who underwent at least one ablation by a provider in relation to the total number of ablations performed by that provider. RESULTS: Most saphenous vein ablations were done by vascular surgeons (29%), cardiologists (21%), or general surgeons (14%). The remaining one-third was performed by 33 other provider specialties ranging from nuclear medicine specialists to ophthalmologists. Regional variation was significant with 51% of ablations being performed in the south (Florida, 15.7% and Texas, 11.4%). The Western region had the greatest percentage growth of 62% with the addition of 14,788 cases added between 2012 and 2015. Ablations per patient averaged 1.8 in the aggregate dataset. Over the 4-year period, there was a steady increase seen in the number of patients undergoing ablation, number of ablations performed, number of providers performing ablation, average amount of ablations being performed as well as the number and proportion of providers performing more than ablations per patient. The number of ablations per patient was higher than average in specialties without any formal vascular training. CONCLUSIONS: Endovenous ablation is performed by a wide variety of subspecialists with different levels of formal training for the management of chronic venous disease. This data analysis can help to establish better guidelines and governance over the use of endovenous ablation, but care should be taken to realize this is only an average and many patients will require more than two ablations for appropriate care. As our health care system shifts from a fee-for-service to a value-based system, and taxpayer-funded resources in Medicare patients become less available, it is important that practice trends be scrutinized using data-driven initiatives so that the appropriate physician treats the appropriate patient for the appropriate reasons.

Treatment pattern of consecutive patients with chronic venous disease.

BACKGROUND: No clear data exist on the treatment patterns in patients with chronic venous disease. This study was designed to determine how such patients were treated in our center. METHODS: Consecutive patients presenting for a vein consultation at our center were collected during a 9-month period, allotting for at least 6 months of follow-up. All patients had a detailed history and physical examination by experienced vascular surgeons and a complete venous ultrasound evaluation by registered vascular technologists having experience in venous imaging. Charts were reviewed for patient factors including body mass index, age, clinical class (Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology [CEAP] classification), and treatment. Deidentified data from the chart review were entered into a local database. Queries were designed to identify trends in the data. The results of the queries were exported to a spreadsheet program for analysis per patient and per limb. RESULTS: There were 506 patients evaluated for venous disease during a period of 9 months. We identified 200 patients with chronic venous disease who required superficial vein treatment. There were 136 (68%) women. Ablation was required in 156 patients (78%), whereas 44 (22%) required only adjunctive therapy (microphlebectomy or sclerotherapy). The average number of ablations in patients with venous disease was 1.3 (259 ablations in 200 patients). In patients who needed at least one ablation, the average was 1.7 ablations per patient (259 ablations in 156 patients). Unilateral ablation was done in 94 patients (60%), and 62 patients (40%) had bilateral treatment. Of those who underwent unilateral ablations, 61% required adjunctive treatment of the contralateral limb. In patients who required only adjunctive therapy (no ablation), 73% underwent bilateral treatment. There were 182 limbs (45.5%) that did not require ablation as no reflux was found in the saphenous systems. Of the 156 patients who underwent ablation, 218 limbs had at least one ablation; 52% of limbs had C2 disease and on average underwent 1.1 ablations/limb. Only 7 of 113 (6%) limbs required more than one ablation. Average ablations per limb increased with clinical class, C3 having 1.2 ablations/limb, C4 having 1.4 ablations/limb, and C5 and C6 having 1.56 ablations/limb. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with venous disease required on average 1.3 ablations/patient. Most (78%) require at least one ablation for an average of 1.7 ablations/patient. There were 182 limbs (45.5%) with no saphenous reflux that did not require an ablation. The average number of ablations/limb increased with CEAP class.