Variability in Noninvasive Vascular Laboratory Experience of Vascular Surgery Training Programs Based on Survey of Trainees Suggests the Need for a Standardized Curriculum.

BACKGROUND

Although a Registered Physician in Vascular Interpretation certification is required for vascular surgery board certification, no standardized noninvasive vascular laboratory (NIVL) curriculum for vascular surgery trainees exists. The purpose of this study is to investigate the NIVL experience of trainees and understand what helps them feel well prepared.

METHODS

Current trainees in all 0 + 5 and 5 + 2 vascular surgery training programs (114) were surveyed. The most complete survey from each program was included in the analysis. Programs were divided into those in which trainees felt well prepared (WP) and those in which trainees felt unprepared (UP) for the Physician Vascular Interpretation (PVI) examination. Responses for the 2 groups were compared.

RESULTS

Responses from 61 of the 114 programs (53.5%) were analyzed. Most programs devote <0.5 days per week to the NIVL (52.5%), assign lectures and textbook reading (55.7% and 47.5%), and provide hands-on experience with vascular technologists (60.7%) and attending surgeons (52.5%). Respondents from 15 programs (24.6%) took a PVI examination review course. The first-time PVI examination pass rate was 92.9% (13 of 14 trainees). The WP group reported higher rates of a structured curriculum for the NIVL (100% vs. 33.3%, P = 0.0001), one-on-one time with vascular technologists (78.6% vs. 44.4%, P = 0.05), mandatory lectures (78.6% vs. 33.3%, P = 0.004), and assigned articles (64.3% vs. 11.1%, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

There is wide variation in NIVL experience among vascular surgery training programs. Many trainees feel unprepared for the PVI examination, especially those without a structured curriculum. These results suggest that a structured NIVL curriculum that includes dedicated time with vascular technologists, lectures, and articles should be established.