Title: Variability in non-invasive vascular laboratory experience of vascular surgery training programs based on survey of trainees suggests need for standardized curriculum.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE\nAlthough Registered Physician in Vascular Interpretation (RPVI) 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.\n\n\nMETHODS\nCurrent trainees in all 114 0+5 and 5+2 vascular surgery training programs were surveyed. The most complete survey from each program was included in the analysis. Programs were divided into those whose trainees felt well prepared (WP) and those who felt unprepared (UP) for the Physician Vascular Interpretation (PVI) examination. Responses for the two groups were compared.\n\n\nRESULTS\nResponses 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%), 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 exam 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).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThere is wide variation in NIVL experience amongst vascular surgery training programs. Many trainees feel unprepared for the PVI exam, 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.