• J. Vasc. Surg. · Jun 2010

    National trends in venous disease.

    • Geoffrey D Barnes, Sameer Gafoor, Thomas Wakefield, Gilbert R Upchurch, Peter Henke, and James B Froehlich.
    • Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich, USA. gbarnes@umich.edu
    • J. Vasc. Surg. 2010 Jun 1;51(6):1467-73.

    BackgroundThe national burden of venous disease and use of ultrasound (US) in the outpatient and emergency department (ED) settings has not been well described. The objective of this study is to describe venous disease in the outpatient and ED settings nationally as well as to characterize the use of US for diagnosis of venous disease, including phlebitis.MethodsData from the 1997 to 2006 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) were compiled, and complex sampling methods were used to describe the number of outpatient and ED visits for adults given a diagnosis of venous disease or phlebitis by ICD-9 coding. Logistic regression analysis with calculated odds ratios are used to examined patient visit characteristics and use of US.ResultsDuring the 10 years studied, an office or ED visit for venous disease occurred over 46 million times, for an average of 4.6 million visits per year, with this rate increasing from 4.03 million to 5.71 million per year (odds ratio [OR] 1.01, confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.01). The majority of these patients were seen by specialists, such as surgeons or cardiologists, but a significant number were also seen by primary care providers (PCP). There were 2 million office visits (PCP and specialists) on average per year with no significant increase. There were approximately 236,000 ED visits for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) on average per year, which showed a small increase (OR 1.01, CI 1.00-1.01). Visits for DVT and phlebitis were as likely to be seen by PCPs as ED physicians. Non-DVT venous disease is much more likely to be seen by a surgeon (OR 4.88, CI 3.53-6.74) than a PCP. DVT is much less likely to be diagnosed by a specialist (OR 0.27, CI 0.18-0.29) than a PCP. Insurance status and geographic region were not associated with DVT or non-DVT venous disease diagnosis.ConclusionsNationally, a significant and growing number of patients with venous disease are being seen in the outpatient setting by PCPs and specialists. A significant number of patients with DVT are being seen in the outpatient setting, but without a trend away from care in the ED over the 10-year study period. Additionally, the majority of patients with DVT diagnosis do not seem to be getting ultrasounds at the same visit. Many of these patients are being seen by PCPs who may require additional training and infrastructure for appropriate patient care.Published by Mosby, Inc.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…