Vascular Surgery Training: Options & Opportunities

Twitter icon
Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
e-mail icon
Google icon
 - Surgeon

In 2006, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education approved the Primary Certificate in Vascular Surgery, which eliminates the requirement for certification in general surgery prior to certification in vascular surgery. This created more than one training pathway.

  •  0+5 Track:  Vascular surgery integrated track for trainees who match during medical school. Three years are devoted to vascular surgery and two years to core surgical training. Core surgery rotations may occur throughout the first four years of training. Eligible for board certification in vascular surgery only.
  •  3+3 Track:  Residents currently match during medical school. Residents receive three years of vascular surgery training following three initial years of preliminary general surgery training at the same institution. Eligible for board certification in vascular surgery only.
  •  4+2 ESP (Early Specialization Program) Track:  Available to residents in programs with ESP accreditation. Allows for early entry into vascular surgery with the traditional chief year of general surgery serving as the first year of vascular training. Eligible for vascular surgery and general surgery certification.
  •  5+2 Track:  Five years of general surgery residency plus two years of vascular surgery training. Eligible for board certification in both general surgery and vascular surgery.

“In the traditional school paradigm, we spent nine years in training,” says Vikram S. Kashyap, MD, chief of vascular surgery at University Hospitals Case Medical Center and Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland. “The newer 0+5 model is the paradigm of the future because it streamlines training, and trainees are focusing on newer areas that are relevant to vascular surgery and vascular disease, such as vascular imaging and cardiovascular risk stratification.” It also eliminates rarely performed procedures, such as pedicure surgery or OB/GYN rotations in a traditional general surgery residency, he adds.

A self-described champion of the 0+5 model, Jack L. Cronenwett, MD, of the vascular surgery department at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H., says it was created for physicians focused on vascular surgery only. “Then the five-year program is more efficient,” Cronenwett says. The new programs also represent the recognition of the autonomy of vascular surgery subspecialty, he adds.

What do residents think of their training? To find out, the Association of Program Directors in Vascular Surgery leadership sent a survey to all vascular surgical trainees (integrated [0+5], independent current and new graduates [5+2]) addressing various aspects of the educational experience. Of 412 surveys sent, 163 responded: 46 integrated, 96 fellows and 21 graduates (J Vasc Surg 2012;55[2]:588-598).

Lead author Michael C. Dalsing, MD, chief of the division of vascular surgery at  Indiana University (IU) School of Medicine in Indianapolis, says that at the time, only about 30 schools in the U.S. were live with 0+5 programs. Today, it is closer to 40 to 45.

When choosing a program for training, the integrated residents singled out program atmosphere and the independent residents total clinical volume, according to survey results. “The integrated residents were much more concerned with the program atmosphere because they have to stay in one place for five years,” Dalsing explains. “They are focused on how the faculty communicated with their residents, and if the environment was benign to foster learning and nurture them.”  

The respondents said their “concerns after training” were thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysm procedures and business aspects.

In terms of clinical training, integrated trainees found periprocedural discussion the best feedback (79 percent), with 9 percent favoring written test review. Surgical training and vascular laboratory and venous training were judged “just right” by 87 percent and 71 percent. However, 65 to 70 percent said that business aspects needed “more emphasis.”

Likewise, the independent program trainees also found periprocedural discussion the best feedback (71 percent), with 12 percent favoring written test review. Surgical training and vascular laboratory/venous training were “just right” by 87 percent and 60 to 70 percent, respectively. Similar to the integrated trainees, many of the independent program trainees wanted more emphasis on business aspects.

In terms of the feedback about more business training, the trainees