The University of Rochester will be starting a 3+3 program this coming year, and has been accepting applications throughout this current cycle. For those who are exploring this option, I would highly recommend Rochester.
The faculty are very well trained in endovascular techniques, and this might be something you should consider when exploring programs. Obviously endo is the future of vascular, but some places have older vascular surgeons who may not have been trained in the endo techniques back in their day. However, many that I have met have gone off for a 4-month fellowship or something similar to catch up. I have no doubt that they are trained well and proficient afterwards, but sometimes it just takes a little longer for newly trained folks to step aside for their trainees. So it's important to look for faculty who are really really comfortable with endo. A decent relationship with IR would be nice, too.
Some of the pros/cons that seem to go around...
Pros: Obviously, shorter total training time. While many comment that it's only one year saved, it is also to your benefit to spend less time on training that is not necessary for vascular surgeons. (This could be a con, depending on what you like). No need to mess around with complex lap procedures or Whipples if your future is in vascular. At Rochester, the first 3 years in "general surg" are also more tailored to the vascular resident, so you get extra time in vascular even earlier.
Cons: Well frankly, it's hard to decide that early to specialize. But in my opinion, if you really put vascular out there as a specialty like urology or plastics or ENT, then students might actually take the initiative to explore it earlier in med school because they know that it's another surgical subspecialty that has to be applied to right away. I would think that it's harder to recruit for vascular residents this cycle because the programs were kept so under-cover, and current 4th year med students weren't given enough advanced noticed (meaning 3rd year at the very least) to explore the field well enough to make that decision. But anyway, alot of folks only spend 4-6 weeks rotating through the other subspecialties before making a decision, and it's just as easy to spend 4-6 weeks on a vascular elective, too. So I guess what I'm saying is, once vascular gets its name out as a freestanding surgical subspecialty, I think med students would take more of an initiative to explore it (as long as faculty continue to support students!).
In speaking to a chief resident going into a vascular fellowship next year, I asked whether he thought that folks taking the fast track would be missing out, at a disadvantage, or looked upon differently than those who did the 7 year route. (My concerns being less experience with abdominal operations, less experience with trauma, etc). Without hesitation, he encouraged and supported the fast track, and then went on to remind me of how many "useless" operations he had to do - mainly, he loved vascular and knew he was going to do vascular, and by his chief year that's what he wanted to focus on. On the fast track, you wouldn't feel stuck like that. The vascular fellow I talked to voiced similar frustrations about his own training.
Sorry for the extra long post. I had been considering the vascular integrated route myself, so I had done some exploring. Best of luck to all those considering this track. I have personally spent some time on the vascular service at Rochester and would highly recommend them for this training program because of high volume and incredibly supportive faculty. Let me know if you have questions.