Guidelines for management of actual or suspected inadvertent intra-arterial injection of sclerosants.

BACKGROUND: Inadvertent intra-arterial injection of sclerosants is an uncommon adverse event of both ultrasound-guided and direct vision sclerotherapy. This complication can result in significant tissue or limb loss and significant long-term morbidity. OBJECTIVES: To provide recommendations for diagnosis and immediate management of an unintentional intra-arterial injection of sclerosing agents. METHODS: An international and multidisciplinary expert panel representing the endorsing societies and relevant specialities reviewed the published biomedical, scientific and legal literature and developed the consensus-based recommendations. RESULTS: Actual and suspected cases of an intra-arterial sclerosant injection should be immediately transferred to a facility with a vascular/interventional unit. Digital Subtraction Angiography (DSA) is the key investigation to confirm the diagnosis and help select the appropriate intra-arterial therapy for tissue ischaemia. Emergency endovascular intervention will be required to manage the risk of major limb ischaemia. This includes intra-arterial administration of vasodilators to reduce vasospasm, and anticoagulants and thrombolytic agents to mitigate thrombosis. Mechanical thrombectomy, other endovascular interventions and even open surgery may be required. Lumbar sympathetic block may be considered but has a high risk of bleeding. Systemic anti-inflammatory agents, anticoagulants, and platelet inhibitors and modifiers would complement the intra-arterial endovascular procedures. For risk of minor ischaemia, systemic oral anti-inflammatory agents, anticoagulants, vasodilators and antiplatelet treatments are recommended. CONCLUSION: Inadvertent intra-arterial injection is an adverse event of both ultrasound-guided and direct vision sclerotherapy. Medical practitioners performing sclerotherapy must ensure completion of a course of formal training (specialty or subspecialty training, or equivalent recognition) in the management of venous and lymphatic disorders (phlebology), and be personally proficient in the use of duplex ultrasound in vascular (both arterial and venous) applications, to diagnose and provide image guidance to venous procedure. Expertise in diagnosis and immediate management of an intra-arterial injection is essential for all practitioners performing sclerotherapy.

Sclerotherapy of lower limb veins: Indications, contraindications and treatment strategies to prevent complications - A consensus document of the International Union of Phlebology-2023.

BACKGROUND: Sclerotherapy is a non-invasive procedure commonly used to treat superficial venous disease, vascular malformations and other ectatic vascular lesions. While extremely rare, sclerotherapy may be complicated by serious adverse events. OBJECTIVES: To categorise contraindications to sclerotherapy based on the available scientific evidence. METHODS: An international, multi-disciplinary panel of phlebologists reviewed the available scientific evidence and developed consensus where evidence was lacking or limited. RESULTS: Absolute Contraindications to sclerotherapy where the risk of harm would outweigh any benefits include known hypersensitivity to sclerosing agents; acute venous thromboembolism (VTE); severe neurological or cardiac adverse events complicating a previous sclerotherapy treatment; severe acute systemic illness or infection; and critical limb ischaemia. Relative Contraindications to sclerotherapy where the potential benefits of the proposed treatment would outweigh the risk of harm or the risks may be mitigated by other measures include pregnancy, postpartum and breastfeeding; hypercoagulable states with risk of VTE; risk of neurological adverse events; risk of cardiac adverse events and poorly controlled chronic systemic illness. Conditions and circumstances where Warnings and Precautions should be considered before proceeding with sclerotherapy include risk of cutaneous necrosis or cosmetic complications such as pigmentation and telangiectatic matting; intake of medications such as the oral contraceptive and other exogenous oestrogens, disulfiram and minocycline; and psychosocial factors and psychiatric comorbidities that may increase the risk of adverse events or compromise optimal treatment outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Sclerotherapy can achieve safe clinical outcomes provided that (1) patient-related risk factors and in particular all material risks are (1a) adequately identified and the risk benefit ratio is clearly and openly discussed with treatment candidates within a reasonable timeframe prior to the actual procedure; (1b) when an individual is not a suitable candidate for the proposed intervention, conservative treatment options including the option of 'no intervention as a treatment option' are discussed; (1c) complex cases are referred for treatment in controlled and standardised settings and by practitioners with more expertise in the field; (1d) only suitable individuals with no absolute contraindications or those with relative contraindications where the benefits outweigh the risks are offered intervention; (1e) if proceeding with intervention, appropriate prophylactic measures and other risk-mitigating strategies are adopted and appropriate follow-up is organised; and (2) procedure-related risk factors are minimised by ensuring the treating physicians (2a) have adequate training in general phlebology with additional training in duplex ultrasound, procedural phlebology and in particular sclerotherapy; (2b) maintain their knowledge and competency over time and (2c) review and optimise their treatment strategies and techniques on a regular basis to keep up with the ongoing progress in medical technology and contemporary scientific evidence.

Fake-news-free evidence-based communication for proper vein-lymphatic disease management.

Published scientific evidence demonstrate the current spread of healthcare misinformation in the most popular social networks and unofficial communication channels. Up to 40% of the medical websites were identified reporting inappropriate information, moreover being shared more than 450,000 times in a 5-year-time frame. The phenomenon is particularly spread in infective diseases medicine, oncology and cardiovascular medicine. The present document is the result of a scientific and educational endeavor by a worldwide group of top experts who selected and analyzed the major issues and related evidence-based facts on vein and lymphatic management. A section of this work is entirely dedicated to the patients and therefore written in layman terms, with the aim of improving public vein-lymphatic awareness. The part dedicated to the medical professionals includes a revision of the current literature, summing up the statements that are fully evidence-based in venous and lymphatic disease management, and suggesting future lines of research to fulfill the still unmet needs. The document has been written following an intense digital interaction among dedicated working groups, leading to an institutional project presentation during the Universal Expo in Dubai, in the occasion of the v-WINter 2022 meeting.

A randomized clinical trial of isolated ambulatory phlebectomy versus saphenous thermal ablation with concomitant phlebectomy (SAPTAP Trial).

BACKGROUND: Current treatment of patients with saphenous trunk and tributary incompetence consists of truncal ablation with concomitant, delayed or no treatment of the tributary. However, reflux of the saphenous trunk may be reversible after treatment of the incompetent tributary. The aim of this study was to determine whether single ambulatory phlebectomy with or without delayed endovenous truncal ablation (SAP) is non-inferior to thermal endovenous ablation with concomitant phlebectomy (TAP), and whether SAP is a cost-effective alternative to TAP. METHODS: A multicentre, non-inferiority RCT was conducted in patients with an incompetent great saphenous vein or anterior accessory saphenous vein with one or more incompetent tributaries. Participants were randomized to receive SAP or TAP. After 9 months, additional truncal treatment was considered for SAP patients with remaining symptoms. The primary outcome was VEnous INsufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study Quality of Life/Symptoms (VEINES-QOL/Sym score) after 12 months. Secondary outcomes were, among others, cost-effectiveness, perceived improvement of symptoms, and anatomical success. RESULTS: Some 464 patients received the allocated treatment (SAP 227, TAP 237). VEINES-QOL scores were 52.7 (95 per cent c.i. 51.9 to 53.9) for SAP and 53.8 (53.3 to 55.1) for TAP; VEINES-Sym scores were 53.5 (52.6 to 54.4) and 54.2 (54.0 to 55.6) respectively. Fifty-eight patients (25.6 per cent) in the SAP group received additional truncal ablation. Treatment with SAP was less costly than treatment with TAP. CONCLUSION: One year after treatment, participants who underwent SAP had non-inferior health-related quality of life compared with those who had TAP. Treatment with SAP was a cost-effective alternative to TAP at 12 months. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR 4821 (www.trialregister.nl).

Extended anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism: A survey of the American Venous Forum and the European Venous Forum.

OBJECTIVE: Extended anticoagulation therapy should always be considered after standard treatment of an unprovoked episode of venous thromboembolism (VTE). It can also be considered for selected patients with provoked VTE. However, the evidence-based protocols suggested by some clinical guidelines and risk assessment tools to guide this practice are limited and ambiguous. The goal of the present survey research was to analyze current practices in applying extended anticoagulation therapy for patients with VTE among members of the American Venous Forum (AVF) and European Venous Forum (EVF). METHODS: An online survey was created by the AVF Research Committee. The survey consisted of 16 questions to identify the country of practice, specialty, experience of the participating physicians, and their clinical practice patterns in applying extended anticoagulation therapy for VTE patients. The survey was distributed via e-mail to the members of the AVF and EVF. RESULTS: A total of 144 practitioners, 48 AVF members (33%) and 96 EVF members (66%), participated in the survey. Most of the respondents identified themselves as vascular specialists with primary certification in vascular surgery (70%), vascular medicine or angiology (9%), and venous disease or phlebology (3%). Of the 144 respondents, 72% believed that the risk of VTE recurrence will generally overweigh the risk of bleeding for patients with unprovoked VTE. Extended anticoagulation therapy might be used by 97% of providers. Different patterns in real world clinical practice were identified. More than one half of the practitioners estimated the VTE recurrence and bleeding risk subjectively. The antithrombotic drugs most commonly used for secondary prophylaxis were rivaroxaban, apixaban, warfarin, dabigatran, and aspirin, in decreasing order of frequency. Among the reasons selected for not regularly considering extended anticoagulation therapy were the lack of specific clinical practice guidelines (24%), lack of reported evidence (9%), and absence of valid VTE and/or bleeding risk prediction calculators (8%). Twelve participants (8%) stated that extended anticoagulation therapy would not be beneficial for most patients with VTE. Ten participants (7%) indicated that prescribing extended anticoagulation therapy was outside the scope of their specialty. CONCLUSIONS: Different practice patterns exist regarding extending anticoagulation therapy beyond the standard treatment for patients with VTE. Major gaps in knowledge remain a serious challenge at least partially explaining the inaccuracy and inconsistency in long-term VTE management. Appropriately designed studies are needed to evaluate risk stratification tools when contemporary best medical therapy is used, accurately predict VTE recurrence and its long-term outcomes, and tailor safe and effective secondary prophylaxis.

Triage of patients with venous and lymphatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic - The Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale (VELTAS):: A consensus document of the International Union of Phlebology (UIP), Australasian College of Phlebology (ACP), American Vein and Lymphatic Society (AVLS), American Venous Forum (AVF), European College of Phlebology (ECoP), European Venous Forum (EVF), Interventional Radiology Society of Australasia (IRSA), Latin American Venous Forum, Pan-American Society of Phlebology and Lymphology and the Venous Association of India (VAI).

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has resulted in diversion of healthcare resources to the management of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus. Elective interventions and surgical procedures in most countries have been postponed and operating room resources have been diverted to manage the pandemic. The Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale was developed to provide an international standard to rationalise and harmonise the management of patients with venous and lymphatic disorders or vascular anomalies. Triage urgency was determined based on clinical assessment of urgency with which a patient would require medical treatment or surgical intervention. Clinical conditions were classified into six categories of: (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE), (2) chronic venous disease, (3) vascular anomalies, (4) venous trauma, (5) venous compression and (6) lymphatic disease. Triage urgency was categorised into four groups and individual conditions were allocated to each class of triage. These included (1) medical emergencies (requiring immediate attendance), example massive pulmonary embolism; (2) urgent (to be seen as soon as possible), example deep vein thrombosis; (3) semiurgent (to be attended to within 30-90 days), example highly symptomatic chronic venous disease, and (4) discretionary/nonurgent- (to be seen within 6-12 months), example chronic lymphoedema. Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale aims to standardise the triage of patients with venous and lymphatic disease or vascular anomalies by providing an international consensus-based classification of clinical categories and triage urgency. The scale may be used during pandemics such as the current COVID-19 crisis but may also be used as a general framework to classify urgency of the listed conditions.

The 2020 update of the CEAP classification system and reporting standards.

The CEAP (Clinical-Etiology-Anatomy-Pathophysiology) classification is an internationally accepted standard for describing patients with chronic venous disorders and it has been used for reporting clinical research findings in scientific journals. Developed in 1993, updated in 1996, and revised in 2004, CEAP is a classification system based on clinical manifestations of chronic venous disorders, on current understanding of the etiology, the involved anatomy, and the underlying venous pathology. As the evidence related to these aspects of venous disorders, and specifically of chronic venous diseases (CVD, C2-C6) continue to develop, the CEAP classification needs periodic analysis and revisions. In May of 2017, the American Venous Forum created a CEAP Task Force and charged it to critically analyze the current classification system and recommend revisions, where needed. Guided by four basic principles (preservation of the reproducibility of CEAP, compatibility with prior versions, evidence-based, and practical for clinical use), the Task Force has adopted the revised Delphi process and made several changes. These changes include adding Corona phlebectatica as the C4c clinical subclass, introducing the modifier "r" for recurrent varicose veins and recurrent venous ulcers, and replacing numeric descriptions of the venous segments by their common abbreviations. This report describes all these revisions and the rationale for making these changes.

Influence of reimbursement policies on phlebological surgical practice in Belgium between 2007 and 2017.

BACKGROUND: To date, it is unclear how treatment of patients with chronic venous disease (CVD) is influenced by national reimbursement systems. In Belgium, catheters or fibers used for endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA) are reimbursed only once in a lifetime. The potential impact of the Belgian public health insurance reimbursement policy on surgical practice in phlebology needs to be investigated. METHODS: Billing data available from the Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI) were used for analyzing the distribution of specific surgical procedures for treating varicose veins and their relative use from 2007 to 2017. The potential influence of age, sex, social status and geographical origin of insured patients on surgical practice in Belgium were studied. RESULTS: The annual intervention rate was 343 per 100,000 insured individuals for 2017 with a slight annual increase over the period 2007-2017 (+ 0.83% per year). Patients with limited resources, benefiting from a preferential reimbursement system, had a significantly lower intervention rate than those having the usual system (P<0.001). There was a large geographical variation in the use of care, ranging from 172 to 549 per 100.000 insured in 2017. The number of classic surgical procedures decreased (-6.17% per year) in the period 2015-2017) while EVTA, newly reimbursed in Belgium since 2012, increased during the same period (+ 3.6% per year). This evolution was more pronounced in the north (Flanders) than in the south (Wallonia) of the country. Bilateral treatment increased considerably from 2012 and stabilized at 33% of all surgical interventions in 2016 and 2017. CONCLUSIONS: Available data of the NIHDI in Belgium highlight remarkable differences in the use of care for CVD, depending on social status and geographical origin of insured patients. The introduction of EVTA techniques has been adopted more rapidly in the north of the country and has led to an increased percentage of bilateral procedures.

A variant of the castor zinc finger 1 (CASZ1) gene is differentially associated with the clinical classification of chronic venous disease.

Recent reports have suggested a reproducible association between the rs11121615 SNP, located within an intron of the castor zinc finger 1 (CASZ1) gene, and varicose veins. This study aimed to determine if this variant is also differentially associated with the various clinical classifications of chronic venous disease (CVD). The rs11121615 SNP was genotyped in two independent cohorts from New Zealand (n = 1876 controls /1606 CVD cases) and the Netherlands (n = 1626/2966). Participants were clinically assessed using well-established CVD criteria. The association between the rs11121615 C-allele and varicose veins was validated in both cohorts. This was strongest in those with higher clinical severity classes and was not significant in those with non-varicose vein CVD. Functional analysis of the rs11121615 variant demonstrated that the risk allele was associated with increased enhancer activity. This study demonstrates that the CASZ1 gene associated C-allele of rs11121615 has a significant, reproducible, association with CVD (CEAP C ≥ 2 meta-odds ratio 1.31, 95% CI 1.27-1.34, P = 1 × 10-98, PHet = 0.25), but not with non-varicose vein (CEAP C1, telangiectasia or reticular veins) forms of venous disease. The effect size of this association therefore appears to be susceptible to influence by phenotypic heterogeneity, particularly if a cohort includes a large number of cases with lower severity CVD.