Effect of junctional reflux on the venous clinical severity score in patients with insufficiency of the great saphenous vein (JURY study).

OBJECTIVE: Effective treatment options are available for chronic venous insufficiency associated with superficial venous reflux. Although many patients with C2 and C3 disease based on the CEAP (Clinical-Etiological-Anatomical-Pathophysiological) classification have combined great saphenous vein (GSV) and saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) reflux, some may not have concomitant SFJ reflux. Several payors have determined that symptom severity in patients without SFJ reflux does not warrant treatment. In patients planned for venous ablation, we tested whether Venous Clinical Severity Scores (VCSS) are equivalent in those with GSV reflux alone compared with those with both GSV and SFJ reflux. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at 10 centers. Inclusion criteria were: candidate for endovenous ablation as determined by treating physician; 18 to 80 years of age; GSV reflux with or without SFJ reflux on ultrasound; and C2 or C3 disease. Exclusion criteria were prior deep vein thrombosis; prior vein ablation on the index limb; ilio-caval obstruction; and renal, hepatic, or heart failure requiring prior hospitalization. An a priori sample size was calculated. We used multiple linear regression (adjusted for patient characteristics) to compare differences in VCSS scores of the two groups at baseline, and to test whether scores were equivalent using a priori equivalence boundaries of +1 and -1. In secondary analyses, we tested differences in VCSS scores in patients with C2 and C3 disease separately. RESULTS: A total of 352 patients were enrolled; 64.2% (n = 226) had SFJ reflux, and 35.8% (n = 126) did not. The two groups did not differ by major clinical characteristics. The mean age of the cohort was 53.9 ± 14.3 years; women comprised 74.2%; White patients 85.8%; and body mass index was 27.8 ± 6.1 kg/m2. The VCSS scores in patients with and without SFJ reflux were found to be equivalent; SFJ reflux was not a significant predictor of VCSS score; and mean VCSS scores did not differ significantly (6.4 vs 6.6, respectively, P = .40). In secondary subset analyses, VCSS scores were equivalent between C2 patients with and without SFJ reflux, and VCSS scores of C3 patients with SFJ reflux were lower than those without SFJ reflux. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom severity is equivalent in patients with GSV reflux with or without SFJ reflux. The absence of SFJ reflux alone should not determine the treatment paradigm in patients with symptomatic chronic venous insufficiency. Patients with GSV reflux who meet clinical criteria for treatment should have equivalent treatment regardless of whether or not they have SFJ reflux.

Chameleon™ PTA balloon catheter: A single device in managing thrombosed AV access.

Thrombectomy is a common procedure for maintenance of arteriovenous (AV) access and is critical to prolong access life. Techniques for performing thrombectomy are incredibly diverse, ranging from open surgical procedures to percutaneous interventions. Percutaneous interventions include a combination of thrombectomy devices to clear the thrombus and balloon angioplasty to treat the underlying lesion. In this case report we describe a novel technique using a single device, the Chameleon™ PTA balloon catheter (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) balloon catheter, to safely and efficiently perform a percutaneous intervention.

Immediate and delayed complications of inferior vena cava filters.

OBJECTIVE: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement has increased dramatically in the past two decades. However, literature supporting the efficacy of these devices has been limited and controversial. In the present study, we have evaluated the predictors and rates of technical complications after IVC filter insertion in a large national database. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative registry was explored (January 2013 to December 2020). Immediate complications were defined as venous injury requiring treatment, filter misplacement (failure to open, deployed >20 mm from intended site or in wrong vein, embolized to the heart), angulation >20°, and insertion site complications. Delayed complications were defined as migration, angulation >15°, fracture, caval and/or iliac thrombosis, filter thrombus, fragment embolization, and perforation. The Pearson χ2 test was used to compare the baseline characteristics between the patients who had developed immediate and/or delayed complications and those who had not. The predictors of these complications were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression, Cox proportional hazard regression, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: A total of 14,784 patients were included in the present analysis, with a median follow-up of 11 months (interquartile range, 4-16 months). The rate of immediate and delayed complications was 1.8% and 3.1%, respectively. Angulation (1.2%) was the most common immediate complication, and filter thrombosis (1.6%) was the most common delayed complication. Compared with the patients with no immediate complications, those with immediate complications were more likely to have had abnormal anatomy (6.0% vs 1.7%; P < .001) and a landing zone other than infrarenal (7.0% vs 4.2%; P = .02). Compared with their counterparts, those with delayed complications were less likely to have received statins (21.0% vs 29.5%; P = .006) and were more likely to have a family history of venous thromboembolism (8.0% vs 5.1%; P = .047). Logistic regression analysis revealed that renal vein visualization was associated a 50% reduction (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-0.92; P = .027) in the odds of immediate complications and female sex and abnormal anatomy were associated with a 41% (aOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.85; P = .013) and 244% (aOR, 3.44; 95% CI, 1.66-7.16; P < .001) increase in the odds of immediate complications, respectively. Immediate (P = .21) and delayed (P = .51) complications did not result in increased mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The immediate and delayed IVC filter complication rates were 1.8% and 3.1%, respectively, but the occurrence of complications was not associated with increased mortality. Female sex was associated with an increase in the development of immediate complications. The incidence of immediate complications might be mitigated if advanced imaging were used for renal vein visualization before IVC filter deployment. Delayed complications might be avoided if IVC filter retrieval were performed in a timely fashion and institutional retrieval protocols were optimized.

The American Venous Forum, American Vein and Lymphatic Society and the Society for Vascular Medicine expert opinion consensus on lymphedema diagnosis and treatment.

BACKGROUND: Lymphedema imposes a significant economic and social burden in modern societies. Controversies about its risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment permeate the literature. The goal of this study was to assess experts' opinions on the available literature on lymphedema while following the Delphi methodology. METHODS: In December of 2019, the American Venous Forum created a working group tasked to develop a consensus statement regarding current practices for the diagnosis and treatment of lymphedema. A panel of experts was identified by the working group. The working group then compiled a list of clinical questions, risk factors, diagnosis and evaluation, and treatment of lymphedema. Fifteen questions that met the criteria for consensus were included in the list. Using a modified Delphi methodology, six questions that received between 60% and 80% of the votes were included in the list for the second round of analysis. Consensus was reached whenever >70% agreement was achieved. RESULTS: The panel of experts reached consensus that cancer, infection, chronic venous disease, and surgery are risk factors for secondary lymphedema. Consensus was also reached that clinical examination is adequate for diagnosing lymphedema and that all patients with chronic venous insufficiency (C3-C6) should be treated as lymphedema patients. No consensus was reached regarding routine clinical practice use of radionuclide lymphoscintigraphy as a mandatory diagnostic tool. However, the panel came to consensus regarding the importance of quantifying edema in all patients (93.6% in favor). In terms of treatment, consensus was reached favoring the regular use of compression garments to reduce lymphedema progression (89.4% in favor, 10.6% against; mean score of 79), but the use of Velcro devices as the first line of compression therapy did not reach consensus (59.6% in favor vs 40.4% against; total score of 15). There was agreement that sequential pneumatic compression should be considered as adjuvant therapy in the maintenance phase of treatment (91.5% in favor vs. 8.5% against; mean score of 85), but less so in its initial phases (61.7% in favor vs. 38.3% against; mean score of 27). Most of the panel agreed that manual lymphatic drainage should be a mandatory treatment modality (70.2% in favor), but the panel was split in half regarding the proposal that reductive surgery should be considered for patients with failed conservative treatment. CONCLUSION: This consensus process demonstrated that lymphedema experts agree on the majority of the statements related to risk factors for lymphedema, and the diagnostic workup for lymphedema patients. Less agreement was demonstrated on statements related to treatment of lymphedema. This consensus suggests that variability in lymphedema care is high even among the experts. Developers of future practice guidelines for lymphedema should consider this information, especially in cases of low-level evidence that supports practice patterns with which the majority of experts disagree.

The Symptoms-Varices-Pathophysiology classification of pelvic venous disorders: A report of the American Vein & Lymphatic Society International Working Group on Pelvic Venous Disorders.

[Box: see text]With the support of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Vein & Lymphatic Society, the American Venous Forum, the Canadian Society of Phlebology, the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society of Europe, the European Venous Forum, the International Pelvic Pain Society, the International Union of Phlebology, the Korean Society of Interventional Radiology, the Society of Interventional Radiology, and the Society for Vascular Surgery.

The Symptoms-Varices-Pathophysiology classification of pelvic venous disorders: A report of the American Vein & Lymphatic Society International Working Group on Pelvic Venous Disorders.

As the importance of pelvic venous disorders (PeVD) has been increasingly recognized, progress in the field has been limited by the lack of a valid and reliable classification instrument. Misleading historical nomenclature, such as the May-Thurner, pelvic congestion, and nutcracker syndromes, often fails to recognize the interrelationship of many pelvic symptoms and their underlying pathophysiology. Based on a perceived need, the American Vein and Lymphatic Society convened an international, multidisciplinary panel charged with the development of a discriminative classification instrument for PeVD. This instrument, the Symptoms-Varices-Pathophysiology ("SVP") classification for PeVD, includes three domains-Symptoms (S), Varices (V), and Pathophysiology (P), with the pathophysiology domain encompassing the Anatomic (A), Hemodynamic (H), and Etiologic (E) features of the patient's disease. An individual patient's classification is designated as SVPA,H,E. For patients with pelvic origin lower extremity signs or symptoms, the SVP instrument is complementary to and should be used in conjunction with the Clinical-Etiologic-Anatomic-Physiologic (CEAP) classification. The SVP instrument accurately defines the diverse patient populations with PeVD, an important step in improving clinical decision making, developing disease-specific outcome measures and identifying homogenous patient populations for clinical trials.

Diagnostic approach to lower limb edema.

Patients with lower limb edema are frequently referred to vascular specialists for evaluation. Multiple etiologies must be considered and often more than one cause may be present. Notably, the role of lymphatic system regardless of the underlying pathology has been underestimated. A thorough history and physical examination and a carefully considered laboratory and imaging evaluation are critical in differentiating causes. In this opinion article, we propose a diagnostic algorithm that incorporates a systematic approach to the patient with leg swelling and provides an efficient pathway for the differential diagnosis for this problem.

Present and future options for treatment of infrainguinal deep vein disease.

OBJECTIVE: Management of chronic deep vein disease focuses on the alleviation of reflux and obstruction. For the suprainguinal veins, the main underlying pathologic process is obstruction, which has been recognized as a significant contributor to chronic venous insufficiency. This is currently being addressed with venous stenting and the development of dedicated stents designed for this segment of the venous system. Treatment of the femoropopliteal vein (FPV) is far more challenging because of the idiosyncratic anatomy, the hemodynamic physiology, and the technical aspects of size mismatch and valve flow dynamics in managing deep venous reflux. This review article discusses traditional and emerging technologies to treat infrainguinal disease. METHODS: Previous and current articles addressing this issue were reviewed. Emphasis was placed on emerging techniques and technologies. RESULTS: Significant bench work, in vitro and in vivo studies, have been conducted over the last 40 years addressing the issue of infrainguinal reflux and obstruction. Historically, open procedures to address FPV reflux and obstruction have had variable success in a few centers around the world. The significant increase of emerging endovascular therapies may allow more appropriate, reproducible, widespread treatment of infrainguinal deep venous disease. CONCLUSIONS: Adequate and durable therapies for infrainguinal venous disease represent one of the greatest challenges for a vein specialist. Recently, a cluster of interest and techniques/technologies have been developed. The endovascular management of arterial disease is mature. The endovenous management of infrainguinal disease is on the cusp of meaningful innovation. The purpose of this evidence summary is to describe the options for the management of chronic FPV disease, with emphasis on emerging technologies and techniques.

Evaluation of VTE prophylaxis and the impact of alternate regimens on post-operative bleeding and thrombotic complications following bariatric procedures.

BACKGROUND: Studies examining utilization and impact of venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemoprophylaxis for patients undergoing bariatric surgery are limited. Determination of the optimal prophylactic regimen to minimize complications is crucial. METHODS: The Cerner Health Facts database from 2003 to 2013 was queried using ICD-9 codes to identify patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). VTE chemoprophylaxis regimens were divided into pre-operative alone (PreP), post-operative alone (PostP), both pre-operative and post-operative (PPP), or no prophylaxis (NP). Specific chemoprophylaxis agents were compared. Comparisons in inpatient clinical outcomes were based on univariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression when appropriate. RESULTS: We identified 11,860 patients who underwent LSG and RYGB. 634 (5.35%) had PreP, 4593 (38.73%) had PostP, 2646 (22.31%) had PPP, and 3987 (33.62%) had NP. The overall rates of transfusion, DVT, and PE were 2.48, 0.27, and 0.18%, respectively. Patients without chemoprophylaxis had higher rate of DVT compared to any chemoprophylaxis (0.58 vs 0.11%, p < 0.0001), without any significant difference in PE rate. Patients with pre-operative chemoprophylaxis were more likely to receive transfusion compared to patients with post-operative prophylaxis alone (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.28-3), without significant difference in having VTE. When examining heparin versus enoxaparin versus mixed regimen in the PostP group, mixed regimen was associated with increased transfusion requirements (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgical VTE chemoprophylaxis utilization is inconsistent. In this study, post-operative VTE chemoprophylaxis was associated with decreased VTE events compared to NP, while minimizing bleeding compared to PreP. Mixed therapy using heparin and enoxaparin was associated with more bleeding.