Complications and Adverse Events of Gonadal Vein Embolization with Coils.

Background: The efficacy and safety of gonadal vein embolization (GVE) with coils in the treatment of pelvic venous disease (PeVD) has not been fully investigated, and the outcomes after GVE do not always meet expectations of both doctors and patients. The study was aimed at assessing the incidence and causes of the complications after GVE with coils in patients with PeVD. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 150 female patients with PeVD who underwent GVE with coils in 2000-2020. A total of 4975 patients with chronic pelvic pain (CPP) were examined, of which 1107 patients had the PeVD-related CPP and 305 underwent surgical or endovascular interventions on the gonadal veins. Complication rates were evaluated 30 days after GVE and classified according to the Society for Interventional Radiology (SIR) adverse event classification system. The pain severity before and after GVE was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS). All patients underwent duplex ultrasound after GVE, while patients with persisting pain syndrome and suspected perforation of the gonadal vein were also evaluated using computed tomographic venography. Results: At 30 days after GVE, the CPP was decreased in 109 (72.6%) patients (from 8.2 ± 1.5 at baseline to 1.7 ± 0.8 scores, p = 0.0001) and persisted in 41 (27.4%) patients (mean change from 8.1 ± 0.7 at baseline to 7.8 ± 0.4 scores; p = 0.71). Post-embolic syndrome (PES) occurred in 22% of patients and was completely resolved in 1 month after GVE. The efficacy of GVE in the CPP relief after resolving PES was 94.6%. The GVE complications were identified in 52 (34.6%) patients. Minor complications included access-site hematoma (4%) and allergic reactions (1.3%), and major complications included protrusion of coils (5.3%), thrombosis of the parametrial/uterine veins (21.3%) and deep veins of the calf (2.7%). Conclusions: Gonadal vein embolization with coils in the treatment of PeVD is associated with the development of specific complications and adverse events. The most common complication was pelvic vein thrombosis. Post-embolization syndrome should be considered as an adverse event of this procedure.

Stratification of pelvic venous reflux in patients with pelvic varicose veins.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the association between the pattern and duration of pelvic venous reflux (PVR) and pelvic pain severity in patients with pelvic varicose veins (PVVs). METHODS: The present retrospective study included 600 female patients with PVVs. Of the 600 patients, 453 had had PVVs and pelvic congestion syndrome (group 1) and 147 had had an asymptomatic disease course (group 2). Pelvic venous pain (PVP) was assessed using a visual analog scale. All the patients had undergone duplex ultrasound of the left and right renal veins, external, internal, and common iliac veins, and parametrial, uterine, gonadal, and vulvar veins (PV, UV, GV, and VV, respectively), with an assessment of their patency and diameter and the presence and duration of reflux. Reflux in the pelvic veins was considered pathologic if it lasted for >1 second. RESULTS: In group 1, PVR type I (1-2 seconds), II (3-5 seconds), and III (>5 seconds or spontaneous reflux in the absence of a loading test) was found in 31%, 58%, and 11% of the patients, respectively. Moderate and severe reflux (types II and III) was associated with severe PVP (mean score, 8.3 ± 0.5) in 69% of the group 1 patients. A combination of reflux in the GV, PV, UV, and internal iliac vein was associated with severe PVP (mean score, 8.1 ± 0.3) in 51% of these patients. A combination of reflux in the PVs, UVs, and VVs was associated with moderate pain (mean score, 5.3 ± 0.2) in 49.2% of group 1. In group 2, PVR type I, II, and III was present in 95%, 4%, and 1% of the patients, respectively, and was observed in the PV only in patients with type I; in the GVs, PVs, UVs, and internal iliac veins in those with type II; and in the PVs and GVs in the patients with type III reflux. Reflux in the GVs and UVs was significantly more prevalent in group 1 than in group 2 (GVs, 51% vs 6%; P = .0001; UVs, 57% vs 7%; P = .0001). A combination of reflux in the GVs and UVs was a predictor of severe PVVs (odds ratio, 19.7; 95% confidence interval, 11.3-34.6). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with PVVs, the presence and severity of pelvic pain will be determined by the type of PVR and its distribution in the pelvic veins. The combination of moderate to severe reflux (types II and III) in the PVs, UVs, and GVs was a predictor of severe PVP. Patients with asymptomatic PVVs were characterized by mild reflux (type I) in the PVs, with rare involvement of the GVs and UVs.

Diagnostic value of pelvic venography in female patients with pelvic varicose veins and vulvar varicosities.

BACKGROUND: Instrumental diagnosis of pelvic-perineal reflux is based on the use of ultrasound and radiological methods; however, the volume of their use represents a stumbling block for various researchers. The study aimed to determine the diagnostic value and reasonability of ovarian and pelvic venography in female patients with pelvic varicose veins (PVV) and vulvar varicosities (VV). METHODS: A total of 62 women with PVV were examined and allocated into two groups with or without the pelvic congestion syndrome (PCS) symptoms. Patients of group 1 with the PCS symptoms (N.=30) had concomitant VV (13.3%) and valvular incompetence of the left (83.3%) or right (16.7%) gonadal veins, parametrial (100%) and uterine (70%) veins, according to the duplex ultrasound scanning (DUS). Patients of group 2 without the PCS symptoms (N.=32) had valvular incompetence of the left gonadal vein (9.4%), parametrial (100%), uterine (3.1%) and vulvar veins (100%), according to the DUS. All patients underwent ovarian and pelvic venography (OPV) for imaging of the pelvic-perineal reflux. RESULTS: In group 1, dilation and valvular incompetence of the gonadal and parametrial veins were confirmed by the OPV in 100% of patients. The imaging of the obturator vein (OV) was obtained in 6.6% patients and internal pudendal vein (IPV) in 6.6% patients; no reflux of the contrast agent in the vulvar veins was observed. In group 2, the OPV confirmed the valvular incompetence of the left gonadal vein in 9.4% patients and parametrial vein in 100% patients. The contrast agent in the OV was found in 9.4%, and in the IPV in 6.3% patients, while no reflux of the contrast agent in the dilated vulvar veins was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic venography is a not mandatory component of the examination of women with pelvic and vulvar varicose veins without varicose veins of the lower extremities, who do not have symptoms of the PCS and valvular incompetence of the gonadal veins according to the DUS.

Endovascular interventions in the treatment of pelvic congestion syndrome caused by May-Thurner syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the effect of various endovascular interventions on the clinical manifestations of the pelvic congestion syndrome (PCS) caused by May-Thurner syndrome (MTS). METHODS: The study included 12 female patients with PCS caused by MTS. Patients were examined by duplex ultrasound, computed tomography of the pelvic veins, and ovarian and pelvic venography. All 12 patients underwent endovascular stenting of the left common iliac vein (CIV), and 10 of them underwent subsequent endovascular embolization of the left gonadal vein. The indication for stenting was the presence of stenosis (>50%) of the CIV with clinical symptoms and signs of PCS. Self-expanding stents (Wallstent, 14-16 mm × 60-90 mm; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Mass) were used. Patients with persistent symptoms of PCS after stenting underwent gonadal vein embolization with MReye metal coils (diameter, 10-15 mm; length, 10-20 cm; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind). RESULTS: Technical success of stenting, namely, the restoration of normal patency of the left CIV, was achieved in 12 patients. In two patients, a stent was displaced toward the inferior vena cava, which required implantation of a second stent. In another patient, the stent was displaced into the inferior vena cava at 6 months after the intervention, which was not associated with any complication during the follow-up period. The mean venous pelvic pain severity score decreased from 7.7 ± 0.8 at baseline to 4.8 ± 0.3 after 1 month and stayed at this level during the 6-month follow-up period. Complete elimination of PCS symptoms at 6 months after stenting was achieved in 2 patients, and 10 patients underwent embolization of the left gonadal vein 6 months after stenting because of persistent pelvic pain. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular stenting of the left CIV is an effective technique for relieving symptoms of PCS due to MTS in only 16.6% of patients. Stenting of the left CIV in combination with embolization of gonadal veins results in elimination of the signs of PCS in 83.4% of patients. Probably only gonadal vein embolization can be used in the treatment of MTS-related PCS. To confirm this hypothesis, further comparative studies are warranted.