Endovascular Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Impact of Diabetes on Endoleaks and Reintervention.

Background: Diabetes has a protective effect on abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs); however, there are contrasting reports on the impact of diabetes on endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) outcomes, endoleaks (ELs) being the major negative outcome. The present study characterizes ELs and their outcomes in AAA patients, diabetic or not. Methods: This single-center, retrospective, comparative study was carried out on 324 AAA patients who underwent elective EVARs between 2007 and 2016 at the University Hospital of Liège (Belgium). The primary endpoint was the incidence and effect of ELs on the evolution of the aneurysmal sac; the secondary endpoints were surgical reintervention and mortality rate. Diabetic and non-diabetic patients were compared with respect to various risk factors by logistic regression, while a Cox regression was used to analyze survival. Results: In AAA patients meeting the inclusion criteria (n = 248), 23% were diabetic. EL incidence was comparable (p = 0.74) in diabetic (38.7%) vs. non-diabetic (43.9%) patients. EL risk factors were age (HR = 1.04, p = 0.014) and fibrate intake (HR = 3.12, p = 0.043). A significant association was observed between ELs and aneurysm sac enlargement (p < 0.001), regardless of group (p = 0.46). Aneurysm sac regression per month for non-diabetic patients was -0.24 ± 0.013, while for diabetics it was -0.18 ± 0.027 (p = 0.059). Dyslipidemia (HR = 3.01, p = 0.0060) and sulfonylureas (HR = 8.43, p = 0.043) were associated with shorter EL duration, while diabetes (HR = 0.080, p = 0.038) and beta blockers (HR = 0.46, p = 0.036) were associated with longer EL duration. The likelihood of reoperation decreased with more recent surgery (OR = 0.90, p = 0.040), regardless of diabetic status. All-cause mortality was higher for the non-diabetic group (45.5% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.0096). Conclusions: Endoleak occurrence is a known risk factor for sac expansion. In diabetic patients, endoleaks lasted longer, and regression of the aneurysm sac tended to be slower. The number and type of reintervention was not related to the diabetic status of AAA patients, but overall survival was higher in patients with diabetes.

Clinical outcomes of nonthermal ablation, thermal ablation, and surgical stripping for varicose veins.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of radiofrequency ablation (RFA), cyanoacrylate closure (CAC), mechanochemical ablation (MOCA), and surgical stripping (SS) for incompetent saphenous veins and to determine a suitable treatment modality for a specific clinical situation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients with varicose veins who underwent RFA, CAC, MOCA, or SS from January 2012 to June 2023. The clinical outcomes, including postoperative complications and the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire score, were assessed. RESULTS: During the study period, 2866 patients with varicose veins were treated. Among them, 1670 patients (57.9%) were women. The mean age was 55.3 ± 12.9 years. RFA, CAC, MOCA, and SS were performed in 1984 (68.7%), 732 (25.4%), 78 (2.7%), and 88 (3.0%) patients, respectively. The complete target vein closure rate after RFA, CAC, and MOCA was 94.5%, 98%, and 98%, respectively. The absence of a target vein after SS was 98%. Deep vein thrombosis developed in four patients: one in the RFA group and three in CAC group. Surgical or endovenous procedure-induced thrombosis occurred in 2.3%, 4.8%, 6.4%, and 2.3% of the patients after RFA, CAC, MOCA, and SS, respectively. Phlebitis along the target vein occurred in 0.2% and 3.8% of patients after RFA and MOCA, respectively. A hypersensitivity reaction occurred in 3.7% of patients after CAC. Readmission was required for two patients who had undergone SS. Transient nerve symptoms developed in five (0.3%), zero, one (1.3%), and two (2.3%) patients after RFA, CAC, MOCA, and SS, respectively. After treatment, the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire score improved significantly in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical outcomes with improvement in quality of life were comparable among the different treatment modalities. The proximity of the nerve or skin to the target vein is the most important factor in selecting a suitable treatment modality.

The anterior saphenous vein. Part 4. Clinical and technical considerations in treatment. Endorsed by the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, the American Venous Forum, and the International Union of Phlebology.

BACKGROUND: The decision to treat a refluxing anterior saphenous vein (ASV) should be a clinical decision based on the assessment on the ASV's contribution to patient's signs and symptoms. Once the decision to treat has been made, there are anatomic, clinical, and technical considerations in treatment planning. METHODS: Clinical scenarios were discussed by a panel of experts and common anatomic, clinical, and technical considerations were identified. RESULTS: There are unique clinical considerations such as whether both the great saphenous vein (GSV) and ASV should be concomitantly treated, if a normal ASV should be treated when treating a refluxing GSV and when and how to treat the associated tributary varicose tributaries. Being aware of the anatomic, clinical, and technical considerations allows development of a treatment plan that optimizes long-term outcomes in patients with ASV reflux. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately the treatment plan should be tailored to address these types of variables in a patient-centered discussion.

The anterior saphenous vein. Part 2. Anatomic considerations in normal and refluxing patients. Endorsed by the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, the American Venous Forum, and the International Union of Phlebology.

BACKGROUND: The term Anterior Accessory of the Great Saphenous Vein suggests this is a branch tributary vein despite this vessel's anatomic features of a truncal vein. A multisocietal group suggested to designate this the anterior saphenous vein (ASV). This study was aimed to evaluate its ultrasound anatomy in normal and varicose limbs. METHODS: The clinical anatomy of the ASV was evaluated by narrative review of the literature. Additionally, the course of the ASV was evaluated in 62 limbs with no evidence of venous disease and 62 limbs with varicosities. RESULTS: The ASV length, patterns of origin and termination are reported in both normal and patients with varicose veins. Discussion of the patterns is supported by the narrative review of the literature. CONCLUSIONS: The ASV must be considered a truncal vein and its treatment modalities should be the same that for the great and small saphenous veins rather than a tributary vein.

The anterior saphenous vein. Part 3. Systematic review of the literature and payor coverage policies. Endorsed by the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, the American Venous Forum, and the International Union of Phlebology.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to systemically review the literature on Anterior Saphenous Vein (ASV) reflux treatment and insurance impediments to treatment coverage. METHODS: A literature search was performed using a PRISMA framework. In addition, a cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for ASV treatment was evaluated. RESULTS: Published evidence and treatment considerations in the literature for ASV treatment are discussed. In 155 of 226 (68.6%) insurance policies reviewed coverage of ASV ablation was allowed while 62/226 (27.4%) did not specify coverage and 9/226 (4.0%) specified ASV treatment was not covered. Of the 155 that provide ASV coverage, 98 (62.2%) provide coverage with criteria such as requiring prior treatment of the great saphenous vein. CONCLUSIONS: Vein treatment experts should continue to advocate to insurance carriers to update their varicose vein treatment policies to reflect the substantial clinical evidence so that patients with ASV reflux can be appropriately treated.

Association between PET/CT Scan Findings, Treatment, and Cancer Incidence in a Cohort of AAA Patients.

Background: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a chronic inflammatory disease that poses several challenges. Given the increasing evidence that AAA patients are more likely to develop cancer and the importance of its early detection, we strived to develop a non-invasive tool based on serial FDG-PET/CT scan examinations to identify, among AAA patients, those at risk of cancer. Methods: Between 2006 and 2011 we recruited 149 AAA patients, free of cancer at baseline, and followed them until the end of 2021. All patients underwent an FDG-PET/CT scan at inclusion and possibly more scans during follow-up. At each medical imaging examination, the aneurysmal FDG uptake was recorded. Patients were stratified based on their aortic wall PET status (negative/positive). Any occurrence of cancer was reported. A Cox regression analysis and competing-risk modeling were applied to the data. Results: The proportion of AAA patients who developed cancer was 31.5% (mean time to diagnosis was 5.7 ± 3.4 years) and the death rate was 59%. A difference in cancer incidence between PET+ and PET- patients was detected (46.8% vs. 27.3%; HR = 1.96, 95%CI: 1.07-3.57, p = 0.028). Moreover, AAA patients undergoing surgical treatment had a lower risk of cancer than unoperated patients (28% vs. 50%; HR = 0.41, 95%CI: 0.21-0.80, p = 0.009). Conclusions: In AAA patients, diagnostic imaging with an FDG-PET/CT scan can help identify those patients at a higher risk of developing cancer. Moreover, the higher cancer risk in non-surgically treated patients calls for further analysis of associations between aneurysm growth and malignant disease.

The anterior saphenous vein. Part 1. A position statement endorsed by the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, the American Venous Forum, and the International Union of Phlebology.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of clarity regarding the terminology of the anterior accessory saphenous vein (AASV) that can impact treatment outcomes. Although use of the word "accessory" implies that the vein is a superficial tributary, evidence supports its role as a truncal vein, similar to the great and small saphenous veins, and warranting a change in terminology. METHODS: A multisocietal panel was convened by the American Vein and Lymphatic Society (AVLS), the Union International of Phlebology (UIP), and the American Venous Forum (AVF). The group was charged with reviewing the existing anatomic and clinical literature pertaining to the term "anterior accessory saphenous vein" and to consider the need for alternative terminology. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the insights gathered from the literature review and extensive discussions, the panel recommends changing the terminology such that the "anterior accessory saphenous vein" (AASV) now be designated the anterior saphenous vein (ASV).

Severe adverse reactions after cyanoacrylate endovenous ablation.

Hypersensitivity reactions after endovenous ablation with cyanoacrylate are relatively common, mild, and self-limited. However, rare cases of severe hypersensitivity reactions have occurred. To date and to the best of our knowledge, only two other cases requiring vein excision have been reported, and we present the third. Even rarer are cases with severe reactions featuring cyanoacrylate extravasation with skin perforation. In the present report, we describe the second case of skin perforation after successful cyanoacrylate endovenous glue embolization. The mechanism of these severe hypersensitivity reactions is unknown. Clinicians should to consider this as a possible complication when using cyanoacrylate. Although rare, patients should also be advised of this adverse event when considering this alternative.

Luminal Changes in Patients with Inferior Vena Cava Filters and Development of Chronic Venous Disease.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to analyze the luminal changes in the iliocaval veins and their effects on the development of signs and symptoms of chronic venous disease manifesting from inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement. METHODS: This was a retrospective observations study; deidentified patients with an IVC filter placed with subsequent luminal changes were included. All patients had a computerized tomography (CT) scan with or without ultrasound and those who underwent an intervention for the obstruction had also venography and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). The diameter of IVC and iliac veins was measured from the near wall to the far wall. IVC diameters measured less than 12 mm were considered to be retractions. Signs and symptoms of chronic venous disease were obtained from patient charts and were reported according to the highest CEAP class. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, presenting diameter changes as a mean with standard deviation and a range of diameters included. RESULTS: Overall, 76 patients were included in this study, of whom 66 had occlusion of the IVC or the Iliac veins. Luminal changes of the IVC were observed in all patients. A total of 58 patients presented with chronic post-thrombotic changes in both the IVC and iliac veins. There were 4 patients that had a luminal reduction with no filling defects or post-thrombotic changes. Average IVC diameter and iliac vein diameter was measured to be 8.3 ± 1.4 mm and 4.6 ± 1.4 mm, respectively. Patients most frequently presented with extremity swelling, but other signs such as venous ulceration or skin damage were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Permanent luminal changes of the IVC and iliac veins were observed as a result of IVC filter placement and such patients commonly present with signs and symptoms of chronic venous disease. Together, with other known filter complications, these observations add more reasons for a timely retrieval. When such changes occur, patients' appropriate symptoms can be successfully treated. The permanent changes made by filter placement in the IVC and iliac veins further support filter retrieval in a timely fashion. The luminal changes induced by filter placement should be recognized early, particularly in symptomatic patients who can be safely treated with endovenous procedures.

Clinical Impact of Severe Obesity in Patients with Lymphoedema.

OBJECTIVE: With the rate of obesity increasing worldwide, patients with lymphoedema with and without a concomitant diagnosis of severe obesity (SO) were compared in regard to their baseline demographics, health related characteristics, treatment plans, and patient outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational cohort study. The IBM MarketScan database was examined (2013 - 2019) for patients with a new diagnosis of lymphoedema. Of 60 284 patients with lymphoedema identified, 6 588 had SO defined by a body mass index > 40 kg/m2. The demographics and other characteristics of SO were compared with patients with lymphoedema without SO. RESULTS: SO and lymphoedema diagnosis increased two fold from 2013 to 2019. The lymphoedema SO+ group was younger (57.8 vs. 60.8 years, p < .001) and with a higher proportion of men (37.7% vs. 24.9%, p < .001) than the lymphoedema SO- group. More comorbidities were observed in the lymphoedema SO+ group than the lymphoedema SO- group: diabetes 46.0% vs. 24.9 % (p < .001), heart failure 18.3% vs. 7.4% (p < .001), hypertension 75.0% vs. 47.6% (p < .001), and renal disease 24.8% vs. 11.9% (p < .001). Use of diuretics in the lymphoedema SO+ group was greater: 57.6% vs. 38.0% (p < .001). Patients with lymphoedema SO+ had higher risk of cellulitis: 34.5% vs. 13.5% (p < .001). Specific lymphoedema treatment was given more often to lymphoedema SO-: 66.3% vs. 64.3% (p = .003). This was significant for manual lymphatic drainage (46.6% vs. 40.0%; p < .001) and physical therapy (55.4% vs. 51.6%; p<.001), but not for compression garments (18.2% vs. 17.7%; p = .38). However, more patients with lymphoedema SO+ received pneumatic compression device treatment: 20.9% vs. 13.7% (p < .001). CONCLUSION: There was an increase in SO associated lymphoedema. Patients with lymphoedema SO+ have over a two and half fold increase in cellulitis incidence, with a significant increase in medical resource use and cost. Despite this, patients with lymphoedema and SO receive less specific therapy such as compression, which has proven to reduce cellulitis incidence.

Venous Claudication: a Scoping Review of the Pathophysiology and Clinical Importance.

OBJECTIVE: Venous claudication (VC) is under studied, often being excluded from clinical trials and scales. The purpose of this scoping review was to give a historical perspective of VC and analyse the prevalence, pathophysiological aspects, and clinical implications. METHODS: An extensive search of the books and databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane) was performed from inception until October 2021. Studies were considered eligible provided they reported on the topics of interest, whereas strict exclusion criteria with regards to the studied sample of patients, year of publication, or location of the obstruction could not be applied, because of the limited relevant literature. RESULTS: Twenty nine articles were included. VC is found almost exclusively in patients with iliofemoral obstruction. Prevalence was reported in seven studies having a wide range from 10.6% to 74.0%. Dominant findings include increased venous volume and pressure. Pressure in capillaries also rises subsequently causing compartment oedema and increased intramuscular pressure resulting in tissue ischaemia and hypoxia. The time required for the venous pressure to return to the pre-exercise levels in the affected limbs is prolonged compared with normal (39.1 ± 14.4 seconds vs. 1.1 ± 1.1 seconds). CONCLUSION: VC is an important symptom of venous outflow obstruction that is under studied, and merits further recognition. Better understanding of the pathophysiology will be achieved through investigations at tissue level. Diagnosis and improvement after treatment should be reported in an objective and standardised manner.

Acute Limb Arterial Ischemia Following Iliac Vein Stenting in the Setting of a Frozen Pelvis.

The authors report on a young patient with previous radiation to her pelvis who presented with acute limb ischemia following iliac vein stenting believed to be secondary to extrinsic iliac artery compression in the setting of a frozen pelvis. She underwent revascularization and a trans-femoral amputation, ultimately needing a femoral to femoral artery crossover bypass in order to achieve amputation stump healing. This case describes a potential arterial complication of venous stenting in a previously irradiated field.

Prevalence of Inferior Vena Cava Anomalies and Their Significance and Impact in Clinical Practice.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of inferior vena cava (IVC) anomalies in an asymptomatic healthy population and symptomatic patients. METHODS: This was a multicentre retrospective observational study This study was conducted by reviewing the computed tomography (CT) images of 1 000 individuals from South Korea taken for a general medical check up (group A) and 1 000 patients from the USA who visited with various symptoms for which CT was required (group B). A third group of 800 patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and CT from two US centres were used for comparison (group C). Twenty-eight patients with anatomical changes in the IVC due to intervention, extrinsic compression, trauma, other rare conditions, and poor image quality were excluded. RESULTS: The mean age ± standard deviation of each group was 50 ± 6, 54 ± 11, and 54 ± 15 years in groups A, B, and C, respectively. In group A, duplication was the most common anomaly (10 cases, 1.0%), followed by left sided IVC (four cases, 0.4%), hypoplasia (three cases, 0.3%), and megacava (one case, 0.1%). In group B, the most common IVC anomaly was hypoplasia in six cases (0.6%); duplication in three patients, left sided IVC in three patients, aplasia in two patients, web formation in two patients, and megacava in two patients. In group C, hypoplasia was the most common type (32 cases, 4.0%). The prevalence of hypoplasia in patients younger than 50 years of age was significantly higher compared with older patients (12.7% [14/110] vs. 5.3% [10/190]; p = .027). The risk of hypoplasia or aplasia was significantly higher in patients with DVT (odds ratio [OR] 17.032, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.243 - 55.321), especially in patients with iliofemoral DVT (OR 34.211, 95% CI 10.323 - 113.378). CONCLUSION: In the normal group, IVC duplication was the most common variation, while hypoplasia was most common in patients with iliofemoral DVT, especially in younger ones.

Low-molecular-weight heparin compared with unfractionated heparin in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis in COVID-19 worsens mortality. In our study, we sought to investigate how the dose and type of anticoagulation (AC) can influence patient outcomes. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective analysis of critically ill intubated patients with COVID-19, comparing low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) at therapeutic and prophylactic doses. Of 218 patients, 135 received LMWH (70 prophylactic, 65 therapeutic) and 83 UFH (11 prophylactic, 72 therapeutic). The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes were thromboembolic complications confirmed on imaging and major bleeding complications. Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to determine whether the type and dose of AC were independent predictors of survival. We performed Kaplan-Meier survival analysis to compare the cumulative survivals. RESULTS: Overall, therapeutic AC, with either LMWH (65% vs 79%, P = .09) or UFH (32% vs 46%, P = .73), conveyed no survival benefit over prophylactic AC. UFH was associated with a higher mortality rate than LMWH (66% vs 28%, P = .001), which was also evident in the multivariable analysis (LMWH vs UFH mortality, hazard ratio: 0.47, P = .001) and in the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Thrombotic and bleeding complications did not depend on the AC type (prophylactic LMWH vs UFH: thrombosis P = .49, bleeding P = .075; therapeutic LMWH vs UFH: thrombosis P = .5, bleeding P = .17). When comparing prophylactic with therapeutic AC, the rate of both thrombotic and bleeding complications was higher with the use of LMWH compared with UFH. In addition, transfusion requirements were significantly higher with both therapeutic LMWH and UFH. CONCLUSIONS: Among intubated critically ill COVID-19 intensive care unit patients, therapeutic AC, with either LMWH or UFH, conveyed no survival benefit over prophylactic AC. AC with LMWH was associated with higher cumulative survival compared with AC with UFH.

A systematic review of the outcomes of percutaneous treatment modalities for pathologic saphenous and perforating veins.

OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive techniques have been increasingly used to treat pathologic perforator veins (PVs). The goal of the present study was to summarize the current literature and determine the outcomes of treating PVs with or without the great saphenous vein/small saphenous vein using endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and ultrasound-guided sclerotherapy (USGS). METHODS: A systematic review of the literature on the percutaneous treatment of PVs (35 studies) was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines. Studies reported up to March 2020 were included. The incidence of several end points at different follow-up periods were calculated according to the availability of data within 3 to 12 months after the index procedure. RESULTS: Of the 35 studies, 15 (n = 1677) had reported on EVLA with or without sclerotherapy and/or microphlebectomy, 12 (n = 1477) had investigated the outcomes of RFA ablation with/without sclerotherapy, and 8 (n = 331) had investigated USGS alone. All techniques were safe in terms of periprocedural adverse events, with only a few complications occurring in each group. Immediate procedural success (within 30 days) was 95% in the EVLA group, 91% in the RFS group, and 58% to 70% in the USGS group. At 12 months of follow-up, the occlusion rates were 89%, 77%, and 83% in the EVLA, RFA, and USGS groups, respectively. The 12-month pooled estimate of ulcer healing between the EVLA and RFA groups was similar, although no direct comparisons were performed. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of PVs with percutaneous techniques, such as EVLA, RFA, and USGS, is safe and associated with high technical success. EVLA and RFA exhibited the most favorable outcomes. Additional research is needed to validate these results, which were based on the limited level of evidence available to better determine the most optimal treatment approach for lower limb pathologic PVs.

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.