The 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery, American Venous Forum, and American Vein and Lymphatic Society clinical practice guidelines for the management of varicose veins of the lower extremities. Part II: Endorsed by the Society of Interventional Radiology and the Society for Vascular Medicine.

The Society for Vascular Surgery, the American Venous Forum, and the American Vein and Lymphatic Society recently published Part I of the 2022 clinical practice guidelines on varicose veins. Recommendations were based on the latest scientific evidence researched following an independent systematic review and meta-analysis of five critical issues affecting the management of patients with lower extremity varicose veins, using the patients, interventions, comparators, and outcome system to answer critical questions. Part I discussed the role of duplex ultrasound scanning in the evaluation of varicose veins and treatment of superficial truncal reflux. Part II focuses on evidence supporting the prevention and management of varicose vein patients with compression, on treatment with drugs and nutritional supplements, on evaluation and treatment of varicose tributaries, on superficial venous aneurysms, and on the management of complications of varicose veins and their treatment. All guidelines were based on systematic reviews, and they were graded according to the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations, using the GRADE method. All ungraded Consensus Statements were supported by an extensive literature review and the unanimous agreement of an expert, multidisciplinary panel. Ungraded Good Practice Statements are recommendations that are supported only by indirect evidence. The topic, however, is usually noncontroversial and agreed upon by most stakeholders. The Implementation Remarks contain technical information that supports the implementation of specific recommendations. This comprehensive document includes a list of all recommendations (Parts I-II), ungraded consensus statements, implementation remarks, and best practice statements to aid practitioners with appropriate, up-to-date management of patients with lower extremity varicose veins.

The 2022 Society for Vascular Surgery, American Venous Forum, and American Vein and Lymphatic Society clinical practice guidelines for the management of varicose veins of the lower extremities. Part I. Duplex Scanning and Treatment of Superficial Truncal Reflux: Endorsed by the Society for Vascular Medicine and the International Union of Phlebology.

The Society for Vascular Surgery, American Venous Forum, and American Vein and Lymphatic Society collaborated to update the 2011 Society for Vascular Surgery/American Venous Forum clinical practice guidelines and provide new evidence-based recommendations on critical issues affecting the care of patients with varicose veins. Each recommendation is based on a recent, independent systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic tests and treatments options for patients with lower extremity varicose veins. Part I of the guidelines includes evidence-based recommendations for the evaluation of patients with CEAP (Clinical Class, Etiology, Anatomy, Pathology) class 2 varicose vein using duplex ultrasound scanning and other diagnostic tests, open surgical treatment (ligation and stripping) vs endovenous ablation techniques, thermal vs nonthermal ablation of the superficial truncal veins, and management of incompetent perforating veins in CEAP class 2 disease. We have also made recommendations on the concomitant vs staged treatment of varicose tributaries using phlebectomy or liquid or foam sclerotherapy (with physician-compounded foam or commercially prepared polidocanol endovenous microfoam) for patients undergoing ablation of incompetent superficial truncal veins.

Validity of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes for estimating the prevalence of venous ulcer.

BACKGROUND: The American Venous Forum issued a call to reduce the prevalence of venous ulcers (VUs) by 50% in 10 years. The objectives of this study were to determine the validity of the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes for VU and to estimate the prevalence of VU in a well-defined geographic population (Olmsted County, Minn). METHODS: Rochester Epidemiology Project resources and 18 VU ICD-9-CM codes were used to identify residents with possible VUs during the 2-year period 2010-2011 (n = 1551). The complete medical records in the community were reviewed for a 15% random sample (n = 227) of these residents, and on the basis of prespecified criteria, patients were categorized as a VU or non-VU case. Continuous and categorical variables were compared between groups by the two-sample t-test and χ(2) test. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients (41%) had active or healed VUs, 83 had non-VUs, and 51 never had ulcers but had stasis skin changes or skin infection. ICD-9-CM code 454.0 best identified VU cases (sensitivity, 24%; specificity, 100%). VU patients were older and heavier and more frequently had bilateral ulcers. On the basis of the random sample review, an estimated 635 patients had healed or active VUs during the 2-year period of the study. The prevalence of VUs in the Olmsted County population was estimated to be 210 per 100,000 person-years, with VU incidence (newly diagnosed ulcers) of 85 per 100,000 person-years. CONCLUSIONS: ICD-9-CM VU codes operated poorly for VU identification. VU surveillance for estimating trends in incidence and prevalence of VUs will require better methods. The estimated prevalence of VUs in Olmsted County is 210 per 100,000 person-years. New ulcers developed each year in 85 of 100,000 people, an incidence that seems to be higher than in the previous epidemiologic study in this population.

TGF expression and macrophage accumulation in atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS) reduces renal blood flow and is a potential cause of chronic kidney injury, yet little is known regarding inflammatory pathways in this disorder in human participants. This study aimed to examine the hypothesis that reduced renal blood flow (RBF) in ARAS would be associated with tissue TGF-ß activation and inflammatory cell accumulation. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This cross-sectional study of ARAS of varying severity compared transjugular biopsy specimens in patients with ARAS (n=12, recruited between 2008 and 2012) with tissue from healthy kidney donors (n=15) and nephrectomy specimens from individuals with total vascular occlusion (n=65). ARAS patients were studied under controlled conditions to measure RBF by multidetector computed tomography and tissue oxygenation by blood oxygen level-dependent magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: Compared with the nonstenotic contralateral kidneys, RBF was reduced in poststenotic kidneys (242±149 versus 365+174 ml/min; P<0.01) as was single-kidney GFR (28±17 versus 41±19 ml/min; P<0.01), whereas cortical and medullary oxygenation were relatively preserved. Tissue TGF-ß immunoreactivity was higher in ARAS patients compared with those with both normal kidneys and those with total occlusion (mean score 2.4±0.7 versus 1.5+1.1 in the nephrectomy group and versus 0±0 in donors; P<0.01). By contrast, the number of CD68+ macrophages was higher with greater disease severity (from 2.2±2.7 in normal to 22.4±18 cells/high-power field in nephrectomy samples; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate robust stimulation of TGF-ß associated with macrophage infiltration within the human kidney with vascular occlusive disease.

Chronic renovascular hypertension is associated with elevated levels of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin.

BACKGROUND: Renovascular hypertension (RVH) is characterized by chronic inflammation of the stenotic kidney and progressive renal dysfunction. Neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), an acute phase protein induced in inflammatory conditions and ischemia, is a novel biomarker for acute kidney injury. We hypothesized that chronic RVH would be associated with increased renal and circulating NGAL levels. METHODS: We prospectively measured renal vein and inferior vena cava (IVC) levels of NGAL and inflammatory cytokines in essential hypertensive (EH) and RVH patients, during constant sodium intake and anti-hypertensive regimens, and compared them with systemic levels in age-matched normotensive subjects (n = 22 each). In addition, we measured urinary NGAL and kidney injury molecule (KIM)-1 in all patients. RESULTS: Blood pressure, serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), lipid panels and medications were similar in RVH and EH. Systemic, stenotic and contralateral renal vein levels of NGAL were all similarly elevated in RVH versus normal hypertension and EH (P < 0.05), as were renal vein levels of inflammatory markers like tumor necrosis factor-α. Furthermore, renal vein NGAL levels inversely correlated with eGFR, and directly with renal vein (but not systemic) levels of inflammatory markers. Urinary levels of NGAL and KIM-1 were elevated in both EH and RVH, as were systemic levels of C-reactive protein. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic RVH is associated with elevated NGAL levels, likely due to ongoing kidney and systemic inflammation and ischemia. These findings may also imply the occurrence of the inflammation process in chronic RVH, which might contribute to the poorer outcomes of RVH compared with EH patients.

The care of patients with varicose veins and associated chronic venous diseases: clinical practice guidelines of the Society for Vascular Surgery and the American Venous Forum.

The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) and the American Venous Forum (AVF) have developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with varicose veins of the lower limbs and pelvis. The document also includes recommendations on the management of superficial and perforating vein incompetence in patients with associated, more advanced chronic venous diseases (CVDs), including edema, skin changes, or venous ulcers. Recommendations of the Venous Guideline Committee are based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system as strong (GRADE 1) if the benefits clearly outweigh the risks, burden, and costs. The suggestions are weak (GRADE 2) if the benefits are closely balanced with risks and burden. The level of available evidence to support the evaluation or treatment can be of high (A), medium (B), or low or very low (C) quality. The key recommendations of these guidelines are: We recommend that in patients with varicose veins or more severe CVD, a complete history and detailed physical examination are complemented by duplex ultrasound scanning of the deep and superficial veins (GRADE 1A). We recommend that the CEAP classification is used for patients with CVD (GRADE 1A) and that the revised Venous Clinical Severity Score is used to assess treatment outcome (GRADE 1B). We suggest compression therapy for patients with symptomatic varicose veins (GRADE 2C) but recommend against compression therapy as the primary treatment if the patient is a candidate for saphenous vein ablation (GRADE 1B). We recommend compression therapy as the primary treatment to aid healing of venous ulceration (GRADE 1B). To decrease the recurrence of venous ulcers, we recommend ablation of the incompetent superficial veins in addition to compression therapy (GRADE 1A). For treatment of the incompetent great saphenous vein (GSV), we recommend endovenous thermal ablation (radiofrequency or laser) rather than high ligation and inversion stripping of the saphenous vein to the level of the knee (GRADE 1B). We recommend phlebectomy or sclerotherapy to treat varicose tributaries (GRADE 1B) and suggest foam sclerotherapy as an option for the treatment of the incompetent saphenous vein (GRADE 2C). We recommend against selective treatment of perforating vein incompetence in patients with simple varicose veins (CEAP class C(2); GRADE 1B), but we suggest treatment of pathologic perforating veins (outward flow duration ≥500 ms, vein diameter ≥3.5 mm) located underneath healed or active ulcers (CEAP class C(5)-C(6); GRADE 2B). We suggest treatment of pelvic congestion syndrome and pelvic varices with coil embolization, plugs, or transcatheter sclerotherapy, used alone or together (GRADE 2B).

Evidence on efficacy of treatments of venous ulcers and on prevention of ulcer recurrence.

Venous ulcers affect almost 1 million people in the United States. Delayed healing and frequent recurrence result in pain, disability, decreased quality of life, and loss of working days for the patients. Compression therapy is the most effective treatment of ulcers, but compliance with conservative treatment is important, and recurrence must be prevented by treating the underlying ambulatory venous hypertension. Evidence from prospective randomized trials confirm that ulcer recurrence is decreased with superficial vein surgery. Evidence is also increasing about the superiority of endovenous interventions, such as laser or radiofrequency ablation, over the classic open surgical treatment of high ligation, division, and stripping of the saphenous vein. Well-conducted randomized trials are still needed to provide grade A evidence to justify treatment of incompetent perforating veins. Treatment of proximal venous occlusion is important, and venous stents have been effective and durable. Open surgery is only considered today for iliac or iliocaval venous obstruction if endovascular treatment is not possible or has already failed. Open surgery for deep venous incompetence is recommended in centers of excellence, although evidence to support its effectiveness is of low quality.