Incidence of venous thromboembolism in patients with peripheral arterial disease after endovascular intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a well-known postoperative complication; however, the incidence of VTE after peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) has not been well described. Despite the minimally invasive nature of these procedures, the patients undergoing PVI have significant risk factors for the development of VTE. In the present study, our objective was to describe the short-term incidence of VTE after PVI, identify differences between sexes, and examine the periprocedural antiplatelet and anticoagulation regimens. METHODS: We identified adults (age >66 years) who had undergone PVI from January 1, 2008 to September 30, 2015 from the inpatient Medicare claims data. The patients were followed for 365 days after the procedure. VTE events during follow-up were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, diagnosis codes. The covariate-standardized 30- and 90-day cumulative incidence of VTE events, overall and stratified by sex, were estimated using Aalen-Johansen estimators, accounting for death as a competing risk. Differences in sex between females and males were identified using Gray's test. Any antiplatelet or anticoagulant prescription fill was defined as any fill from 14 days before the endovascular intervention through the date of the VTE event. Persistence with antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy was assessed by creating daily logs of antiplatelet and anticoagulant coverage using the dispensing dates and days of supply. Over-the-counter medications (ie, aspirin) were not evaluated. RESULTS: We identified 31,593 qualifying patients with a mean age of 76.8 ± 7.4 years. Of the 31,593 patients, 46% were male, and 12% had a history of VTE. After the procedure, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) was a commonly diagnosed complication (3.8% and 4.8% at 30 and 90 days, respectively). The cumulative incidence of pulmonary embolism was 0.9% and 1.2% at 30 and 90 days after the procedure, respectively. Throughout the 90-day postoperative period, females had had a slightly increased risk of DVT compared with males (30-day risk difference, 0.007; P < .01; 90-day risk difference, 0.008; P = .02). We found no sex-based differences in the risk of pulmonary embolism. Of the patients who had developed VTE at 90 days, 970 (55%) had had no prescription fill for an antiplatelet or anticoagulant. Assuming all the patients had been taking aspirin, only 15% of the patients who had developed VTE had been taking prescribed dual antiplatelet medication persistently after PVI. In addition, among the patients who had developed VTE at 90 days, females were less likely to have had a prescription fill for an anticoagulant. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from our study have demonstrated that the incidence of VTE after PVI is high, with an increased risk of deep vein thrombosis for females. We also found that females were less likely to have been prescribed an anticoagulant after PVI. Future studies are needed to characterize the variables associated with an increased risk of VTE after PVI and to identify strategies to increase dual antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulant prescription adherence to reduce the risk of VTE.

Economic benefit of a novel dual-mode ambulatory compression device for treatment of chronic venous leg ulcers in a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Limb compression is a key component of protocols used to heal venous leg ulcers (VLUs). A novel ambulatory pneumatic compression device was tested in comparison with multilayered bandage (MLB) compression systems for the treatment of VLUs in a prospective randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Patients with VLUs measuring 1.5 to 50 cm2 with duration of 1 to 24 months were randomized to treatment with a pneumatic compression device, the ACTitouch adaptive compression therapy (ACT) system (Tactile Medical, Minneapolis, Minn), or MLB. The ACT group patients were seen in the clinic at weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 16 or until wounds healed; the MLB group was seen weekly for bandage and dressing changes for 16 weeks or until wounds healed. All other aspects of VLU care were standardized between the two groups. The primary study objective was to compare the VLU percentage area reduction at 16 weeks in the ACT group compared with the MLB group. RESULTS: There were 56 patients randomized to treatment with ACT (n = 26) or MLB (n = 30). In the ACT group, five patients exited because of skin or wound problems related to the ACT device and five withdrew because of the inconvenience of using the device. Therefore, the trial was halted before full randomization so improvements to the ACT device could be made. Data collected on 42 patients who were able to tolerate treatment for the 16-week study period (per protocol group) showed that both groups experienced similar rates of wound healing. In the per protocol population, the percentage area size reduction was greater for the ACT group compared with the MLB group (83.8% vs 70.5%, respectively), whereas no significant differences were noted in the percentage of wounds that healed by 16 weeks (60.0% vs 63.0%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this truncated clinical trial, a novel dual-mode ambulatory compression device, when tolerated, achieved wound healing results similar to those with MLB for chronic VLUs. The device requires modifications to improve the patient's comfort and ease of use. However, this mode of therapy appears to have promise for improving the cost-effectiveness of treatment for chronic VLUs.

Multicenter assessment of the repeatability and reproducibility of the revised Venous Clinical Severity Score (rVCSS).

BACKGROUND: The Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) was designed and validated as an objective measure of disease severity in patients with chronic venous disease (CVD). Recently, a revision of the VCSS (rVCSS) was performed to resolve ambiguity in the clinical descriptors and improve clarity and ease of use. This new revised VCSS requires validation to determine its repeatability and reproducibility in clinical evaluation of patients with varying levels of CVD. METHODS: A prospective multicenter protocol was designed to enroll patients undergoing evaluation for CVD at venous practices with experience using the original VCSS. At the time of initial evaluation, two clinicians independently assessed both lower extremities to determine the rVCSS and the CEAP clinical score. Between 1 and 6 weeks, patients returned and received repeat assessment of the rVCSS by the same two clinicians independently. Patients were excluded if any venous intervention occurred between the two separate evaluation visits. Scores were compared to determine inter- and intra-observer variability overall and within each CEAP clinical class. RESULTS: Seven centers enrolled a total of 136 limbs yielding 248 paired evaluations for interobserver variability and 258 paired evaluations for intraobserver variability. The mean interobserver rVCSS difference was 1.4 ± 1.7 and the mean intraobserver variability was 1.3 ± 1.6. Statistical assessment with weighted kappa yielded good repeatability (κ = 0.68; P < .0001) and good reproducibility (κ = 0.72; P < .000001) for the rVCSS. The rVCSS correlated well with the CEAP clinical class with significant differences between rVCSS in increasing classes. (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter evaluation, the rVCSS was demonstrated to be a reliable and reproducible instrument for documentation of the severity of symptoms in patients with lower extremity venous insufficiency.

Revision of the venous clinical severity score: venous outcomes consensus statement: special communication of the American Venous Forum Ad Hoc Outcomes Working Group.

In response to the need for a disease severity measurement, the American Venous Forum committee on outcomes assessment developed the Venous Severity Scoring system in 2000. There are three components of this scoring system, the Venous Disability Score, the Venous Segmental Disease Score, and the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS). The VCSS was developed from elements of the CEAP classification (clinical grade, etiology, anatomy, pathophysiology), which is the worldwide standard for describing the clinical features of chronic venous disease. However, as a descriptive instrument, the CEAP classification responds poorly to change. The VCSS was subsequently developed as an evaluative instrument that would be responsive to changes in disease severity over time and in response to treatment. Based on initial experiences with the VCSS, an international ad hoc working group of the American Venous Forum was charged with updating the instrument. This revision of the VCSS is focused on clarifying ambiguities, updating terminology, and simplifying application. The specific language of proven quality-of-life instruments was used to better address the issues of patients at the lower end of the venous disease spectrum. Periodic review and revision are necessary for generating more universal applicability and for comparing treatment outcomes in a meaningful way.