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.

Correlation of disease comorbidity with prescribed treatment among insured U.S. lymphedema patients.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to define the current forms of treatment in a contemporary population of lymphedema (LED) patients for LED related to breast cancer, the most prevalently diagnosed LED comorbidity in Western countries, and phlebolymphedema with venous leg ulcer (PLEDU), a sequela of chronic venous disease. The goals of LED therapy are to reduce edema, thereby improving function and related symptoms, and to improve skin integrity to prevent development of infection. Treatment is generally nonsurgical: conservative care, including complex physical therapy, manual lymphatic drainage, and compression bandaging; or pneumatic compression device (PCD) therapy by a simple nonprogrammable device or an advanced programmable device. METHODS: To determine the frequency of individual types of treatment for LED and their relationship to breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) and PLEDU, we queried claims from a deidentified Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant commercial administrative insurance database with >165 million members. A total of 26,902 patients identified with LED who had been enrolled with continuous medical benefits for 12 months before and after the index date for the complete years 2012 through 2016 were separated into four treatment categories: no treatment, conservative care, simple PCD (SPCD), and advanced PCD. LED treatment was related to the BCRL and PLEDU comorbidities. RESULTS: BCRL patients, who represented 32.1% of all study patients, made up 41% of all patients receiving conservative care and 24% of patients receiving PCD therapy. By contrast, PLEDU patients (9.6% of study patients) were proportionally under-represented in the conservative care group (7.8%) but composed a disproportionately high share of the PCD therapy group (17.7%). PLEDU patients represented 23.5% of all LED patients prescribed SPCD therapy, whereas BCRL patients composed 10.3% of total LED patient SPCD prescriptions (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of a large health care administrative database showed clear differences between the way BCRL and PLEDU patients are treated. Compared with BCRL patients, PLEDU patients were less likely to receive conservative care and more likely to be prescribed SPCDs for pneumatic compression therapy. These differences suggest that lymphatic therapy may be undervalued for treatment of chronic venous swelling and prevention and treatment of PLEDU.