Quality of life after pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis for proximal deep venous thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: After deep venous thrombosis (DVT), many patients have impaired quality of life (QOL). We aimed to assess whether pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT) improves short-term or long-term QOL in patients with proximal DVT and whether QOL is related to extent of DVT. METHODS: The Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal with Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis (ATTRACT) trial was an assessor-blinded randomized trial that compared PCDT with no PCDT in patients with DVT of the femoral, common femoral, or iliac veins. QOL was assessed at baseline and 1 month, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months using the Venous Insufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study on Quality of Life/Symptoms (VEINES-QOL/Sym) disease-specific QOL measure and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary general QOL measures. Change in QOL scores from baseline to assessment time were compared in the PCDT and no PCDT treatment groups overall and in the iliofemoral DVT and femoral-popliteal DVT subgroups. RESULTS: Of 692 ATTRACT patients, 691 were analyzed (mean age, 53 years; 62% male; 57% iliofemoral DVT). VEINES-QOL change scores were greater (ie, better) in PCDT vs no PCDT from baseline to 1 month (difference, 5.7; P = .0006) and from baseline to 6 months (5.1; P = .0029) but not for other intervals. SF-36 PCS change scores were greater in PCDT vs no PCDT from baseline to 1 month (difference, 2.4; P = .01) but not for other intervals. Among iliofemoral DVT patients, VEINES-QOL change scores from baseline to all assessments were greater in the PCDT vs no PCDT group; this was statistically significant in the intention-to-treat analysis at 1 month (difference, 10.0; P < .0001) and 6 months (8.8; P < .0001) and in the per-protocol analysis at 18 months (difference, 5.8; P = .0086) and 24 months (difference, 6.6; P = .0067). SF-36 PCS change scores were greater in PCDT vs no PCDT from baseline to 1 month (difference, 3.2; P = .0010) but not for other intervals. In contrast, in femoral-popliteal DVT patients, change scores from baseline to all assessments were similar in the PCDT and no PCDT groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with proximal DVT, PCDT leads to greater improvement in disease-specific QOL than no PCDT at 1 month and 6 months but not later. In patients with iliofemoral DVT, PCDT led to greater improvement in disease-specific QOL during 24 months.

Causes and outcomes of finger ischemia in hospitalized patients in the intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: Vascular surgeons may be consulted to evaluate hospitalized patients with finger ischemia. We sought to characterize causes and outcomes of finger ischemia in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: All ICU patients who underwent evaluation for finger ischemia from 2008 to 2015 were reviewed. All were evaluated with finger photoplethysmography. The patients' demographics, comorbidities, ICU care (ventilator status, arterial lines, use of vasoactive medications), finger amputations, and survival were also recorded. ICU patients were compared with concurrently evaluated non-ICU inpatients with finger ischemia. RESULTS: There were 98 ICU patients (55 male, 43 female) identified. The mean age was 57.1 ± 16.8 years. Of these patients, 42 (43%) were in the surgical ICU and 56 (57%) in the medical ICU. Seventy (72%) had abnormal findings on finger photoplethysmography, 40 (69%) unilateral and 30 (31%) bilateral. Thirty-six (37%) had ischemia associated with an arterial line. Twelve (13%) had concomitant toe ischemia. Eighty (82%) were receiving vasoactive medications at the time of diagnosis, with the most frequent being phenylephrine (55%), norepinephrine (47%), ephedrine (31%), epinephrine (26%), and vasopressin (24%). Treatment was with anticoagulation in 88 (90%; therapeutic, 48%; prophylactic, 42%) and antiplatelet agents in 59 (60%; aspirin, 51%; clopidogrel, 15%). Other frequently associated conditions included mechanical ventilation at time of diagnosis (37%), diabetes (34%), peripheral arterial disease (32%), dialysis dependence (31%), cancer (24%), and sepsis (20%). Only five patients (5%) ultimately required finger amputation. The 30-day, 1-year, and 3-year survival was 84%, 69%, and 59%. By Cox proportional hazards modeling, cancer (hazard ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-5.6; P = .035) was an independent predictor of mortality. There were 50 concurrent non-ICU patients with finger ischemia. Non-ICU patients were more likely to have connective tissue disorders (26% vs 13%; P = .05) and hyperlipidemia (42% vs 24%; P = .03) and to undergo finger amputations (16% vs 5%; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Finger ischemia in the ICU is frequently associated with the presence of arterial lines and the use of vasopressor medications, of which phenylephrine and norepinephrine are most frequent. Anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy is appropriate treatment. Whereas progression to amputation is rare, patients with finger ischemia in the ICU have a high rate of mortality, particularly in the presence of cancer. Non-ICU patients hospitalized with finger ischemia more frequently require finger amputations, probably because of more frequent connective tissue disorders.

Advances in Operative Thrombectomy for Lower Extremity Venous Thrombosis.

Lower extremity deep venous thrombosis is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. The mainstay of therapy is medical. However, anticoagulation does not remove the thrombus and restore venous patency. In select patients, early thrombus removal and anticoagulation can restore venous patency, preserve venous valve function, and may reduce the incidence of postthrombotic syndrome. Catheter-directed therapies are minimally invasive with low complication rates. However, in patients with a contraindication to thrombolytic agents who can receive anticoagulation, open thrombectomy should be considered if indications for thrombus removal are met and patients are good operative risks.

Predictive value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in diabetic wound healing.

OBJECTIVE: The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been used as a surrogate marker of systemic inflammation. We sought to investigate the association between NLR and wound healing in diabetic wounds. METHODS: The outcomes of 120 diabetic foot ulcers in 101 patients referred from August 2011 to December 2014 were examined retrospectively. Demographic, patient-specific, and wound-specific variables as well as NLR at baseline visit were assessed. Outcomes were classified as ulcer healing, minor amputation, major amputation, and chronic ulcer. RESULTS: The subjects' mean age was 59.4 ± 13.0 years, and 67 (66%) were male. Final outcome was complete healing in 24 ulcers (20%), minor amputation in 58 (48%) and major amputation in 16 (13%), and 22 chronic ulcers (18%) at the last follow-up (median follow-up time, 6.8 months). In multivariate analysis, higher NLR (odds ratio, 13.61; P = .01) was associated with higher odds of nonhealing. CONCLUSIONS: NLR can predict odds of complete healing in diabetic foot ulcers independent of wound infection and other factors.

Characterization of tibial velocities by duplex ultrasound in severe peripheral arterial disease and controls.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between tibiopopliteal velocities and peripheral arterial disease (PAD) severity is not well understood. We sought to characterize tibiopopliteal velocities in severe PAD and non-PAD control patients. METHODS: Patients with an arterial duplex ultrasound (DUS) examination with PAD evaluated during a 5-year period were retrospectively compared with non-PAD controls. Control DUS examinations were collected sequentially during a 6-month period, retrospectively. PAD patients included those with lifestyle-limiting intermittent claudication warranting revascularization and patients with critical limb ischemia, defined as ischemic rest pain, gangrene, or a nonhealing ischemic ulcer. For each, tibial and popliteal artery peak systolic velocity (PSV) was measured at the proximal, mid, and distal segment of each artery, and a mean PSV for each artery was calculated. Mean PSV, ankle-brachial indices, peak ankle velocity (PAV), average ankle velocity (AAV), mean tibial velocity (MTV), and ankle-profunda index (API) were compared between the two groups using independent t-tests. PAV is the maximum PSV of the distal peroneal, posterior tibial (PT), or anterior tibial (AT) artery; AAV is the average PSV of the distal peroneal, PT, and AT arteries; MTV is calculated by first averaging the proximal, mid, and distal PSV for each tibial artery and then averaging the three means together; API is the AAV divided by proximal PSV of the profunda. RESULTS: DUS was available in 103 patients with PAD (68 patients with critical limb ischemia and 35 patients with intermittent claudication) and 68 controls. Mean ankle-brachial index in the PAD group was 0.64 ± 0.25 compared with 1.08 ± 0.09 in controls (P = .006). Mean PSVs were significantly lower in PAD patients than in controls at the popliteal (64.6 ± 42.2 vs 76.2 ± 29.6; P = .037), peroneal (34.3 ± 26.4 vs 53.8 ± 23.3; P < .001), AT (43.7 ± 31.4 vs 65.4 ± 25.0; P < .001), and PT (43.4 ± 42.3 vs 74.1 ± 30.6; P < .001) and higher at the profunda (131.5 ± 88.0 vs 96.2 ± 44.8; P = .001). Tibial parameters including PAV (52.6 ± 45.0 vs 86.9 ± 35.7; P < .001), AAV (37.4 ± 26.4 vs 64.5 ± 21.7; P < .001), MTV (41.7 ± 30.4 vs 65.4 ± 21.7; P < .001), and API (0.43 ± 0.45 vs 0.75 ± 0.30; P < .001) were significantly lower in the PAD group than in controls. Nonoverlapping 95% confidence interval reference ranges were established for severe PAD and non-PAD controls. CONCLUSIONS: This study aims to characterize lower extremity arterial PSVs and ankle parameters in severe PAD and non-PAD controls. These early criteria establish reference ranges to guide vascular laboratory interpretation and clinical decision-making.

Nasal methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization is associated with increased wound occurrence after major lower extremity amputation.

OBJECTIVE: Wound occurrence (WO) after major lower extremity amputation (MLEA) can be due to wound infection or sterile dehiscence. We sought to determine the association of nasal methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization and other patient factors with overall WO, WO due to wound infection, and WO due to sterile dehiscence. METHODS: The medical records of all patients undergoing MLEA from August 1, 2011, to November 1, 2013, were reviewed. Demographic data, hemoglobin A1c level, albumin concentration, dialysis dependence, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), nasal MRSA colonization, and diabetes mellitus (DM) were examined as variables. The overall WO rate was determined, and the cause of WO was categorized as either a sterile dehiscence or a wound infection. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients underwent 96 MLEAs during a 27-month period. The rates of overall WO, WO due to infection, and WO due to sterile dehiscence were 39%, 19%, and 19%, respectively (1% developed a traumatic wound). On univariate analysis, PVD, MRSA colonization, DM, and dialysis dependence were all associated with higher rates of overall WO (P < .05). On multivariate analysis, MRSA colonization was associated with higher rates of overall WO (P = .03) and WO due to wound infection (11% vs 45%; P < .01). DM and PVD were associated with higher rates of overall WO and WO due to sterile dehiscence on both univariate and multivariate analysis (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Nasal MRSA colonization is associated with higher rates of overall WO and WO due to wound infection. DM and PVD are associated with higher rates of overall WO and WO due to sterile dehiscence but are not associated with WO due to wound infection. Further studies addressing the effect of nasal MRSA eradication on postoperative wound outcomes after MLEA are warranted.

A comparison between the HeRO graft and conventional arteriovenous grafts in hemodialysis patients.

Venous stenosis and occlusion are a major cause of vascular access dysfunction and failure. The HeRO Graft bypasses occlusion and traverses stenosis with outflow directly into the central venous circulation. A randomized, multicenter study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the HeRO Graft relative to conventional AV grafts. The design was to enroll 143 patients in a 2:1 randomization ratio between HeRO and conventional AV control groups. Data on 72 subjects (52 HeRO Graft and 20 AV graft controls) were obtained. The HeRO Graft and control cohorts were comparable in baseline characteristics. Adequacy of dialysis, bacteremia rates, and adverse events were consistent between groups. Twelve month Kaplan-Meier estimates for primary and secondary patency rates were 34.8% and 67.6% in the HeRO Graft cohort, and 30.6% and 58.4% in the control cohort. There was no statistical difference in terms of patency between groups. The rates of intervention were 2.2/year for HeRO Graft and 1.6/year for the control (p = 0.100). Median days to loss of secondary patency was 238 for HeRO Graft versus 102 for the control (p = 0.032). The HeRO Graft appears to provide similar patency, adequacy of dialysis, and bacteremia rates to those of conventional AV grafts.

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.

Early thrombus removal strategies for acute deep venous thrombosis: clinical practice guidelines of the Society for Vascular Surgery and the American Venous Forum.

BACKGROUND: The anticoagulant treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis (DVT) has been historically directed toward the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism. However, such treatment imperfectly protects against late manifestations of the postthrombotic syndrome. By restoring venous patency and preserving valvular function, early thrombus removal strategies can potentially decrease postthrombotic morbidity. OBJECTIVE: A committee of experts in venous disease was charged by the Society for Vascular Surgery and the American Venous Forum to develop evidence-based practice guidelines for early thrombus removal strategies, including catheter-directed pharmacologic thrombolysis, pharmacomechanical thrombolysis, and surgical thrombectomy. METHODS: Evidence-based recommendations are based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of the relevant literature, supplemented when necessary by less rigorous data. Recommendations are made according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, incorporating the strength of the recommendation (strong: 1; weak: 2) and an evaluation of the level of the evidence (A to C). RESULTS: On the basis of the best evidence currently available, we recommend against routine use of the term "proximal venous thrombosis" in favor of more precise characterization of thrombi as involving the iliofemoral or femoropopliteal venous segments (Grade 1A). We further suggest the use of early thrombus removal strategies in ambulatory patients with good functional capacity and a first episode of iliofemoral DVT of <14 days in duration (Grade 2C) and strongly recommend their use in patients with limb-threatening ischemia due to iliofemoral venous outflow obstruction (Grade 1A). We suggest pharmacomechanical strategies over catheter-directed pharmacologic thrombolysis alone if resources are available and that surgical thrombectomy be considered if thrombolytic therapy is contraindicated (Grade 2C). CONCLUSIONS: Most data regarding early thrombus removal strategies are of low quality but do suggest patient-important benefits with respect to reducing postthrombotic morbidity. We anticipate revision of these guidelines as additional evidence becomes available.

The role of intravascular ultrasound in venous thromboembolism.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a serious problem, and treatments surrounding this potentially life-threatening disease continue to evolve. Evidence-based guidelines purport the need for minimally invasive catheter-based procedures as part of the armamentarium to prevent and treat VTE. When the appropriate clinical scenarios arise, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) becomes a necessary part of those procedures to provide alternative imaging that complements traditional venography. IVUS of the major axial veins provides a 360-degree two-dimensional gray scale ultrasound image of lumen and vessel wall structures. IVUS remains the criterion standard for venous imaging when contemplating catheter-based procedures from the common femoral vein to the inferior vena cava. Not only can precise location and size of these veins be determined by the IVUS probe from key landmarks and venous branches, but other important abnormalities can be visualized. These include external compression, acute and chronic thrombus, fibrosis, mural wall thickening, spurs, and trabeculations. Specific procedures that use IVUS include the treatment of venous obstruction and the placement of vena cava filters at the bedside. IVUS remains a vital part of accurately imaging the major axial veins when contemplating catheter-based procedures to prevent or treat VTE-related disorders.

Validation of Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) with other venous severity assessment tools from the American Venous Forum, National Venous Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: Several standard venous assessment tools have been used as independent determinants of venous disease severity, but correlation between these instruments as a global venous screening tool has not been tested. The scope of this study is to assess the validity of Venous Clinical Severity Scoring (VCSS) and its integration with other venous assessment tools as a global venous screening instrument. METHODS: The American Venous Forum (AVF), National Venous Screening Program (NVSP) data registry from 2007 to 2009 was queried for participants with complete datasets, including CEAP clinical staging, VCSS, modified Chronic Venous Insufficiency Quality of Life (CIVIQ) assessment, and venous ultrasound results. Statistical correlation trends were analyzed using Spearman's rank coefficient as related to VCSS. RESULTS: Five thousand eight hundred fourteen limbs in 2,907 participants were screened and included CEAP clinical stage C0: 26%; C1: 33%; C2: 24%; C3: 9%; C4: 7%; C5: 0.5%; C6: 0.2% (mean, 1.41 ± 1.22). VCSS mean score distribution (range, 0-3) for the entire cohort included: pain 1.01 ± 0.80, varicose veins 0.61 ± 0.84, edema 0.61 ± 0.81, pigmentation 0.15 ± 0.47, inflammation 0.07 ± 0.33, induration 0.04 ± 0.27, ulcer number 0.004 ± 0.081, ulcer size 0.007 ± 0.112, ulcer duration 0.007 ± 0.134, and compression 0.30 ± 0.81. Overall correlation between CEAP and VCSS was moderately strong (r(s) = 0.49; P < .0001), with highest correlation for attributes reflecting more advanced disease, including varicose vein (r(s) = 0.51; P < .0001), pigmentation (r(s) = 0.39; P < .0001), inflammation (r(s) = 0.28; P < .0001), induration (r(s) = 0.22; P < .0001), and edema (r(s) = 0.21; P < .0001). Based on the modified CIVIQ assessment, overall mean score for each general category included: Quality of Life (QoL)-Pain 6.04 ± 3.12 (range, 3-15), QoL-Functional 9.90 ± 5.32 (range, 5-25), and QoL-Social 5.41 ± 3.09 (range, 3-15). Overall correlation between CIVIQ and VCSS was moderately strong (r(s) = 0.43; P < .0001), with the highest correlation noted for pain (r(s) = 0.55; P < .0001) and edema (r(s) = 0.30; P < .0001). Based on screening venous ultrasound results, 38.1% of limbs had reflux and 1.5% obstruction in the femoral, saphenous, or popliteal vein segments. Correlation between overall venous ultrasound findings (reflux + obstruction) and VCSS was slightly positive (r(s) = 0.23; P < .0001) but was highest for varicose vein (r(s) = 0.32; P < .0001) and showed no correlation to swelling (r(s) = 0.06; P < .0001) and pain (r(s) = 0.003; P = .7947). CONCLUSIONS: While there is correlation between VCSS, CEAP, modified CIVIQ, and venous ultrasound findings, subgroup analysis indicates that this correlation is driven by different components of VCSS compared with the other venous assessment tools. This observation may reflect that VCSS has more global application in determining overall severity of venous disease, while at the same time highlighting the strengths of the other venous assessment tools.

Predictors of wound complications following major amputation for critical limb ischemia.

OBJECTIVES: For patients with end-stage critical limb ischemia (CLI) who have already suffered over an extended period of time, a major amputation that is free of wound complications remains paramount. Utilizing data from the American College of Surgeons, National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP), the objective of this report was to determine critical factors leading to wound complications following major amputation. METHODS: ACS-NSQIP was used to identify patients ≥ 50 years, with CLI, and having an ipsilateral below-(BKA) or above-knee amputation (AKA). The primary outcome was wound occurrence (WO) defined by affirmative findings of superficial infection, deep infection, and/or wound disruption. The secondary outcome was 30-day mortality. Following univariate analyses, a multiple logistic regression was performed to identify predictive factors. RESULTS: Between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2008, 4250 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria (2309 BKAs and 1941 AKAs). WOs were 10.4% for BKAs and 7.2% for AKAs. For BKAs, increasing elevation in international normalized ratio (INR) predicted more WOs (P = .008, odds ratio [OR] 1.5 for every integral increase in INR) as did age 50 to 59 compared with older patients (P = .002, OR 1.9). For AKAs, being a current smoker predicted more WOs (P = .0008, OR 1.8) as did an increasing body mass index (BMI) (P = .02, OR 1.3 for every 10 kg/m(2) increase in BMI). Mortality was 7.6% for BKAs and 12% for AKAs. Complete functional dependence was most predictive of mortality following AKA (P < .0001, OR 2.5). Medical comorbidities such as history of myocardial infarcation (MI) (OR 1.8), congestive heart failure (CHF, OR 1.6), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, OR 1.6) predicted mortality following BKA, while dialysis use (OR 2.4), CHF (OR 2.3), and COPD (OR 2.1) predicted mortality following AKA. CONCLUSIONS: Wound occurrences and mortality rates after major amputation for CLI continue to be a prevalent problem. Normalization of the INR prior to BKA should decrease WOs. Heightened awareness in higher risk patients with improved preventive measures, earlier disease recognition, better treatments, and increased education remain critical to improving outcomes in an already stressed patient cohort.

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).

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.