Venous leg ulcers and prevalence of surgically correctable reflux disease in a national registry.

BACKGROUND: Chronic venous disorders are common, with varicose veins occurring in ∼40% of the population. Venous leg ulcers affect 1% to 2% of the population, with the prevalence increasing ≤4% for those aged >65 years. Both conditions are expensive and together are responsible for ≤2% of the annual healthcare budget expenditure of Western societies. The ESCHAR (effect of surgery and compression on healing and recurrence) and EVRA (early venous reflux ablation) trials demonstrated that surgical correction of superficial venous reflux reduced ulcer recurrence, resulted in faster healing times (EVRA), and was proved cost-effective. Largescale data regarding patients with chronic venous leg ulcers presenting to venous centers with treatable superficial venous insufficiency has not been previously reported. Our study was designed to evaluate the percentage of patients with leg ulcers presenting to dedicated vein centers who were found to have surgically correctable superficial venous insufficiency. METHODS: The American Vein & Lymphatic Society Patient Reported Outcome Venous Registry began collecting data in 2014 and is one of two national registries focused on chronic venous disorders. The database was queried first for the presence of an ulcer using the CEAP (clinical, etiologic, anatomic, pathophysiologic) classification (C6 status). These de-identified data were further correlated by crossing the number of ulcers for the same limb using the revised venous clinical severity score (rVCSS). The demographics, index duplex ultrasound details, and rVCSS features for ulcer duration and compression use were analyzed. Once the presence of an ulcer had been validated by CEAP and rVCSS, the population was divided into groups according to the ultrasound-reported anatomic pathology (eg, normal, reflux, obstruction, reflux plus obstruction). The query was directed toward all patients seeking a venous evaluation at participating centers from January 2018 through January 2022. RESULTS: More than 270,000 unique patient records were reviewed. Of the 270,000 records, 163,027 (60%) had had duplex ultrasound scans available, for 1794 unique patients (1879 limbs), representing 1.1% with a leg wound. Of these patients, 55.4% were men and 44.6% were women. Group S included patients with isolated superficial pathology (n = 1291; 68.7%). Group M included patients with mixed superficial and deep pathology (n = 238; 12.7%). Group D included patients with isolated deep vein pathology (n = 58; 3.1%). Finally, group N included patients with leg wounds but no venous pathology (n = 292; 15.5%). The rVCSSs for groups S and M were significantly higher than those for group N. In group S, the dominant patterns involved the great saphenous vein (GSV) above the knee (54.8%), the small saphenous vein (30.7%), and the anterior accessory GSV (14.4%). The frequency of single, double, and triple axial vein reflux identified 1.45 vessels eligible for ablation treatment per limb. In group M, the dominant patterns involved the GSV above the knee (61.7%), the small saphenous vein (26.2%), and the anterior accessory GSV (12.1%), for 1.52 axial segments per limb. Of the 84.4% of venous ulcer patients, duplex ultrasound analysis revealed that 97% of this large subset had had surgically correctable disease. CONCLUSIONS: The American Vein & Lymphatic Society Patient Reported Outcome Venous Registry demonstrated that 85% of the leg wounds in the present study were venous in origin and 97% possessed surgically correctable disease. Our findings support early referral to dedicated vein centers with appropriate venous reflux management as a part of the multidisciplinary team caring for patients with venous leg ulcers.

Evaluation of a Physician Peer-Benchmarking Intervention for Practice Variability and Costs for Endovenous Thermal Ablation.

Importance: The frequency of use of endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA) to treat chronic venous insufficiency has increased rapidly in the US. Wide variability in EVTA use among physicians has been documented, and standard EVTA rates were defined in the 2017 Medicare database. Objective: To assess whether providing individualized physician performance reports is associated with reduced variability in EVTA use and cost savings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective quality improvement study used data from all US Medicare patients aged 18 years or older who underwent at least 1 EVTA between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017, and between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019. All US physicians who performed at least 11 EVTAs yearly for Medicare patients in 2017 and 2019 were included in the assessment. Intervention: A performance report comprising individual physician EVTA use per patient with peer-benchmarking data was distributed to all physicians in November 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: The mean number of EVTAs performed per patient was calculated for each physician. Physicians who performed 3.4 or more EVTA procedures per patient per year were considered outliers. The change in the number of procedures from 2017 to 2019 was analyzed overall and by inlier and outlier status. An economic analysis was also performed to estimate the cost savings associated with the intervention. Results: A total of 188 976 patients (102 222 in 2017 and 86 754 in 2019) who had an EVTA performed by 1558 physicians were included in the analysis. The median patient age was 72.2 years (IQR, 67.9-77.8 years); 67.3% of patients were female, and 84.9% were White. Among all physicians, the mean (SD) number of EVTAs per patient decreased from 2017 to 2019 (1.97 [0.85] vs 1.89 [0.77]; P < .001). There was a modest decrease in the mean number of EVTAs per patient among inlier physicians (1.83 [0.57] vs 1.78 [0.55]; P < .001) and a more substantial decrease among outlier physicians (4.40 [1.01] vs 3.67 [1.41] ; P < .001). Outliers in 2017 consisted of 90 physicians, of whom 71 (78.9%) reduced their EVTA use after the intervention. The number of EVTAs per patient decreased by a mean (SD) of 0.09 (0.46) procedures overall (median, 0.10 procedures [IQR, -0.10 to 0.30 procedures]; P < .001). The estimated cost savings associated with the decrease was $6.3 million in 2019. Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, substantial variability in the number of EVTAs performed per patient was observed across the US. When physicians were provided with a 1-time peer-benchmarked performance report card, the timing of the intervention was associated with a significant decrease in the number of EVTAs performed per patient, particularly among outlier physicians. This quality improvement initiative was associated with reduced variability in EVTA use in the US and a substantial savings for Medicare.

Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy is safe and effective in the management of superficial venous insufficiency of the lower extremity.

BACKGROUND: Superficial venous disease of the lower extremity has a significant impact on quality of life. Both truncal and tributary vein reflux contribute to this disease process. Endovenous foam sclerotherapy is a widely used technique throughout the world for the management of superficial venous reflux and ultrasound guidance improves its safety and efficacy. METHODS: A PubMed search for ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) was conducted and all abstracts were reviewed to identify clinical trials and systematic reviews for a full-text analysis. Additional articles were also identified through searching the references of the selected studies. RESULTS: The production of foam for sclerotherapy in a 1:3 or 1:4 ratio of air to sclerosant is optimal in a low silicone, low-volume syringe system. Physiologic gas may decrease any side effects, with the trade-off of decreased foam stability. Proper technique with appropriate sterility and cleansing protocols are paramount for safe and effective treatment. The technical success of UGFS for great saphenous vein disease is inferior to endothermal and surgical modalities and retreatment is more common. However, the clinical improvement in patient-reported quality of life is similar between these three modalities. When used for tributary veins in combination with endothermal approaches of the truncal veins, UGFS has high rates of success with excellent patient satisfaction. UGFS has demonstrated an excellent safety profile comparable with or superior to other modalities. CONCLUSIONS: With proper technique, UGFS is safe and effective for the management of superficial venous disease.

Private payers' varicose vein policies are inaccurate, disparate, and not evidence based, which mandates a proposal for a reasonable and responsible policy for the treatment of venous disease.

Varicose veins afflict more than one in five Americans, and although varicose veins may be an asymptomatic cosmetic concern in some, many others experience symptoms of pain, aching, heaviness, itching, and swelling. More advanced venous disease can result from untreated venous insufficiency. The complications of chronic venous disease, including bleeding, thrombosis, and ulceration, are seen in up to 2 million Americans annually. Numerous reports have documented venous disease adversely affects quality of life and that treatment of venous disease can improve quality of life. It has previously been documented that private insurers, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services subcontractors for that matter, have disparate policies that in many instances are self-serving, contain mistakes, use outdated evidence, and disregard evidence-based guidelines. The two leading venous medical societies, the American Venous Forum and the American Venous and Lymphatic Society, have come together to review the varicose vein coverage policies of seven major U.S. private medical insurance carriers whose policies cover more than 150 million Americans. The authors reviewed the policies for venous disease and, if significant gaps or inconsistencies are found, we hope to point them out, and, finally, to propose a thoughtful and reasonable policy based on the best available evidence.

Triage of patients with venous and lymphatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic - The Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale (VELTAS) : A consensus document of the International Union of Phlebology (UIP), Australasian College of Phlebology (ACP), American Vein and Lymphatic Society (AVLS), American Venous Forum (AVF), European College of Phlebology (ECoP), European Venous Forum (EVF), Interventional Radiology Society of Australasia (IRSA), Latin American Venous Forum, Pan-American Society of Phlebology and Lymphology and the Venous Association of India (VAI) This consensus document has been co-published in Phlebology [DOI: 10.1177/0268355520930884] and Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders [DOI: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2020.05.002]. The publications are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. The contribution has been published under a Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has resulted in diversion of healthcare resources to the management of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus. Elective interventions and surgical procedures in most countries have been postponed and operating room resources have been diverted to manage the pandemic. The Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale was developed to provide an international standard to rationalise and harmonise the management of patients with venous and lymphatic disorders or vascular anomalies. Triage urgency was determined based on clinical assessment of urgency with which a patient would require medical treatment or surgical intervention. Clinical conditions were classified into six categories of: (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE), (2) chronic venous disease, (3) vascular anomalies, (4) venous trauma, (5) venous compression and (6) lymphatic disease. Triage urgency was categorised into four groups and individual conditions were allocated to each class of triage. These included (1) medical emergencies (requiring immediate attendance), example massive pulmonary embolism; (2) urgent (to be seen as soon as possible), example deep vein thrombosis; (3) semi-urgent (to be attended to within 30-90 days), example highly symptomatic chronic venous disease, and (4) discretionary/non-urgent- (to be seen within 6-12 months), example chronic lymphoedema. Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale aims to standardise the triage of patients with venous and lymphatic disease or vascular anomalies by providing an international consensus-based classification of clinical categories and triage urgency. The scale may be used during pandemics such as the current COVID-19 crisis but may also be used as a general framework to classify urgency of the listed conditions.

Triage of patients with venous and lymphatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic - The Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale (VELTAS):: A consensus document of the International Union of Phlebology (UIP), Australasian College of Phlebology (ACP), American Vein and Lymphatic Society (AVLS), American Venous Forum (AVF), European College of Phlebology (ECoP), European Venous Forum (EVF), Interventional Radiology Society of Australasia (IRSA), Latin American Venous Forum, Pan-American Society of Phlebology and Lymphology and the Venous Association of India (VAI).

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has resulted in diversion of healthcare resources to the management of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus. Elective interventions and surgical procedures in most countries have been postponed and operating room resources have been diverted to manage the pandemic. The Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale was developed to provide an international standard to rationalise and harmonise the management of patients with venous and lymphatic disorders or vascular anomalies. Triage urgency was determined based on clinical assessment of urgency with which a patient would require medical treatment or surgical intervention. Clinical conditions were classified into six categories of: (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE), (2) chronic venous disease, (3) vascular anomalies, (4) venous trauma, (5) venous compression and (6) lymphatic disease. Triage urgency was categorised into four groups and individual conditions were allocated to each class of triage. These included (1) medical emergencies (requiring immediate attendance), example massive pulmonary embolism; (2) urgent (to be seen as soon as possible), example deep vein thrombosis; (3) semiurgent (to be attended to within 30-90 days), example highly symptomatic chronic venous disease, and (4) discretionary/nonurgent- (to be seen within 6-12 months), example chronic lymphoedema. Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale aims to standardise the triage of patients with venous and lymphatic disease or vascular anomalies by providing an international consensus-based classification of clinical categories and triage urgency. The scale may be used during pandemics such as the current COVID-19 crisis but may also be used as a general framework to classify urgency of the listed conditions.

The clinical relevance of anterior accessory great saphenous vein reflux.

BACKGROUND: Insurance approval for saphenous vein ablation is generally limited to junctional reflux involving the great saphenous vein (GSV) or small saphenous vein. This study was designed to investigate prevalence and disease severity of anterior accessory GSV (AAGSV) compared with GSV disease in patients presenting to dedicated outpatient vein centers. METHODS: Deidentified data were pulled from the American Vein & Lymphatic Society PRO Venous Registry for first and second patient encounters. Variables included age, sex, and body mass index (BMI); clinical class of Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology (CEAP) classification; revised Venous Clinical Severity Score (rVCSS); and duplex ultrasound values for each limb. Data were further scrutinized according to duplex ultrasound findings. Patients with normal findings on duplex ultrasound examination or evidence of acute or chronic thrombosis were excluded. Patients were further characterized into two groups. The primary group had no prior vein treatment vs the progressive group, in which patients have had a superficial venous intervention at some point in the past. RESULTS: There were 6836 unique patients with duplex ultrasound patterns of either AAGSV or GSV above the knee or both AAGSV and GSV in either group. This pool contained 2604 patients with recorded CEAP class and rVCSS, representing 2664 patient limbs in the final data set. In comparison to limbs in the progressive group, AAGSV reflux was more common in the primary group (78/563 vs 209/2101; P < .01). Demographic features of the groups demonstrated no significant difference. The primary group demonstrated a significantly higher rVCSS (6.95 vs 6.10; P < .01) than the progressive group. Patients in the primary group also demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of more advanced disease (CEAP class C4 and above; 43.1% vs 24.8%; P < .0001) than those in the progressive group. The primary group demonstrated no significant differences in age, sex proportions, or mean BMI. The mean rVCSS for GSV of these patients (7.22) was significantly higher than that of AAGSV patients (5.63; P < .01). The incidence of superficial vein thrombosis for the AAGSV patients (6.41%) was significantly higher than that of the GSV patients (2.17%; P < .05) in the progressive group. Patients in the progressive group demonstrated no significant difference in age, sex proportions, mean BMI, or average rVCSS. The proportion of AAGSV limbs with superficial thrombosis events (37/287 [12.9%]) was significantly higher than that for GSV (59/2214 [2.7%]; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: AAGSV reflux is common and carries similar morbidity to GSV reflux. It is manifested with an alarming presence of superficial vein thrombosis.

Significant physician practice variability in the utilization of endovenous thermal ablation in the 2017 Medicare population.

BACKGROUND: There has been a substantial increase in the use of procedures to treat lower extremity venous disease in the United States over the past decade. A specialty society-selected metric was applied to evaluate the use of endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA) in Medicare beneficiaries and factors associated with physician practice variations. We used confidential physician reports of this benchmark data to increase physician recognition of individualized usage relative to their peers. METHODS: We used 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims data to identify all patients 18 years of age and older who underwent at least one lower extremity EVTA over a 1-year period (January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017). A physician-specific annual rate of EVTA performed per patient was calculated. Individual physician results were shared confidentially with each provider billing Medicare for more than 10 ablations during the study period by mail, benchmarked to the distribution of use by their peers nationally. Hierarchical multivariable linear regression was used to identify patient and provider characteristics associated with high rates of thermal ablations per patient. RESULTS: A total of 102,145 Medicare beneficiaries (median age, 72.1 years; 67.8% female) underwent an EVTA by 2462 physicians during the study period. The majority (96.4%) of patients underwent 1 to 5 ablations, 3.3% underwent 6 to 10 ablations, and 0.3% underwent 11 or more ablations. The median and mean physician ablation rates were 1.6 (interquartile range, 1.3-2.2) and 1.9 ± 0.8 ablations per patient annually, respectively. There were 106 physicians (4.3%) who had an ablation rate of 3.4 or greater, which is two or more standard deviations above the national mean. After adjusting for patient-level variables, characteristics independently associated with outlier physicians included specialties other than vascular surgery, fewer years in practice, and higher overall venous ablation practice volume (P ≤ .03). CONCLUSIONS: Using a physician-generated metric of performance, the physician use EVTA performed annually per patient is highly variable, and this variability correlated with physician discipline, years in practice, and is more common in physicians who perform ablation the most. Our data show that there is considerable variability in the use of EVTA in Medicare beneficiaries, and that outlier physicians performing a high number of venous ablation procedures per patient are identifiable using a peer-benchmarked practice pattern measure via claims-based data.

Short-form 6D assessment in compression module of the American College of Phlebology Patient Reported Outcome Venous Registry.

Objective The goal of this American College of Phlebology Patient Reported Outcome Venous Registry analysis was to examine the clinical efficacy of compression stockings using short-form 6D questionnaire (SF-6D). Method SF-6D scores were modeled over time using linear mixed effects model. Changes of SF-6D score from baseline to the last encounter were examined using a paired t-test. Analysis of variance was used to compare changes from baseline in SF-6D scores between C classifications. All analyses were conducted using SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary NC). Results Baseline mean SF-6D score was 0.83 and at follow-up, 0.85. Mean SF-6D change was +0.02 points (P = .001) over an average time period of 5.5 months. Patients' SF-6D scores were estimated to increase by +0.03 points (P = .005) per year of usage of compression stockings. SF-6D score changes across C classifications did not demonstrate significant differences (P = .265). Conclusion There was an improvement of SF-6D score in the registry participants who used circular knit compression stockings.

Venous disease patient registries available in the United States.

Patient registries are beneficial in that they allow the collection of prospective data focused on a specific medical issue. These registries give providers a "real-world" view of patient outcomes. Many medical disciplines have a long history of developing and using patient registries; the first patient registry for chronic venous disease in the United States was launched in 2011, fairly recently in comparison. Registries included in this review were identified by surveying members of major academic societies that focus on the care of chronic venous disease and by searching MEDLINE and Embase databases using Ovid interface. Medical directors of four of the five databases available in the United States completed a standard questionnaire, and the answers served as the basis for this review. This review is not a comparison of registries; it does, however, describe the common and unique features of four venous registries currently available in the United States with the purpose of increasing awareness of and fostering participation in these registries.

The evidence supporting treatment of reflux and obstruction in chronic venous disease.

On July 20, 2016, a Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee panel convened to assess the evidence supporting treatment of chronic venous disease. Several societies addressed the questions posed to the panel. A multidisciplinary coalition, representing nine societies of venous specialists, reviewed the literature and presented a consensus opinion regarding the panel questions. The purpose of this paper is to present our coalition's consensus review of the literature and recommendations for chronic venous disease.

American College of Phlebology Guidelines - Treatment of refluxing accessory saphenous veins.

The American College of Phlebology Guidelines Committee performed a systematic review of the literature regarding the clinical impact and treatment of incompetent accessory saphenous veins. Using an accepted process for guideline developments, we developed a consensus opinion that patients with symptomatic incompetence of the accessory great saphenous veins (anterior and posterior accessory saphenous veins) be treated with endovenous thermal ablation (laser or radiofrequency) or ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy to eliminate symptomatology (Recommendation Grade 1C).

Magnetic resonance venography to assess thrombus resolution with edoxaban monotherapy versus parenteral anticoagulation/warfarin for symptomatic deep vein thrombosis: A multicenter feasibility study.

The feasibility of magnetic resonance venography (MRV) for measuring change in thrombus volume with a novel anticoagulation regimen versus standard anticoagulation in patients with symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) has not been assessed. Our aim was to study the feasibility of MRV to measure change in thrombus volume in patients with acute symptomatic objectively confirmed proximal DVT in an open-label multicenter trial (edoxaban Thrombus Reduction Imaging Study, eTRIS). We randomized patients in a 2:1 allocation ratio to edoxaban 90 mg/day for 10 days followed by 60 mg/day versus parenteral anticoagulation bridging to warfarin for 3 months. The primary efficacy outcome was a surrogate end point of the relative change in MRV-quantified thrombus volume from baseline to Day 14-21. A total of 85 eligible patients from 26 study sites were randomized to edoxaban monotherapy (n=56) versus parenteral anticoagulation as a 'bridge' to warfarin (n=29). The mean relative change in MRV-quantified thrombus volume from baseline to Day 14-21 was similar in patients treated with edoxaban and parenteral anticoagulation as a 'bridge' to warfarin (-50.1% vs -58.9%; 95% confidence interval of treatment difference, -12.7%, 30.2%). However, thrombus extension was observed in eight patients in the edoxaban monotherapy group and in none in the warfarin group. Rates of recurrent venous thromboembolism (3.6% vs 3.6%, p=0.45) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (5.4% vs 7.1%, p=0.34) were also similar. No major bleeds occurred in either on-treatment group during the study period. In conclusion, MRV can assess change in thrombus volume in patients with acute DVT randomized to two different anticoagulant regimens.ClinicalTrials.gov IDENTIFIER NCT01662908: INVESTIGATIONAL NEW DRUG IND APPLICATION EDOXABAN IND # 63266.

The refluxing anterior accessory saphenous vein demonstrates similar clinical severity when compared to the refluxing great saphenous vein.

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare disease severity in subjects with anterior accessory saphenous vein versus great saphenous vein incompetence with an incompetent saphenofemoral junction. METHODS: Data were^ collected from 241 subjects and 290 limbs over a six-month period. These subjects were categorized into three groups with primary venous reflux disease, namely anterior accessory saphenous vein, great saphenous vein, and control. Statistical methods including descriptive statistics, student t-tests, and log linear modeling were employed to compare groups and determine predictive features out of the 41 demographic and disease-specific variables collected. RESULTS: Subjects in the anterior accessory saphenous vein group and those in the great saphenous vein group demonstrate statistically significant differences as compared to the control group with respect to the following disease-specific features: mean VCSS, presence of C2 and C3 disease. The anterior accessory saphenous vein group also showed statistically significant differences in gender compared to both great saphenous vein and control, as well as mean body mass index compared to the control. Log-linear modeling revealed equivalent disease severity when comparing patients with saphenofemoral junction reflux to the great saphenous vein or anterior accessory saphenous vein. CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of reflux from the saphenofemoral junction to either the anterior accessory saphenous vein or great saphenous vein possess similar disease severity and commonly suffer complications of venous stasis.

Thromboembolic complications of endovenous thermal ablation and foam sclerotherapy in the treatment of great saphenous vein insufficiency.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the incidence of venous thromboembolism following treatment of great saphenous insufficiency by endovenous thermal ablation or foam sclerotherapy using meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials and case series. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Clinical Trials Registry databases were searched from January 2000 through January 2013 for randomized controlled trials and large case series employing endovenous thermal ablation or foam sclerotherapy as a single modality for the treatment of great saphenous insufficiency, with concomitant postoperative duplex scanning. Pooled (stratified) incidence of venous thromboembolism with 95% confidence intervals was estimated using the DerSimonian­Laird procedure for random effects meta-analysis. A bootstrap analysis was performed to examine between-modality differences. RESULTS: Twelve randomized controlled trials and 19 case series investigating endovenous thermal ablation (radio frequency ablation with VNUS/Covidien ClosureFAST™ catheter only, endovenous laser ablation, or both) were included. Data from 12 randomized controlled trials and 6 case series investigating nonproprietary foam preparations were analyzed. Estimated incidence of venous thromboembolism was low (mostly <1%) and similar across treatment modalities and study types. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of great saphenous insufficiency by endovenous thermal ablation or foam sclerotherapy is a common vascular intervention. The stratified incidence of venous thromboembolism appears to be low as reported in both randomized controlled trials and case series investigating these modalities. Although duplex scans were obtained postoperatively, a minority of studies specified protocols for venous thromboembolism detection.

Chronic venous disorder registry: A new perspective.

Chronic venous disorder is one of the most prevalent medical conditions in the US that carries significant economic and health burden. The knowledge into venous pathophysiology, how it develops, and the true quality of life benefits of various treatment options are largely unknown. A truly meaningful clinical data capture system specifically for venous disorder may provide answers to the paucity of data. We describe a modern system to capture research and best practice data using the state of art information technology.