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.

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.

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.