ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Lower Extremity Chronic Venous Disease.

Lower extremity venous insufficiency is a chronic medical condition resulting from primary valvular incompetence or, less commonly, prior deep venous thrombosis or extrinsic venous obstruction. Lower extremity chronic venous disease has a high prevalence with a related socioeconomic burden. In the United States, over 11 million males and 22 million females 40 to 80 years of age have varicose veins, with over 2 million adults having advanced chronic venous disease. The high cost to the health care system is related to the recurrent nature of venous ulcerative disease, with total treatment costs estimated >$2.5 billion per year in the United States, with at least 20,556 individuals with newly diagnosed venous ulcers yearly. Various diagnostic and treatment strategies are in place for lower extremity chronic venous disease and are discussed in this document. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Diagnosis and Management of Pelvic Venous Disorders: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Pelvic venous disorders (PeVD), previously known by various imprecise terms including pelvic congestion syndrome, have historically been underdiagnosed as a cause of chronic pelvic pain (CPP), a significant health problem associated with reduced quality of life. However, progress in the field has helped to provide heightened clarity with respect to definitions relating to PeVD, and evolution in algorithms for PeVD workup and treatment has been accompanied by new insights into the causes of a pelvic venous reservoir and associated symptoms. Ovarian and pelvic vein embolization, as well as endovascular stenting of common iliac vein compression, should be considered as management options for PeVD. Both treatments have been shown to be safe and effective for patients with CPP of venous origin, regardless of age. Current therapeutic protocols for PeVD exhibit significant heterogeneity owing to limited prospective randomized data and evolving understanding of the factors driving successful outcomes; forthcoming clinical trials are anticipated to improve understanding of CPP of venous origin as well as algorithms for PeVD management. This Expert Panel Narrative Review provides a contemporary update relating to PeVD, summarizing the entity's current classification, diagnostic workup, endovascular treatments, management of persistent or recurrent symptoms, and future research directions.

Fake-news-free evidence-based communication for proper vein-lymphatic disease management.

Published scientific evidence demonstrate the current spread of healthcare misinformation in the most popular social networks and unofficial communication channels. Up to 40% of the medical websites were identified reporting inappropriate information, moreover being shared more than 450,000 times in a 5-year-time frame. The phenomenon is particularly spread in infective diseases medicine, oncology and cardiovascular medicine. The present document is the result of a scientific and educational endeavor by a worldwide group of top experts who selected and analyzed the major issues and related evidence-based facts on vein and lymphatic management. A section of this work is entirely dedicated to the patients and therefore written in layman terms, with the aim of improving public vein-lymphatic awareness. The part dedicated to the medical professionals includes a revision of the current literature, summing up the statements that are fully evidence-based in venous and lymphatic disease management, and suggesting future lines of research to fulfill the still unmet needs. The document has been written following an intense digital interaction among dedicated working groups, leading to an institutional project presentation during the Universal Expo in Dubai, in the occasion of the v-WINter 2022 meeting.

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.

Clinical Presentation and Evaluation of Pelvic Venous Disorders in Women.

The term pelvic venous disorders (PeVD) describes a group of related clinical entities with overlapping clinical presentations that were previously characterized by separate imprecise syndromic terminology. The clinical manifestations of PeVD may variously include chronic pelvic pain; pelvic origin extrapelvic lower extremity and genital varices; lower extremity pain and swelling; and left flank pain and hematuria. This manuscript focuses on the primary manifestations of PeVD in women - chronic pelvic pain and pelvic origin lower extremity and vulvar varices - and will review the underlying pathophysiology and related complicating factors (such as maladaptive pain responses) to explain the variety of clinical presentations.

Clinical Presentation, Patient Assessment, Anatomy, Pathophysiology, and Imaging of Pelvic Venous Disease.

Pelvic venous disorders (PeVDs) can result in several different clinical presentations, but can be challenging to distinguish from other etiologies of chronic pelvic pain (CPP). Clinical evaluation of CPP patients optimally should be performed in a multidisciplinary fashion and patients who may have PeVD should be referred for consultation with a vascular interventionalist whose evaluation would utilize an imaging workup to search for pelvic varices. Additionally, it is critical to quantify the quality-of-life effects of all CPP to determine the impact on the patient's overall health. Diagnostic imaging, including transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and venography, can be utilized to identify pelvic varices, as well as venous reflux and obstruction leading to CPP. The use of the SVP tool is important to classify PeVD patients based on their clinical symptoms, varicose veins, and pathophysiology for precise clinical communication and for reporting clinical research. The goal of this publication is to delineate the clinical presentation, anatomy, pathophysiology, and imaging evaluation of patients with CPP suspected of having PeVD.

The Symptoms-Varices-Pathophysiology classification of pelvic venous disorders: A report of the American Vein & Lymphatic Society International Working Group on Pelvic Venous Disorders.

[Box: see text]With the support of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Vein & Lymphatic Society, the American Venous Forum, the Canadian Society of Phlebology, the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society of Europe, the European Venous Forum, the International Pelvic Pain Society, the International Union of Phlebology, the Korean Society of Interventional Radiology, the Society of Interventional Radiology, and the Society for Vascular Surgery.

The Symptoms-Varices-Pathophysiology classification of pelvic venous disorders: A report of the American Vein & Lymphatic Society International Working Group on Pelvic Venous Disorders.

As the importance of pelvic venous disorders (PeVD) has been increasingly recognized, progress in the field has been limited by the lack of a valid and reliable classification instrument. Misleading historical nomenclature, such as the May-Thurner, pelvic congestion, and nutcracker syndromes, often fails to recognize the interrelationship of many pelvic symptoms and their underlying pathophysiology. Based on a perceived need, the American Vein and Lymphatic Society convened an international, multidisciplinary panel charged with the development of a discriminative classification instrument for PeVD. This instrument, the Symptoms-Varices-Pathophysiology ("SVP") classification for PeVD, includes three domains-Symptoms (S), Varices (V), and Pathophysiology (P), with the pathophysiology domain encompassing the Anatomic (A), Hemodynamic (H), and Etiologic (E) features of the patient's disease. An individual patient's classification is designated as SVPA,H,E. For patients with pelvic origin lower extremity signs or symptoms, the SVP instrument is complementary to and should be used in conjunction with the Clinical-Etiologic-Anatomic-Physiologic (CEAP) classification. The SVP instrument accurately defines the diverse patient populations with PeVD, an important step in improving clinical decision making, developing disease-specific outcome measures and identifying homogenous patient populations for clinical trials.

Diagnostic approach to lower limb edema.

Patients with lower limb edema are frequently referred to vascular specialists for evaluation. Multiple etiologies must be considered and often more than one cause may be present. Notably, the role of lymphatic system regardless of the underlying pathology has been underestimated. A thorough history and physical examination and a carefully considered laboratory and imaging evaluation are critical in differentiating causes. In this opinion article, we propose a diagnostic algorithm that incorporates a systematic approach to the patient with leg swelling and provides an efficient pathway for the differential diagnosis for this problem.

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.

Research Priorities in Pelvic Venous Disorders in Women: Recommendations from a Multidisciplinary Research Consensus Panel.

Pelvic venous disorders (PeVDs) in women can present with chronic pelvic pain, lower-extremity and vulvar varicosities, lower-extremity swelling and pain, and left-flank pain and hematuria. Multiple evidence gaps exist related to PeVDs with the consequence that nonvascular specialists rarely consider the diagnosis. Recognizing this, the Society of Interventional Radiology Foundation funded a Research Consensus Panel to prioritize a research agenda to address these gaps. This paper presents the proceedings and recommendations from that Panel.

Pelvic cardiovascular magnetic resonance venography: venous changes with patient position and hydration status.

BACKGROUND: To determine the effect of hydration as well as prone versus supine positioning on the pelvic veins during cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) venography. METHODS: Under institutional review board approval, 8 healthy subjects were imaged with balanced steady state free precession, non-contrast CMR venography to measure common and external iliac vein volumes and common femoral vein cross-sectional area in the supine, prone and decubitus positions after dehydration and again following re-hydration. CMR venography from 23 patients imaged both supine and prone were retrospectively reviewed and measurements of common femoral and iliac veins areas were compared using Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: Common femoral vein area on CMR venography increased with prone positioning (83 ± 35 mm2) compared to supine positioning (59 ± 21 mm2) (p = 0.02) and further increased with hydration to 123 ± 44 mm2 (p < 0.01). With right and left side down decubitus positioning, the common femoral vein area on dehydration increased from 29 ± 17 mm2 in the ante-dependent position to 134 ± 36 mm2 in the dependent position (p < 0. 001). Similarly, common and external iliac veins increased in volume with prone, 5.4 ± 1.9 cm3 and 5.8 ± 1.9 cm3 compared to supine positioning 4.6 ± 1.8 cm3 and 4.5 ± 1.9 cm3 (p = 0.01) and further increase with hydration to 6.7 ± 2.1 cm3 and 6.3 ± 1.9 cm3 (p = 0.01). CMR venography on patients also demonstrated an increase in mean common femoral vein luminal area from 103 ± 44 mm2 in supine position to 151 ± 52 mm2 with prone positioning (p < 0.001) as well as increases in common and external iliac vein volumes from 6.5 ± 2.6 cm3 and 8.0 ± 3.4 cm3 in the supine position to 7.5 ± 2.5 cm3 and 9.3 ± 3.6 cm3 with prone positioning (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Common femoral and common/external iliac vein size on CMR venography may be affected by position and hydration status. Routine clinical CMR venography of the pelvis could include prone positioning and avoiding dehydration to maximize pelvic vein distension.

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.

Screening for lower extremity venous disease.

Chronic venous disease (CVD) is frequently found in the general population. However, CVD is often overlooked by both healthcare providers and patients due to an underappreciation of the magnitude and impact of this condition. The importance of CVD relates to its prevalence, the natural history of the disease, and the socioeconomic impact of its manifestations. The aim of this article is to improve awareness of lower extremity venous disease and encourage screening to identify undiagnosed CVD and to identify patients at earlier stages of disease to prevent progression to more advanced states at the time of initial diagnosis.

Recurrence patterns after endovenous laser treatment of saphenous vein reflux.

INTRODUCTION: The patterns of recurrent varicose veins after endovascular ablation of the saphenous veins are not well described. METHODS: The current study describes the ultrasound defined recurrence patterns seen in 58 patients (79 limbs) who returned for evaluation of recurrent varicose veins from a cohort of 802 patients treated with endovenous laser ablation and subsequent sclerotherapy from March 2000 to March 2007 with clinical follow-up until May 2014. FINDINGS: The most common ultrasound defined recurrence patterns leading to the varicose veins were new reflux in the anterior accessory saphenous and small saphenous veins as well as recanalization of the treated saphenous segment. Neovascularization at the saphenofemoral junction and incompetent perforating veins as the source of the recurrent veins were not seen. CONCLUSIONS: The patterns of recurrence following thermal ablation of saphenous veins are different to those seen after surgery. Specifically, new reflux in other saphenous veins is responsible for most recurrent varicose veins and neovascularity seems to be unusual following endovenous laser ablation.