Effect of left renal vein compression stenosis on functional status of left kidney in patients with pelvic venous disorders.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effect of left renal vein (LRV) compression stenosis on the functional state of the left kidney in patients with pelvic venous disorders (PeVDs). METHODS: We examined 162 female patients with PeVD and diagnosed LVR compression stenosis using duplex ultrasound (DUS) in 40. Patients with clinical manifestations of PeVD (n = 26) had symptoms and signs of pelvic venous congestion but without pain in the left flank of the abdomen, typical for nutcracker syndrome (NS). The remaining patients were asymptomatic (n = 14). The parameters measured with DUS included the angle of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) with the aorta, the LRV diameter (Dhilum/Dstenosis) ratio, and LRV velocity (Vstenosis/Vhilum) ratio. All the patients underwent laboratory testing (complete blood count, urinalysis, and biochemical blood testing) and dynamic renal scintigraphy to assess the secretory and evacuation functions of the renal tubular system. RESULTS: The laboratory tests revealed no abnormalities, including no hematuria or proteinuria, in either group. The Dhilum/Dstenosis and Vstenosis/Vhilum ratios varied from 2.8 to 5.2 and from 2.9 to 8.3, respectively, and did not differ between the symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. All 40 patients with LRV compression stenosis were diagnosed with left gonadal vein reflux with a mean duration of 4.7 ± 0.6 seconds and 2.2 ± 0.6 seconds in the symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, respectively (P = .005). Eight patients had signs of NS on DUS, including five in the symptomatic group (SMA angle, 34.8° ± 2.7°; Dhilum/Dstenosis ratio, 5.2 ± 0.2; and Vstenosis/Vhilum ratio, 5.7 ± 0.4) and three in the asymptomatic group (SMA angle, 35° ± 2.8°; Dhilum/Dstenosis ratio, 5; and Vstenosis/Vhilum ratio, 5 ± 0.5). The groups did not differ significantly in the DUS parameters. Scintigraphy did not reveal any cases of secretory or evacuation dysfunction of the left kidney, including in the patients with DUS signs of NS. The maximum uptake time, elimination half-life, and effective renal plasma flow were within the normal ranges. CONCLUSIONS: LRV compression stenosis without hematuria has no significant effects on the functional state of the left kidney, irrespective of the disease severity. In patients with PeVDs, dynamic renal scintigraphy provides an objective assessment of left kidney function.

Hemodynamic and neurobiological factors for the development of chronic pelvic pain in patients with pelvic venous disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The study was aimed at the identification of hemodynamic and neurobiological factors for the development of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in patients with pelvic venous disorder (PeVD) using ultrasound, radionuclide, and enzyme immunoassay methods. METHODS: This cohort study included 110 consecutive patients with PeVD and 20 healthy controls. Seventy patients with PeVD had symptoms (CPP in 100% of cases, discomfort in hypogastrium, dyspareunia, vulvar varices, and dysuria), and 40 were asymptomatic. Patients underwent clinical examination, duplex ultrasound study of the pelvic veins and lower extremities, and single-photon emission computed tomography of the pelvic veins with in vivo labeled red blood cells. The prevalence, duration, severity, and pattern of reflux in the pelvic veins, as well as the severity of pelvic venous congestion, were evaluated. Healthy controls underwent only clinical and duplex ultrasound examination. All 130 patients were assessed using enzyme immunoassays to determine plasma levels of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and substance P (SP). RESULTS: Symptomatic patients with PeVD had a higher prevalence of reflux in the ovarian veins (OVs) than asymptomatic ones (45.7% vs 10%, respectively; P = .001) and a greater reflux duration (4.1 ± 1.7 seconds vs 1.4 ± 0.3 seconds; P = .002), although no differences in the OV diameter were found. Similar results were obtained when comparing the diameters of the parametrial veins (PVs) and the duration of reflux in them. Type II/III reflux (greater than 2 seconds) was identified in 41.4% of symptomatic and in only 5% of asymptomatic patients (P = .001). Among patients with CPP, 24.2% had a combined reflux in the OVs, PVs, and uterine veins, and 45.7% had a combined reflux in the OVs and PVs, whereas 90% of patients without CPP had only an isolated reflux in the PVs. The pelvic venous congestion was moderate or severe in 95.7% of patients with CPP and in only 15% patients without CPP (P = .001). In patients with PeVD, the presence of CPP was associated with higher levels of CGRP and SP compared with asymptomatic patients (CGRP: 0.48 ± 0.06 vs 0.19 ± 0.02 ng/mL, respectively, P = .001; SP: 0.38 ± 0.08 vs 0.13 ± 0.03 ng/mL, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with PeVD, significant hemodynamic and neurobiological factors for the CPP development were found to be reflux in the pelvic veins greater than 2 seconds, involvement of several venous collectors, and increased plasma levels of CGRP and SP.

Venous Thromboembolism After Interventions on the Ovarian Veins in Patients With Pelvic Venous Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian vein resection (OVR) and ovarian vein embolization (OVE) are effective options for treating patients with pelvic venous disorder (PeVD). However, due to in an abrupt cessation of blood flow in the ovarian veins (OVs), these interventions can be complicated by pelvic vein thrombosis (PVT). The aim of this study was to assess venous thromboembolism (VTE) rates after OVR and OVE in patients with PeVD. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 272 patients with PeVD who underwent OVR (n = 122) or OVE with coils (n = 150). The rates and clinical manifestations of VTE were assessed in each group on days 1 and 3 after the intervention using duplex ultrasonography. Vein patency, blood flow velocity, and localization of thrombi in the pelvic (parametrial, uterine, and ovarian), iliac, superficial, and deep veins of the lower extremities were examined. PVT was defined as the formation of blood clots in nontarget (i.e. not intended to intervention) veins of the pelvis (parametrial, uterine veins, or tributaries of the internal iliac veins). RESULTS: VTE after OVR and OVE was identified in 52 (19%) out of 272 patients. In the OVR group, PVT and calf deep vein thrombosis were detected in 9% and 1% of patients, accordingly, while in the OVE group their rates were almost three times higher (24% and 3%; both P = 0.001). In both groups, the most common VTE was PVT. The odds ratio for developing VTE with coils was 10 times higher (95% confidence interval: 2.35-56.43) after OVE than after OVR. Clinical manifestations of PVT were observed in 2.5% of patients, and the rest patients were asymptomatic. No cases of pulmonary embolism occurred. CONCLUSIONS: VTE after interventions of the ovarian vein in patients with PeVD occurs in every fifth patient. OVE is associated with a higher incidence of PVT.

Use of a novel Likert scale instrument to assess patient satisfaction following endovascular and surgical treatment of pelvic venous disorders.

OBJECTIVE: The study was aimed at assessing satisfaction with endovascular and surgical treatment, using a novel Likert scale procedure satisfaction instrument, in patients with pelvic venous disorder (PeVD) caused by the gonadal vein reflux. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 100 women with PeVD who underwent gonadal veins embolization with coils (GVE group, n = 71) or gonadal veins endoscopic resection (GVR group, n = 29) in 2012-2020. The GVE was performed under local anesthesia and sedation, and was left-sided in 61, right-sided in three, and bilateral in seven patients. The GVR was performed under general anesthesia through transperitoneal (n = 19) or retroperitoneal (n = 10) access with three access ports in both cases. The GVR was left-sided in 19, right-sided in one, and bilateral in nine patients. To assess satisfaction with GVE and GVR treatment of PeVD, patients were asked to evaluate statements related to their experience using a new Likert scale instrument. The responses for each item were compared between the groups at Day 7 (D7) and at Month 6 (M6) after the procedure, as was a summary score of all the responses at both time points. The summary score allowed categorization on a spectrum from "completely satisfied" to "completely dissatisfied." RESULTS: The comparison between GVЕ and GVR groups at D7 showed that 80% and 100% of patients, accordingly, reported the overall summary satisfaction, 49% and 79% agreed with a complete pelvic pain relief by D7, 79% and 0% agreed with the absence of a significant discomfort during the first postoperative day, 71% and 100% reported no need for analgesics to relief pain in the assess area, 80% and 100% reported fast return to daily activity, and 19.7% and 100% still experienced pelvic pain at D7 (pain in the GVR group was more severe and required the use of analgesics) (all p < .05). At the same time, 94% and 96% patients were satisfied with the aesthetic result of the procedure at D7 (p = n.s.). The comparison between GVЕ and GVR groups at M6 showed that 100% of patients in both groups reported overall satisfaction with treatment (p = n.s.), 96% and 100% confirmed a complete pelvic pain relief by M6, 79% and 65% agreed with the absence of a significant discomfort after the procedure, 79% and 65% reported no need for analgesics, 83% and 100% reported about the return to daily activity (all p < .05), and 100% in both groups were satisfied with the aesthetic result of the procedure (p = n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with PeVD, both GVE and GVR are associated with a high, although not significantly different, overall treatment satisfaction in the long term and have advantages and disadvantages. GVE is associated with less severe post-procedural pain, while GVR provides faster relief of pelvic pain and a return to usual daily activity.

Stratification of pelvic venous reflux in patients with pelvic varicose veins.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the association between the pattern and duration of pelvic venous reflux (PVR) and pelvic pain severity in patients with pelvic varicose veins (PVVs). METHODS: The present retrospective study included 600 female patients with PVVs. Of the 600 patients, 453 had had PVVs and pelvic congestion syndrome (group 1) and 147 had had an asymptomatic disease course (group 2). Pelvic venous pain (PVP) was assessed using a visual analog scale. All the patients had undergone duplex ultrasound of the left and right renal veins, external, internal, and common iliac veins, and parametrial, uterine, gonadal, and vulvar veins (PV, UV, GV, and VV, respectively), with an assessment of their patency and diameter and the presence and duration of reflux. Reflux in the pelvic veins was considered pathologic if it lasted for >1 second. RESULTS: In group 1, PVR type I (1-2 seconds), II (3-5 seconds), and III (>5 seconds or spontaneous reflux in the absence of a loading test) was found in 31%, 58%, and 11% of the patients, respectively. Moderate and severe reflux (types II and III) was associated with severe PVP (mean score, 8.3 ± 0.5) in 69% of the group 1 patients. A combination of reflux in the GV, PV, UV, and internal iliac vein was associated with severe PVP (mean score, 8.1 ± 0.3) in 51% of these patients. A combination of reflux in the PVs, UVs, and VVs was associated with moderate pain (mean score, 5.3 ± 0.2) in 49.2% of group 1. In group 2, PVR type I, II, and III was present in 95%, 4%, and 1% of the patients, respectively, and was observed in the PV only in patients with type I; in the GVs, PVs, UVs, and internal iliac veins in those with type II; and in the PVs and GVs in the patients with type III reflux. Reflux in the GVs and UVs was significantly more prevalent in group 1 than in group 2 (GVs, 51% vs 6%; P = .0001; UVs, 57% vs 7%; P = .0001). A combination of reflux in the GVs and UVs was a predictor of severe PVVs (odds ratio, 19.7; 95% confidence interval, 11.3-34.6). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with PVVs, the presence and severity of pelvic pain will be determined by the type of PVR and its distribution in the pelvic veins. The combination of moderate to severe reflux (types II and III) in the PVs, UVs, and GVs was a predictor of severe PVP. Patients with asymptomatic PVVs were characterized by mild reflux (type I) in the PVs, with rare involvement of the GVs and UVs.

Efficacy of two micronized purified flavonoid fraction dosing regimens in the pelvic venous pain relief.

BACKGROUND: The venoactive drug treatment regimen for pelvic venous disorders (PeVDs) is not finally established. The study aimed at assessing the efficacy of micronized purified flavonoid fraction (MPFF) in a standard or double dose in the pelvic venous pain (PVP) relief in PeVD. METHODS: We analyzed the treatment efficacy in 125 female patients with PeVD, who were allocated to two groups with MPFF treatment in a regular dose of 1000 mg once daily (OD) for 2 months (N.=65; group 1) or double dose of 1000 mg twice daily for 1 month and then 1000 mg OD for 1 month (N.=60; group 2). Patients underwent clinical examination along with an assessment of the PVP severity using the visual analogue scale (VAS) ranged from 0 to 10 scores, transvaginal and transabdominal duplex ultrasound scanning (DUS), and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) of the pelvic veins with in vivo-labelled red blood cells (RBCs). The groups were different at baseline in the PVP severity (3.4±1.2 vs. 7.3±0.5 scores in groups 1 and 2, accordingly; P=0.012). DUS and SPECT were used to evaluate diameters of gonadal, parametrial, and uterine veins, to assess the presence of reflux in them, to measure blood flow velocity in the internal iliac veins (Vlin IIV), and to calculate the coefficient of pelvic venous congestion (CPVC). RESULTS: The treatment was associated with a significant reduction in the PVP score from 3.4±1.2 to 1.2±0.2 (P=0.03) when using the standard dose for 2 months and from 7.3±0.5 to 0.8±0.1 (P=0.001) when using the double dose in the 1st month. The PVP relief was achieved on average after 13.7±0.6 and 3.1±0.8 days in groups 1 and 2, accordingly (P=0.0001 between the groups). At month 2, the CPVC reduction was found to be significantly greater in group 2 compared to group 1 (46.6% vs. 25%; P=0.018). Side effects (gastralgia, flatulence) were reported by only 2 (3.3%) patients of group 2. CONCLUSIONS: The venoactive drug therapy with MPFF is an effective and safe option for the PVP relief in female patients with PeVD. The use of double dose in the 1st month seems to be appropriate in patients with greater PVP severity but is associated with an increased rate of side effects.