The 2020 update of the CEAP classification system and reporting standards.

The CEAP (Clinical-Etiology-Anatomy-Pathophysiology) classification is an internationally accepted standard for describing patients with chronic venous disorders and it has been used for reporting clinical research findings in scientific journals. Developed in 1993, updated in 1996, and revised in 2004, CEAP is a classification system based on clinical manifestations of chronic venous disorders, on current understanding of the etiology, the involved anatomy, and the underlying venous pathology. As the evidence related to these aspects of venous disorders, and specifically of chronic venous diseases (CVD, C2-C6) continue to develop, the CEAP classification needs periodic analysis and revisions. In May of 2017, the American Venous Forum created a CEAP Task Force and charged it to critically analyze the current classification system and recommend revisions, where needed. Guided by four basic principles (preservation of the reproducibility of CEAP, compatibility with prior versions, evidence-based, and practical for clinical use), the Task Force has adopted the revised Delphi process and made several changes. These changes include adding Corona phlebectatica as the C4c clinical subclass, introducing the modifier "r" for recurrent varicose veins and recurrent venous ulcers, and replacing numeric descriptions of the venous segments by their common abbreviations. This report describes all these revisions and the rationale for making these changes.

What is the definition of successful lysis: reporting standard?

Deep vein thrombosis, and the resultant development of post-thrombotic syndrome, is a significant health issue. Recent evidence demonstrates that the severity of post-thrombotic syndrome symptoms is directly related to the level of venous thrombosis and following treatment these subsequent symptoms are inversely related to the degree of thrombus removal. If we can improve, and preferably standardise the terminology associated with pre-treatment assessment of thrombus load and post-treatment success of thrombus removal techniques, we should then be able to choose more tailor-made techniques to greater benefit our patients. A number of scoring systems have been devised for the assessment of venous thrombus burden, with a majority impractical for everyday usage. In order to provide a more practical solution, the lower extremity thrombosis classification has been developed, using information on anatomical location for venous thrombus combined with a clinical indicator as to the likely sequelae. Anatomical success following venous thrombolysis can be defined by assessing restoration of anterograde flow in the treated vein or the percentage degree of thrombolysis, using venography. The second option is the method most frequently utilised, with the Venous Registry grading system applied. Data from recent trials have given us conflicting and confusing data mainly because we are not using standardised terminology. We urgently need to agree on a standard method of description of thrombus removal before stent placement which also incorporates the likely clinical impact of the area involved in the thrombosis.

Validation of the LET classification.

INTRODUCTION: Acute thrombus removal therapies may reduce post-thrombotic syndrome in certain deep venous thrombosis patients. The LET classification is designed to identify patients at high risk for developing post-thrombotic syndrome in the acute phase using thrombus location and extent. This study evaluates the use of the LET classification to predict post-thrombotic syndrome in a cohort of patients after deep venous thrombosis. METHODS: A cohort of 660 deep venous thrombosis patients was invited to participate and fill out a questionnaire with Quality of life questionnaires, basic information, a modified self-assessment version of the Villalta scale for post-thrombotic syndrome and potential confounders. Original data on thrombus extension was available, and the LET classes were determined. Obtained information was analysed using ANOVA and in a multiple logistic regression model to correct for confounders. All different LET classes were compared to post-thrombotic syndrome occurrence, post-thrombotic syndrome prediction and disease specific quality of life scores (VEINES-Sym/Qol). RESULTS: Three hundred and fifteen patients responded, and in 309 a post-thrombotic syndrome score was distilled. LET I,II,III (n = 63) had an odds ratio of 3.4(1.2-9.2) for predicting severe post-thrombotic syndrome, and LET II (n = 17) had an odds ratio of 5.1(1.3-20.8) compared to LET class I (n = 97). Both the VEINES-Sym and VEINES-Qol score were significantly lower for LET I,II,III compared to LET I, and LET II compared to LET I. CONCLUSION: The LET classification can be used to classify patients according to acute thrombus location and extent. Extensive and centrally located (LET I,II,III) deep venous thrombosis showed the highest probability in developing severe post-thrombotic syndrome and lower disease specific quality of life.

Scoring systems for the post-thrombotic syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To assess each of the scoring systems used to diagnose and classify post-thrombotic syndrome, a common chronic complication of deep vein thrombosis. The design of the study was a systematic review of the literature pertaining to post-thrombotic syndrome. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines by a search of PubMed (1948 to September 2011) using the search terms "post-thrombotic syndrome," "postthrombotic syndrome," "post-phlebitic syndrome," and "postphlebitic syndrome." A manual reference list search was also carried out to identify further studies that would be appropriate for inclusion. The various scoring systems in use were identified and assessed against a list of criteria to determine their validity for use. For outcome measures, each scoring system was assessed for specific criteria, including interobserver reliability, association with ambulatory venous pressures, ability to assess severity of post-thrombotic syndrome, ability to assess change in condition over time, and association with patient-reported symptom severity. RESULTS: The Villalta, Ginsberg, Brandjes, Widmer, CEAP, and Venous Clinical Severity Score systems all were assessed for the stated outcome measures. From their use in the literature, only the Villalta score was able to fulfill all the criteria described. The main criticism of the Villalta score in the literature appears to be its use of subjective measures. To that end, we propose that use of a venous disease-specific quality-of-life questionnaire in combination with the Villalta score may help standardize the subjective criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The Villalta score, combined with a venous disease-specific quality-of-life questionnaire, should be considered the "gold standard" for the diagnosis and classification of post-thrombotic syndrome.

What do we know of post-thrombotic syndrome? Current status of post-thrombotic syndrome in adults.

The post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a common but not completely understood and rarely studied sequela of an acute deep vein thrombosis. The influence of several risk factors on the incidence or severity of PTS is controversial. The therapeutic options for PTS are still limited. Appropriate medical compression stockings can reduce the incidence (-50 %) as well as the severity of PTS. In the case of severe, symptomatic PTS, they should be worn lifelong. As PTS is a chronic and often progressive disease, patients need regular clinical follow-up and encouragement to continuously wear their compression therapy. New strategies for treating PTS are needed.

Updated terminology of chronic venous disorders: the VEIN-TERM transatlantic interdisciplinary consensus document.

Non-uniform terminology in the world's venous literature has continued to pose a significant hindrance to the dissemination of knowledge regarding the management of chronic venous disorders. This VEIN-TERM consensus document was developed by a transatlantic interdisciplinary faculty of experts under the auspices of the American Venous Forum (AVF), the European Venous Forum (EVF), the International Union of Phlebology (IUP), the American College of Phlebology (ACP), and the International Union of Angiology (IUA). It provides recommendations for fundamental venous terminology, focusing on terms that were identified as creating interpretive problems, with the intent of promoting the use of a common scientific language in the investigation and management of chronic venous disorders. The VEIN-TERM consensus document is intended to augment previous transatlantic/international interdisciplinary efforts in standardizing venous nomenclature which are referenced in this article.