Faculty Bibliography

Background: Severe presentations of chronic venous insufficiency may result from reflux or obstruction at the deep venous, perforator or superficial venous levels. Iliofemoral venous stenting may be used to address central venous obstruction, but its effect on deep venous reflux remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of iliac vein stenting on femoropopliteal deep vein reflux with the hypothesis that sonographic evidence of deep vein reflux would remain absent or improve following iliac vein stenting.
Method(s): This study was a retrospective review of patients undergoing iliofemoral venous stenting from 2013-2020. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on the preprocedural presence (Group A) or absence (Group B) of femoropopliteal reflux. Baseline patient variables were collected including age, gender, CEAP, presence of concomitant superficial or perforator reflux, DVT history, and additional venous intervention(s). The primary outcome evaluated was the persistent absence or the resolution of deep vein reflux on the latest venous duplex ultrasound follow-up. Other outcomes included follow-up CEAP classification as well as need for secondary deep venous interventions.
Result(s): There were 275 consecutive patients who underwent iliofemoral venous stenting. Of those, 58 presented with deep vein reflux (Group A), and the remaining did not (Group B). When comparing Group A and Group B, patients in Group A had a higher likelihood of prior DVT (P =.0001) as well as higher frequency of venous ablation (Table). The remaining demographics did not differ significantly between the two groups. In Group A, deep vein reflux resolved in follow-up in 17/51 patients (P =.0001). In Group B, deep vein reflux developed on follow-up in 6/217 patients. CEAP appeared to improve from preintervention (C0, 1.1%; C1, 0.4%; C2, 1.8%; C3, 41.4%; C4, 24.9%; C5, 5.9%; and C6, 24.5%) to latest follow-up (C0, 4.9%; C1, 1.9%; C2, 5.7%; C3, 34.2%; C4, 22.8%; C5, 17.1%; and C6, 13.3%).
Conclusion(s): For patients who undergo iliofemoral vein stenting, deep vein reflux may improve if present initially, and is unlikely to develop if not present prior to intervention. A cohort of patients maintained persistent deep vein reflux, and these warrant further evaluation. Prospective studies are required to corroborate the safety, efficacy and durability of iliofemoral venous stenting in patients with deep vein reflux. [Formula presented]
Copyright

The American Venous Forum (AVF) and the Society for Vascular Surgery set forth these guidelines for the management of endothermal heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT). The guidelines serve to compile the body of literature on EHIT and to put forth evidence-based recommendations. The guidelines are divided into the following categories: classification of EHIT, risk factors and prevention, and treatment of EHIT. One major feature is to standardize the reporting under one classification system. The Kabnick and Lawrence classification systems are now combined into the AVF EHIT classification system. The novel classification system affords standardization in reporting but also allows continued combined evaluation with the current body of literature. Recommendations codify the use of duplex ultrasound for the diagnosis of EHIT. Risk factor assessments and methods of prevention including mechanical prophylaxis, chemical prophylaxis, and ablation distance are discussed. Treatment guidelines are tailored to the AVF EHIT class (ie, I, II, III, IV). Reference is made to the use of surveillance, antiplatelet therapy, and anticoagulants as deemed indicated, and the recommendations incorporate the use of the novel direct oral anticoagulants. Last, EHIT management as it relates to the great and small saphenous veins is discussed.

The American Venous Forum (AVF) and the Society for Vascular Surgery set forth these guidelines for the management of endothermal heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT). The guidelines serve to compile the body of literature on EHIT and to put forth evidence-based recommendations. The guidelines are divided into the following categories: classification of EHIT, risk factors and prevention, and treatment of EHIT.One major feature is to standardize the reporting under one classification system. The Kabnick and Lawrence classification systems are now combined into the AVF EHIT classification system. The novel classification system affords standardization in reporting but also allows continued combined evaluation with the current body of literature. Recommendations codify the use of duplex ultrasound for the diagnosis of EHIT. Risk factor assessments and methods of prevention including mechanical prophylaxis, chemical prophylaxis, and ablation distance are discussed.Treatment guidelines are tailored to the AVF EHIT class (ie, I, II, III, IV). Reference is made to the use of surveillance, antiplatelet therapy, and anticoagulants as deemed indicated, and the recommendations incorporate the use of the novel direct oral anticoagulants. Last, EHIT management as it relates to the great and small saphenous veins is discussed.

BACKGROUND:Treatment of pathologic perforator veins (PPVs) can shorten time to healing and reduce recurrence of ulcers in patients with advanced venous disease. Because of limited clinical evidence and device options, widespread adoption of PPV treatment is controversial. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endovenous laser therapy using a 400-μm optical fiber to treat PPVs. METHODS:This study was a single-arm, prospective, seven-center, nonblinded clinical study examining patients with advanced skin changes or healed or active ulceration (Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology clinical class C4b, C5, and C6). Patients received treatment with a 1470-nm laser. Procedural technical success and 10-day primary closure were evaluated. All device-related adverse events were reported. Follow-up of patients was continued for 12 months after initial ablation. RESULTS:The primary PPV closure (at 10-day visit) rate was 76.9% (95% confidence interval, 70.3%-82.4%). Successful primary closure rates of 75.7%, 70.3%, 62.1%, 68.8%, and 71.3% of PPVs were achieved at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months, respectively. Statistically significant improvements (P < .05) were seen in patients' quality of life at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months compared with screening. The percentage of patients with ulcers (22.9% at screening, 14.1% at 1 month, 13.7% at 3 months, 10.1% at 6 months, 12.3% at 9 months, and 11.1% at 12 months) displayed improvement during the course of the study. Tibial deep venous thrombosis and procedural pain were the only device-related adverse events observed. CONCLUSIONS:Endovenous laser therapy for PPV using the 400-μm optical fiber with the 1470-nm laser yielded safe and effective outcomes with no major adverse sequelae.

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Patients who present acutely with a femoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT) diagnosed by ultrasound are often treated with anticoagulation and instructed to follow-up electively. This study sought to assess whether obtaining axial imaging of the central venous system results in the identification of additional iliocaval pathology warranting treatment. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:This study was a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained registry from November 2014 through April 2017 with follow-up through March 2020. Consecutive patients with a diagnosis of femoral DVT diagnosed by ultrasound were evaluated; those who underwent axial imaging of the iliocaval system (Group A) were compared to those who did not undergo imaging of the central veins (Group B). The primary outcome was the performance of any percutaneous central venous intervention. Secondary outcomes included the extent of DVT identified on duplex and after axial imaging, follow-up duplex patency and persistence of severe symptoms. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Eighty patients presented with an ultrasound diagnosis of a femoral vein DVT. Mean follow-up was 551 ± 502 days. Group A comprised 24 patients (30%) and Group B comprised 56 patients (70%). Baseline demographics did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. After duplex imaging, Group A exhibited an increased prevalence of DVT in the common femoral vein. After central imaging, Group A exhibited an increased prevalence of DVT in the iliocaval veins. The number of patients who underwent invasive treatment differed significantly between the 2 groups, Group A 16/24 (67%) vs. Group B 9/56 (16%), P < 0.0001. The number of patients that demonstrated duplex patency and had persistent symptoms on follow-up did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Patients with an ultrasound diagnosis of femoral DVT may have additional iliocaval pathology warranting intervention. Well-selected imaging of the central veins may reveal a more complete picture, potentially altering management.

OBJECTIVE:To provide an evidence-based overview of endovenous laser ablation and describe its role as an effective and durable technique for the management of superficial venous insufficiency. METHODS:The published literature on the treatment of varicose veins using endovenous laser ablation was reviewed. The literature search focused on the history of endovenous laser ablation, its safety and durability, known complications, and differences in outcomes based on the iterations of fiber type and laser wavelength. RESULTS:Treatment safety and efficacy of endovenous laser ablation appear to be based on the amount of energy administered over a defined distance, or the linear endovenous energy density. The ideal linear endovenous energy density varies with the laser wavelength and fiber-type. Post-operative pain and bruising may be reduced by the use of higher wavelength fibers or the use of radial or jacket-tip fibers as compared to bare-tip fibers. The incidence of endothermal heat-induced thrombosis remains low and has declined with increasing experience. Reports have demonstrated a greater than 90% technical success rate with saphenous endovenous laser ablation, long-term durability of ablation, and commensurate improvement in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS:Endovenous laser ablation is a safe and durable treatment option for the management of incompetent superficial and perforator veins of the lower extremities. As an endothermal technology, it remains a key component of the standard of care for the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency.

OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, durability, and safety of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) of the great saphenous vein (GSV) and small saphenous vein (SSV) to treat symptomatic venous reflux in patients receiving therapeutic anticoagulation. METHODS:tests, Fisher exact test, Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox proportional hazard modeling. RESULTS:There were 100 procedures performed in 65 patients receiving anticoagulation and 127 procedures in 89 control patients. Mean follow-up time was 467 days. The most common indications for anticoagulation were atrial fibrillation (52%), remote DVT (29%), and mechanical heart valves (8%). Patients receiving anticoagulation were on average older (67 years vs 52 years), were more likely to be male (51% vs 27%), and had higher rates of coronary disease (9% vs 0%) and hypertension (55% vs 20%), although they were more likely to have never smoked (86% vs 69%). There were 127 RFA procedures (56%) and 100 EVLA procedures (44%); 189 procedures treated the GSV or its tributaries (83%), and 38 treated the SSV (17%). At 1 year, the target vessel remained ablated after 96% of procedures performed with anticoagulation and in 99% of controls; at 18 months, rates were 92% vs 95% (P = .96). Rates of persistent ablation did not differ significantly by vessel treated (P = .28), EVLA vs RFA (P = .36), or use of antiplatelet therapy (P = .92). One patient had bleeding from a phlebectomy site 2 days postprocedurally when supratherapeutic on warfarin; this was controlled with pressure. DVT in the ipsilateral leg occurred within 90 days after 1 of 100 (1%) procedures in patients receiving anticoagulation and 2 of 127 (1.6%) procedures in control patients; endothermal heat-induced thrombosis rates were similarly 1 of 100 (1%) procedures in patients receiving anticoagulation and 1 of 127 (0.8%) in control patients. CONCLUSIONS:This is the largest series to date reporting >30-day follow-up for patients undergoing venous ablation procedures while receiving anticoagulation and the longest follow-up reported of any series. Durability, safety, and efficacy of vein ablation in patients receiving anticoagulation are comparable to those in control patients. Anticoagulation should not be considered a contraindication to endothermal ablation of the GSV or SSV for symptomatic venous reflux.

Background: Validated diagnostic assessment tools such as the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) and the Clinical Etiologic Anatomic Pathophysiologic (CEAP) help determine how superficial venous disease impacts a patient. No single assessment tool provides accurate scoring for disease severity, and this is most clearly exemplified by the variability seen in C2 patient clinical presentations. This has resulted in inconsistent treatment algorithms, patient care, and payer reimbursement. The purpose of this study was to generate an algorithm that incorporates patient reported scores (VVSymQVR ) and physician reported scores (VCSS) in order to improve stratification for disease severity in C2 patients.
Method(s): Consecutive patients with symptomatic varicose veins were included. They were pooled from the VANISH-1 and VANISH-2 cohorts. VCSS and CEAP were calculated for each patient. Patients completed a 7-day electronic daily diary (VVSymQVR ) to capture the type and severity of symptoms, including-Heaviness, Achiness, Swelling, Throbbing, and Itching (HASTI). The relationship between the VCSS and VVSymQVR scores were evaluated using Pearson's correlation. Frequency distribution analysis was used to classify patients according to VCSS and VVSymQVR .
Result(s): Two-hundred ten patients were identified with C2 disease. Patient demographics were as follows: Female 73%; Age 50 years (mean). Scoring systems revealed VCSS: mean=6.32 (range 3-16); VVSymQVR : mean 8.72 (range 1.29-22.86]. A weak correlation was demonstrated between VCSS and VVSymQVR scores (r=0.22 and P=0.05). Figure 1 depicts the frequency distribution analysis: 61.4% of patients had low VVSymQVR and VCSS scores, indicative of mild symptomatology; 31.3% of patients had increased VCSS (range 7-9) and VVSymQVR scores (mean 10.7), indicative of daily symptoms of moderate severity; and an additional 7.3% of patients had VVSymQVR and VCSS scores that were inconsistent for patients with C2 disease.
Conclusion(s): These data highlight the utility of combining patient reported scores and physician reported scores in order to stratify for disease severity in patients with C2 disease. For patients with combined elevated VCSS (7-9) and VVSymQVR (>9) scores, moderate to severe disease severity is corroborated, and interventional treatment may be indicated. For patients who do not meet the combined criterion of the algorithm, the disease severity is likely mild and conservative therapy such as lifestyle modification and compliance with compression may be the more appropriate treatment. Further prospective evaluation correlated to patient outcomes will help to determine the efficacy of this approach