Deep venous reflux definitions and associated clinical and physiological significance

Clinical outcomes after treatment of incompetent saphenous vein combined with segmental popliteal vein reflux

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate whether differences exist in the quality of life changes and complication rates after treatment of incompetent saphenous vein (ISV) based on the presence of segmental popliteal vein reflux (SPVR).

METHODS

Patients who underwent treatment for ISV from July 2016 to July 2021 were included and divided into two groups: patients without deep venous reflux (DVR) and patients with SPVR. Patients with axial DVR, a history of deep vein thrombosis, a history of orthopedic surgery, previous venous treatment, and no postoperative follow-up were excluded from the study. Duplex ultrasound examination was performed preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

The study included 233 patients (398 limbs), and 50 (64 limbs) had SPVR. Differences were not observed in gender, age, body mass index, distribution of clinical class according to Clinical-Etiology-Anatomy-Physiology classification, laterality, treatment method, and preoperative Venous Clinical Severity Score or Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire scores between the two groups with SPVR or without DVR. Furthermore, the Venous Clinical Severity Score and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire scores at 6 and 12 months postoperatively were improved in both groups, although without significant differences. A significant difference was not observed in the rate of postoperative complications between the groups based on the presence of SPVR (1.8% vs 1.6%: P = .896). The SPVR improvement rate after ISV treatment was 25% (16/64), and patient-reported outcomes in patients combined with SPVR improved independent of treatment modality, saphenous vein treatment section, and postoperative SPVR improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Complication rates and clinical outcomes after ISV treatment did not differ in the presence of SPVR. In patients with SPVR, after ISV treatment, quality of life improved regardless of treatment modality, saphenous vein treatment section, and postoperative SPVR improvement.

Valvar bypass surgery to ameliorate persistent lower limb edema caused by post-thrombotic syndrome: a case report and literature review

Obstruction and/or reflux compromise during venous emptying can facilitate different pathophysiologies in chronic venous insufficiency (CVI). We present a patient with persistent lower limb CVI edema caused by post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), who responded well to femoral vein valve therapy via axillary vein bypass after unsuccessful valvuloplasty, and led a normal life. During a 12 month observation period, bridging vessels completely restored original anatomical structures. In a literature study, no similar surgeries were reported, but we show that this operation may be feasible in selected patients.

Superficial venous procedures can be performed safely and effectively in patients with deep venous reflux

BACKGROUND

The finding of concurrent deep venous reflux (DVR) when interrogating superficial venous reflux is common and might be a marker of more severe chronic venous insufficiency. However, the safety and clinical and patient-reported outcomes for patients undergoing superficial venous treatment in the presence of DVR remains underreported. Moreover, the factors associated with the persistence and disappearance of DVR after superficial vein treatment have not been evaluated. In the present study, we sought to address these questions.

METHODS

We performed a review of the institutional vascular quality initiative database from June 2016 to June 2021. Consecutive patient limbs were identified that had undergone a superficial venous intervention and had duplex ultrasound evaluations available. These patients were divided into those with and without DVR. Those with DVR were further reviewed for anatomic details and the persistence or resolution of DVR after the procedure. The primary outcome was the venous clinical severity score (VCSS) at a follow-up >3 months. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of any postoperative deep vein thrombosis or endovenous heat-induced thrombosis, differences in patient-reported outcomes, rate of resolution of DVR, and factors associated with DVR persistence. Both univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were applied.

RESULTS

Of the patients who had undergone superficial venous treatment, 644 patient limbs had had DVR and 7812 had not, for a prevalence of 7.6%. The DVR group was associated with a higher burden of chronic venous insufficiency. On univariate analysis, patient limbs, both with and without DVR, had improved significantly in the VCSS at <3 months of follow-up and were not significantly different. At >3 months of follow-up, the VCSS had again improved significantly compared with the VCSS at <3 months of follow-up. However, the difference between the two groups was statistically significant at the longer interval. The magnitude of improvement in the VCSS between the two groups at the longer follow-up were similar statistically (VCSS, 3.17 ± 3.11 vs 3.03 ± 2.93; P = .739). The HASTI (heaviness, achiness, swelling, throbbing, itching) score had similarly improved significantly in both groups but remained significantly higher in the DVR group during follow-up. On multivariate logistic regression, DVR was not associated with an increased VCSS at >3 months of follow-up. No intergroup difference was found in the incidence of postoperative deep vein thrombosis or endovenous heat-induced thrombosis. Of limbs with DVR, 40.8% no longer had evidence of detectable DVR at the latest follow-up venous duplex ultrasound, and DVR limited to a single segment was more likely than DVR in multiple segments to be no longer detectable.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results have shown that superficial venous procedures are safe and effective in patients with DVR, leading to improvements in clinical and patient-reported outcomes similar to those for patients without DVR. In a large proportion of the treated limbs, especially those with DVR in a single segment, no evidence of DVR was found after superficial venous intervention. Although patients with DVR will have a higher burden of chronic venous insufficiency, they still appear to derive significant benefit from superficial venous treatment.

Effect of concomitant deep venous reflux on truncal endovenous ablation outcomes in the Vascular Quality Initiative

OBJECTIVE

Few studies have investigated outcomes after truncal endovenous ablation in patients with combined deep and superficial reflux and no studies have evaluated patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

We investigated the short- and long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes among patients with and without deep venous reflux undergoing truncal endovenous ablation from 2015 to 2019 in the Vascular Quality Initiative. Preprocedural and postprocedural comparisons were performed using the t-test, χ², or their nonparametric counterpart when appropriate. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess for confounding.

RESULTS

A total of 4881 patients were included, of which 2254 (46.2%) had combined deep and superficial reflux. The median follow-up was 336.5 days. Patients with deep reflux were less likely to be female (65.9% vs 69.9%; P = .003), more likely to be Caucasian (90.2% vs 86.5%; P = .003) and had no difference in BMI (30.6 ± 7.5 vs 30.6 ± 7.2; P = .904). Additionally, no difference was seen in rates of prior varicose vein treatments, number of pregnancies, or history of deep venous thrombosis; however, patients without deep reflux were more likely to be on anticoagulation at the time of the procedure (10.9% vs 8.1%; P < .001). Patients without deep reflux had slightly higher median preprocedural Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) scores (8 [interquartile range (IQR), 6-10]) vs 7 [IQR, 6-10]; P = .005) as well as postprocedural VCSS scores (5 [IQR, 3-7] vs 4 [IQR, 2-6]; P < .001). The median change in VCSS from before to after the procedure was lower for patients without deep reflux (3 [IQR, 1.0-5.5] vs 3.5 [IQR, 1-6]; P = .006). Total symptom score was higher for patients without deep reflux both before (median, 14 [IQR, 10-19] vs median, 13.5 [IQR, 9.5-18]; P = .005) and postprocedurally (median, 4 [IQR, 1-9] vs median, 3.25 [IQR, 1-7]; P < .001), but no difference was seen in change in symptom score (median, 8 [IQR, 4-13] vs median, 9 [IQR, 4-13]; P = .172). Patients with deep reflux had substantially higher rates of complications (10.4% vs 3.0%; P < .001), with a particular increase in proximal thrombus extension (3.1% vs 1.1%; P < .001). After controlling for confounding, this estimate of effect size for any complication increased (odds ratio, 5.72; 95% confidence interval, 2.21-14.81; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference is seen in total symptom improvement when patients undergo truncal endovenous ablation with concomitant deep venous reflux, although a greater improvement was seen in VCSS score in these patients. Patients with deep venous reflux had a significantly increased rate of complications, independent of confounding variables, and should be counseled appropriately before the decision for treatment.

Ambulatory venous pressure, air plethysmography, and the role of calf venous pump in chronic venous disease

BACKGROUND

Ambulatory venous pressure (AMVP) records pressure dynamics with calf exercise. Air plethysmography (APG) measures related volume detail. APG has been suggested as a noninvasive surrogate for AMVP. We examine the correlations between APG and AMVP parameters and the role of "calf pump failure" in chronic venous disease (CVD).

METHODS

A total of 8456 limbs in 4610 patients investigated for CVD during a 20-year period were analyzed. APG and AMVP data were available in 4599 limbs for calculation of Pearson correlation coefficient; 1347 of these limbs had significant iliac vein stenosis, proven by intravascular ultrasound. Venn diagrams are used to explore overlapping incidence of APG and AMVP abnormalities.

RESULTS

APG calf volume and reflux (venous volume, venous filling index) showed progressively significant deterioration with advancing Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology (CEAP) clinical class, anatomic extent of reflux (superficial, deep, perforator), and reflux severity (axial reflux, segmental score). Notably, calf ejection volume increased in a nearly linear fashion (R = 0.71) to venous volume such that residual volume fraction (RVF) remained normal even in the worst of these categories. AMVP too progressively deteriorated with clinical disease and reflux severity. Venous filling time was the key parameter as the pressure drop alone was abnormal in only 4% of the limbs analyzed. There was no correlation between RVF and AMVP (R = 0.22) or between AMVP and many other APG parameters. Venn distribution showed only minor overlap (30%) between AMVP and key APG abnormalities overall, but the overlap increases from 40% to 70% in advanced clinical and reflux categories. AMVP was rarely abnormal (7%) when APG was normal. Median AMVP was normal in calf pump failure categories, however defined (subnormal ejection fraction, RVF, or both). Median AMVP is normal in venous obstruction without reflux, while AMVP abnormalities are associated three to seven times more with reflux than with obstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

APG (venous filling index) is a useful index of reflux. Calf pump ejection is a powerful and plastic compensatory mechanism, and calf pump failure is rare. Ambulatory venous hypertension is dominantly associated with reflux and less with obstruction. AMVP too worsens with clinical and reflux severity categories. However, there is little correlation between APG and AMVP parameters as APG measures volume and AMVP measures pressure, each in its own domain, and the volume-pressure curve is nonlinear. AMVP may be omitted in routine clinical testing if APG is normal, as the yield (7%) will be very low. AMVP reflects venous hypertension, the end stage in CVD. AMVP should be used to identify such cases when APG is abnormal.

The 2020 appropriate use criteria for chronic lower extremity venous disease of the American Venous Forum, the Society for Vascular Surgery, the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, and the Society of Interventional Radiology

BACKGROUND

Stimulated by published reports of potentially inappropriate application of venous procedures, the American Venous Forum and its Ethics Task Force in collaboration with multiple other professional societies including the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS), American Vein and Lymphatic Society (AVLS), and the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) developed the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for chronic lower extremity venous disease to provide clarity to the application of venous procedures, duplex ultrasound imaging, timing, and reimbursements.

METHODS

The AUC were developed using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, a validated method of developing appropriateness criteria in health care. By conducting a modified Delphi exercise and incorporating best available evidence and expert opinion, AUC were developed and scored.

RESULTS

There were 119 scenarios rated on a scale of 1 to 9 by an expert panel, with 1 being never appropriate and 9 being appropriate. The majority of scenarios consisted of symptomatic indications were deemed appropriate for venous intervention. For scenarios with anatomically short segments of reflux and/or no symptoms, the indications were rated less appropriate. For the indication of edema, a wide dispersion of ratings was observed especially for short segments of saphenous reflux or stenting for iliac/ inferior vena cava disease, noting that there are multifactorial causes of edema, some of which could coexist with venous disease and possibly impact effectiveness of treatment. Several scenarios were considered never appropriate, including treatment of saphenous veins with no reflux, iliac vein or inferior vena cava stenting for iliac vein compression as an incidental finding by imaging with minimal or no symptoms or signs, and incentivizing sonographers to find reflux.

CONCLUSIONS

The AUC statements are intended to serve as a guide to patient care, particularly in areas where high-quality evidence is lacking to aid clinicians in making day-to-day decisions for common venous interventions. This may also prove useful when applied on a population level, such as practice patterns, and not necessarily to dictate decision making for individual cases. As a product of a collaborative effort, it is hoped that this could be utilized by physicians and multiple stakeholders committed toward improving patient care and to identify and stimulate future research priorities.

Two divergent paths: compression vs. non-compression in deep venous thrombosis and post thrombotic syndrome

Use of compression therapy to reduce the incidence of postthrombotic syndrome among patients with deep venous thrombosis is a controversial subject and there is no consensus on use of elastic versus inelastic compression, or on the levels and duration of compression. Inelastic devices with a higher static stiffness index, combine relatively small and comfortable pressure at rest with pressure while standing strong enough to restore the "valve mechanism" generated by plantar flexion and dorsiflexion of the foot. Since the static stiffness index is dependent on the rigidity of the compression system and the muscle strength within the bandaged area, improvement of muscle mass with muscle-strengthening programs and endurance training should be encouraged. Therefore, in the acute phase of deep venous thrombosis events, anticoagulation combined with inelastic compression therapy can reduce the extension of the thrombus. Notwithstanding, prospective studies evaluating the effectiveness of inelastic therapy in deep venous thrombosis and post-thrombotic syndrome are needed.

The natural history of ultrasound-detected recurrence in the groin following saphenofemoral treatment for varicose veins

OBJECTIVE

This prospective study sought to track the natural history of duplex ultrasound (DUS) detected varicose vein recurrence in the groin after surgical intervention during a 5-year period.

METHODS

Patients were recruited from a previous prospective trial investigating outcomes after high ligation and stripping with and without patch saphenoplasty. Follow-up examinations of the lower limb venous systems using DUS, air plethysmography, and clinical assessment were carried out at 1, 6, 12, and 36 months. At 60 months, an additional detailed DUS scan of the groin was performed on those with recurrence, including vessel numbers, diameter, and reflux velocity, to characterize the state of this groin recurrence.

RESULTS

In the 130 limbs at 5 years, ultrasound groin recurrence was detected in 82%, and visible varicose veins occurred in 83% (108 limbs). In contrast, recurrence with severe varices occurred in 47% (61 limbs) as clinical recurrence (Venous Clinical Severity Score less the stocking component >3) in 22% (29 limbs) and functional recurrence (venous filling index >2 mL/s) in 34% (43/125 limbs). The DUS pattern was junctional in 29 limbs (22%), nonjunctional in 37 limbs (29%), and mixed pattern in 40 limbs (31%). Compared with the 24 (19%) with no ultrasound-detected recurrence, severe visible varicose veins were significantly more common with each of these patterns and especially with multiple connecting vessels (odds ratio, 5.4; confidence interval, 1.5-19.5). The diameter and velocity of reflux through recurrent vessels in the groin did not correlate with disease severity, and no DUS feature in the groin was predictive of Venous Clinical Severity Score >3 or a venous filling index >2 mL/s. The appearance of DUS recurrence within the first year and other features, including residual lower leg reflux, body mass index, gender, and previous treatment, were more consistent predictors.

CONCLUSIONS

Early ultrasound recurrence is predominantly evidence of neovascularization and some small-vessel remodeling at the site of treatment. When it occurs, some visible varicose veins are inevitable. However, these appearances alone are not good predictors of severe clinical recurrence.