Impact of lymphedema in the management of venous leg ulcers

INTRODUCTION

Lymphedema (LED) in patients with venous leg ulcers (VLU) [VLU+LED] can impair ulcer healing and predispose to cellulitis. There is little data, however, demonstrating how lymphatic dysfunction may impact the clinical course, treatment, and healthcare expenditures for VLU+LED versus VLU-LED patients.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how lymphatic dysfunction might influence treatment and expenditures among VLU patients in a large deidentified healthcare claims database.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort design and data from the IBM MarketScan Database (April 2013 to March 2019) were employed. Study population comprised VLU patients, and was stratified into two subgroups: VLU+LED (index date = date of first LED diagnosis) and VLU-LED (index dates randomly assigned to match distribution of index dates for VLU+LED). Within each subgroup, patients with <1 year of healthcare claims information before and after their index dates were excluded. Demographics, comorbidities, procedures/treatments, as well as all-cause post-index medical resource utilization and expenditures ($/patient/year) of the two groups were compared. Stabilized inverse probability treatment weights (IPTWs) were employed to adjust for differences between groups in baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 5466 VLU patients were identified (VLU+LED: N = 299; VLU-LED: N = 5167). Overall ambulatory encounters (AMB ENC) and their components were higher in VLU+LED, which were reflected in increased expenditures for this group (Table 1). Treatment with endovenous ablation (EVA) or stenting for venous hypertension as well as for specific measures for LED were higher in the 1-year post-index period for VLU+LED. The use of LED specific therapy was low for both groups, but a greater percentage of VLU+LED patients received therapy, which was predominantly manual lymphatic drainage (17.4%) rather than pneumatic compression (10.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical presence of LED in patients with VLU is a marker for a more complex disease process with more episodes of cellulitis and expenditures, but a surprisingly low specific treatment for LED.

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.