Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders 

About: Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders is an academic journal published by Elsevier BV. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Medicine & Varicose veins. It has an ISSN identifier of 2213-333X. Over the lifetime, 1663 publications have been published receiving 15974 citations.

The 2020 update of the CEAP classification system and reporting standards

Abstract: 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.

Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, foam sclerotherapy, and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins with 3-year follow-up.

Abstract: Introduction This study compares the outcome 3 years after treatment of varicose veins by endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation, ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), or surgery by assessing recurrence, Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), and quality of life (QOL). Methods A total of 500 patients (580 legs) were randomized to one of the three endovenous treatments or high ligation and stripping of the great saphenous vein (GSV). Follow-up included clinical and duplex ultrasound examinations and VCSS and QOL questionnaires. Kaplan-Meier (KM) life-table analysis was used. P values below .05 were considered statistically significant. Results At 3 years, eight (KM estimate, 7%), eight (KM estimate, 6.8%), 31 (KM estimate, 26.4%), and eight (KM estimate, 6.5%) of GSVs recanalized or had a failed stripping procedure (more than 10 cm open refluxing part of the treated GSV; CLF, EVLA, UGFS, and stripping, respectively; P < .01). Seventeen (KM estimate, 14.9%), 24 (KM estimate, 20%), 20 (KM estimate, 19.1%), and 22 (KM estimate, 20.2%) legs developed recurrent varicose veins (P = NS). The patterns of reflux and location of recurrent varicose veins were not different between the groups. Within 3 years after treatment, 12 (KM estimate, 11.1%), 14 (KM estimate, 12.5%), 37 (KM estimate, 31.6%), and 18 (KM estimate, 15.5%) legs were retreated in the CLF, EVLA, UGFS, and stripping groups, respectively (P < .01). VCSS, SF-36, and Aberdeen QOL scores improved significantly in all the groups with no difference between the groups. Conclusions All treatment modalities were efficacious and resulted in a similar improvement in VCSS and QOL. However, more recanalization and reoperations were seen after UGFS.

First human use of cyanoacrylate adhesive for treatment of saphenous vein incompetence.

Abstract: Objective The primary objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of an endovenous cyanoacrylate (CA) adhesive implant, delivered with a catheter-based administration system engineered with a nonstick surface, for the treatment of incompetent great saphenous veins (GSVs). The primary safety end point was the rate of serious adverse events related to the procedure. The primary efficacy end point was vein occlusion during follow-up. Secondary end points included the rate of all adverse events and the change in Venous Clinical Severity Scores (VCSSs). Methods Thirty-eight incompetent GSVs in 38 symptomatic patients were treated by catheter deployment of CA under ultrasound guidance via a repetitive bolus injection algorithm. By protocol design, perivenous tumescent anesthesia and compression stockings were omitted. Duplex ultrasound imaging and clinical follow-up were performed immediately after the procedure, at 48 hours, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Results The mean total volume of endovenous CA delivered was 1.3 ± 0.4 mL (range, 0.6-2.3 mL). Immediately after the procedure and at the 48-hour follow-up, the 38 patients (100%) demonstrated complete closure of the GSV. One complete and two partial recanalizations were observed during follow-up at 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively. Kaplan-Meier analysis yielded an occlusion rate of 92% at 12 months of follow-up. Side effects were generally mild and self-limited, most frequently, phlebitis in six patients (15.8%) requiring nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for an average of 5.7 days. Eight patients (21.1%) showed thread-like thrombus extensions into the common femoral vein of a mean length of 12.6 mm (range, 3.5-35 mm), which resolved spontaneously without anticoagulation. VCSS improved in all patients from a mean of 6.1 ± 2.7 at baseline to 1.5 ± 1.4 at 12 months (P Conclusions The first human use of endovenous CA for closure of insufficient GSVs proved to be feasible, safe, and effective. Endovenous delivery of CA may prove to be an alternative for the correction of saphenous incompetence and may be used without tumescent anesthesia and medical compression stockings.

Venography versus intravascular ultrasound for diagnosing and treating iliofemoral vein obstruction

Abstract: Objective The Venogram vs IVUS for Diagnosing Iliac vein Obstruction (VIDIO) trial was designed to compare the diagnostic efficacy of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) with multiplanar venography for iliofemoral vein obstruction. Methods During a 14-month period beginning July 2014, 100 patients with chronic Clinical, Etiologic, Anatomic, and Pathophysiologic clinical class C4 to C6 venous disease and suspected iliofemoral vein obstruction were enrolled at 11 U.S. and 3 European sites. The inferior vena cava and common iliac, external iliac, and common femoral veins were imaged. Venograms were measured for vein diameter; IVUS provided diameter and area measurements. Multiplanar venograms included three views: anteroposterior and 30-degree right and left anterior oblique views. A core laboratory evaluated the deidentified images, determining stenosis severity as the ratio between minimum luminal diameter and reference vessel diameter, minimal luminal area, and reference vessel area. A 50% diameter stenosis by venography and a 50% cross-sectional area reduction by IVUS were considered significant. Analyses assessed change in procedures performed on the basis of imaging method and concordance of measurements between each imaging method. Results Venography identified stenotic lesions in 51 of 100 subjects, whereas IVUS identified lesions in 81 of 100 subjects. Compared with IVUS, the diameter reduction was on average 11% less for venography ( P Conclusions IVUS is more sensitive for assessing treatable iliofemoral vein stenosis compared with multiplanar venography and frequently leads to revised treatment plans and the potential for improved clinical outcome.