Phlebology: The Journal of Venous Disease

Catheter-directed thrombolysis for deep venous thrombosis is considered the basic treatment modality for intrathrombus removal. This method is preferably used in patients with iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis due to poor spontaneous recanalization in this segment, especially on the left side. The method was published almost 25 years ago and has gained ground in the treatment because of poor results from systemic thrombolysis and because of the possibility of stenting any underlying iliac obstruction during the procedure. However, the publications of catheter-directed thrombolysis reveal a great heterogeneity concerning catheter-directed thrombolysis technique and the lack of high quality evidence about monitoring as a tool to minimize the risk of bleeding and pulmonary embolism. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, correct composition and infusion of thrombolysis agent, imaging thrombus clearance during catheter-directed thrombolysis, ensuring flow enhancement during the bedridden situation, careful evaluation of indication for stenting based on imaging, and sufficient conversion to anticoagulation treatment following catheter-directed thrombolysis are essential. The aim of this paper is to discuss different treatment aspects of catheter-directed thrombolysis for iliofemoral thrombosis and to suggest a monitoring model for future treatment.

The treatment of acute deep vein thrombosis has developed significantly over the past few years, and catheter-directed thrombolysis is now widely accepted. Controversy still exists over the decision to treat residual or underlying lesions with a venous stent. Magnetic resonance techniques have evolved considerably, which together with intravenous ultrasound can provide a detailed assessment of the deep venous system. Nevertheless, there is still no single perfect imaging modality that can identify a functional stenosis in the venous system. The decision to proceed to stent placement following lysis is multifactorial, reliant on the use of a number of imaging modalities in combination but most importantly good clinical acumen and experience.

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.

Approximately 10% of all cases of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) occur in the upper extremities. The most common secondary cause of upper-extremity DVT (UEDVT) is the presence of a venous catheter. Primary UEDVT is far less common and usually occurs in patients with anatomic abnormalities of the costoclavicular space causing compression of the subclavian vein, called venous thoracic outlet syndrome (VTOS). Subsequently, movement of the arm results in repetitive microtrauma to the vein and its surrounding structures causing apparent ‘spontaneous’ thrombosis, or Paget-Schrötter syndrome. Treatment of UEDVT aims at elimination of the thrombus, thereby relieving acute symptoms, and preventing recurrence. Initial management for all UEDVT patients consists of anticoagulant therapy. In patients with Paget-Schrötter syndrome the underlying VTOS necessitates a more aggressive management strategy. Several therapeutic options exist, including catheter-directed thrombolysis, surgical decompression through first rib resection, and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of the vein. However, several controversies exist regarding their indication and timing.

Chronic upper extremity venous outflow occlusion (UEVOO) occurs frequently among hospitalized patients as a result of various anatomical or pathological etiologies. This includes venous thoracic outlet syndrome, catheter-related injury, malignancy, and hypercoagulable states. While open surgical and endovascular therapies have increasingly been utilized in managing UEVOO, many patients can still be successfully managed with non-invasive therapies. In this review, we will discuss how conservative measures such as anticoagulation and compression therapy can be applied to different causes of UEVOO. The optimal treatment of patients with chronic upper extremity occlusion can be accomplished by deciding which patients will be most likely to benefit from conservative management.

Compression therapy, prescribed as elastic compression stockings, is the cornerstone in the management of post-thrombotic syndrome. The effectiveness of elastic compression stockings has recently been called into question in a large randomized placebo-controlled trial. The findings however may be less contradictory than assumed and presented. The mechanistic substrate for the effectiveness of compression therapy is based on its ability to counteract venous hypertension, which is a central aspect in the pathophysiology of post-thrombotic syndrome. Nevertheless, despite elastic compression stockings a significant percentage (20–50%) of patients develops post-thrombotic syndrome, suggesting that there are other factors to be considered next to compression. Every patient has an individual baseline risk value, constituted of non-modifiable and modifiable risk factors (i.e. age, sex, bodyweight etcetera). Straining patients at risk is therefore crucial. Exploring additional or alternative forms of therapy is desirable as well since these are in addition to the risk factors, costs aspects and quality of life, puzzle pieces in the management of post-thrombotic syndrome, which once pieced together enables multifactorial yet individualized therapy.

The postthrombotic syndrome counts as a frequent long-term complication after deep vein thrombosis with approximately 20%–50% of affected patients after deep vein thrombosis. The earliest that diagnosis of postthrombotic syndrome can be made is 6 months after deep vein thrombosis. Most patients suffer from swelling and chronic pain. In all, 5%–10% of patients may even develop venous ulcers. The complex etiology consists of limited venous drainage because of chronic occlusions and secondary insufficiencies of venous valves inducing non-physiological venous reflux. Conservative management, first of all compression therapy, is of crucial importance in treatment of postthrombotic syndrome. Endovascular and open surgical techniques can additionally be used in a small subgroup of patients. Although rarely performed, this article illuminates the open surgical techniques in treatment of postthrombotic syndrome such as venous bypass surgery, valve repair and varicose vein surgery.

Venous leg ulcer (VLU) is one of the most common lower extremity ulcerated wound, and is a significant healthcare problem with implications that affect social, economic, and the well-being of a patient. VLU can have debilitating related problems which require weekly medical care and may take months to years to heal. The pathophysiology of VLU is complex, and healing is delayed in many patients due to a persistent inflammatory condition. Patient genetic and environmental factors predispose individuals to chronic venous diseases including VLU. Changes in shear stress affecting the glycocalyx are likely initiating events, leading to activation of adhesion molecules on endothelial cells, and leukocyte activation with attachment and migration into vein wall, microcirculation, and in the interstitial space. Multiple chemokines, cytokines, growth factors, proteases and matrix metalloproteinases are produced. The pathology of VLU involves an imbalance of inflammation, inflammatory modulators, oxidative stress, and proteinase activity. Understanding the cellular and biochemical events that lead to the progression of VLU is critical. With further understanding of inflammatory pathways and potential mechanisms, certain biomarkers could be revealed and studied as both involvement in the pathophysiology of VLU but also as therapeutic targets for VLU healing.

Compression therapy and treating venous insufficiency is the standard of care for venous leg ulcers. The need for debridement on healing venous leg ulcers is still debated. Dressings are often used under compression bandages to promote faster healing and prevent adherence of the bandage to the ulcer. A wide range of dressings is available, including modern dressings with different kinds of biological activity. Microbial burden is believed to underlie delayed healing, but the exact role of microbiofilm in wound healing is uncertain. Before choosing a specific wound dressing, four main functions should be considered: (1) cleaning, (2) absorbing, (3) regulating or (4) the necessity of adding medication. There is no clear evidence to support the use of one dressing over another, as demonstrated by many Cochrane review studies. In addition, the prescriber should enquire about contact allergies that may also develop during wound treatment. It is shown that early intervention and early investment may reduce the cost of treatment. The choice of wound dressings should be guided by cost, ease of application and patient and physician preference and be part of the complete strategy. The role of the medical specialist is evident. Wound dressings matter as part of the optimal treatment in VLU patients.

Patients with chronic leg ulcers have severely impaired quality of life and account for a high percentage of annual healthcare costs. To establish the cause of a chronic leg ulcer, referral to a center with a multidisciplinary team of professionals is often necessary. Treating the underlying cause diminishes healing time and reduces costs. In venous leg ulcers adequate compression therapy is still a problem. It can be improved by training the professionals with pressure measuring devices. A perfect fitting of elastic stockings is important to prevent venous leg ulcer recurrence. In most cases, custom-made stockings are the best choice for this purpose.

Chronic venous disease is a common condition with clinical signs and symptoms ranging from spider veins, to varicose veins, to active venous ulceration. Both superficial and deep venous dysfunction may be implicated in the development of this disease. Socio-economic factors are shaping our population, with increasing age and body mass index resulting in significant pressure on healthcare systems worldwide. These risk factors also lead to an increased risk of developing superficial and/or deep venous insufficiency, increasing disease prevalence and morbidity. In this chapter, the authors review the current and future burden of chronic venous disease from an epidemiological, quality of life and economic perspective.

Varicose veins affect one-quarter to one-third of Western adult populations and consume an increasing amount of health care resources. Much of this increased utilization has been driven by the advent of minimally invasive technology including endovenous thermal ablation, foam sclerotherapy, and more recently mechanicochemical and cyanoacrylate glue ablation. This has largely been driven by patient and physician preferences in the absence of robust evidence that one therapy is truly superior to another. This partially arises from misunderstandings about appropriate outcomes measures and what truly constitutes effective treatment of varicose veins. Technical outcomes, such as saphenous closure rates, have frequently been used as surrogates for effective treatment but are poorly correlated with symptom improvement, quality of life, and risk of recurrence. Although there does appear to be a trend towards higher recurrence with ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy, the data are occasionally conflicting and there does not appear to be substantial differences between the various modalities. Similarly, there do not appear to be major differences in late quality of life measures between these treatment options. As long-term differences in recurrence and quality of life are small, overall cost effectiveness is driven primarily by initial treatment costs and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy is the most cost-effective strategy in many models. However, there continues to be substantial uncertainty surrounding cost estimates and other factors of importance to the patient may ultimately drive treatment decisions. The benefits of some adjuncts to the treatment of axial superficial reflux, such as the concurrent versus staged management of tributary varicosities, remain ill-defined while that of others, such as routine post-procedural ultrasound surveillance and compression, need critical re-evaluation.

In 2013, the new Dutch guideline for “Venous Pathology” was published. The guideline was a revision and update from the guideline “Diagnostics and Treatment of Varicose Veins” from 2009 and the guideline “Venous Ulcer” from 2005. A guideline for “Deep Venous Pathology” and one for “Compression Therapy” was added to the overall guideline “Venous Pathology.” The chapter about treatment of recurrent varicose veins after initial intervention was recently updated in 2015 and is reviewed here. The Dutch term “recidief varices” or the French “récidive de varices” should be used analogous to the English term “recurrent varicose veins.” The DCOP Guideline Development Group Neovarices concluded that “recidief” in Dutch actually suggests recurrence after apparent successful treatment and ignores the natural progression of venous disease in its own right. So the group opted to use the term “neovarices.” In the Dutch guideline, neovarices is meant to be an all embracing term for recurrent varicose veins caused by technical or tactical failure, evolvement from residual refluxing veins or natural progression of varicose vein disease at different locations of the treated leg after intervention. This report reviews the most important issues in the treatment of varicose vein recurrence, and discusses conclusions and recommendations of the Dutch Neovarices Guideline Committee.

Management of varicose vein disease has changed drastically over the past decades. Since its introduction in vein practice, surgery has gone through several stages of evolution until the method of ligation with stripping eventually became and remained the standard for a long time. It was found to be effective at treating the condition and, indications of its beneficial impact on patients’ quality of life soon also became evident. However, being associated with significant morbidity, surgery gradually fell out of favour, especially, once the newer endovenous techniques were launched around the turn of the century. These endothermal methods allowed procedures to be carried out under local anaesthetic as day case interventions, often with a similar or even better effect on occlusion rates and quality of life. In addition, there is mounting evidence that these newer techniques might be more cost-effective. This review evaluates surgical treatment of varicose veins compared to endovenous methods and also assesses its place in current phlebological practice.