Cyanoacrylate closure for peripheral veins: Consensus document of the Australasian College of Phlebology

Background: Cyanoacrylates are fast-acting adhesives used in procedural medicine including closure of superficial wounds, embolization of truncal vessels pre-operatively, vascular anomalies, visceral false aneurysms, endoleaks, gastrointestinal varices and gastrointestinal bleeding. More recently, catheter-directed cyanoacrylate adhesive closure was introduced as an alternative to endovenous thermal ablation (ETA) to occlude superficial veins of the lower limbs. Objectives: To formulate policies for the safe and effective delivery of cyanoacrylate adhesive closure procedures in Australasia, based on current experience and evidence. Methods: A panel of phlebologists including vascular surgeons, interventional radiologists, dermatologists and research scientists systematically reviewed the available data on cyanoacrylate products used in medicine and shared personal experience with the procedure. The reviewed material included bibliographic and biomedical data, material safety data sheets and data requested and received from manufacturers. Results and recommendations: Cyanoacrylate adhesive closure appears to be an effective treatment for saphenous reflux with occlusion rates at 36 months of 90–95%. We recommend a maximum dose of 10 mL of cyanoacrylate per treatment session. Serious complications are rare, but significant. Hypersensitivity to acrylates is reported in 2.4% of the population and is an important absolute contraindication to cyanoacrylate adhesive closure.1 Post-procedural inflammatory reactions, including hypersensitivity-type phlebitis, occur in 10–20% of patients.2 In the long term, cyanoacrylate adhesive closure results in foreign-body granuloma formation within 2–12 months of the procedure. We recommend against the use of cyanoacrylate adhesive closure in patients with uncontrolled inflammatory, autoimmune or granulomatous disorders (e.g. sarcoidosis). Caution should be exercised in patients with significant active systemic disease or infection and alternative therapies such as thermal ablation and foam sclerotherapy should be considered. Conclusions: Cyanoacrylate adhesive closure appears to be an effective endovenous procedure, with short-term closure rates comparable to ETA and therefore greater efficacy than traditional surgery for treating superficial veins of the lower limbs. Ongoing data collection is required to establish the long-term safety

Triage of patients with venous and lymphatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic – The Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale (VELTAS):: A consensus document of the International Union of Phlebology (UIP), Australasian College of Phlebology (ACP), American Vein and Lymphatic Society (AVLS), American Venous Forum (AVF), European College of Phlebology (ECoP), European Venous Forum (EVF), Interventional Radiology Society of Australasia (IRSA), Latin American Venous Forum, Pan-American Society of Phlebology and Lymphology and the Venous Association of India (VAI)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has resulted in diversion of healthcare resources to the management of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus. Elective interventions and surgical procedures in most countries have been postponed and operating room resources have been diverted to manage the pandemic. The Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale was developed to provide an international standard to rationalise and harmonise the management of patients with venous and lymphatic disorders or vascular anomalies. Triage urgency was determined based on clinical assessment of urgency with which a patient would require medical treatment or surgical intervention. Clinical conditions were classified into six categories of: (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE), (2) chronic venous disease, (3) vascular anomalies, (4) venous trauma, (5) venous compression and (6) lymphatic disease. Triage urgency was categorised into four groups and individual conditions were allocated to each class of triage. These included (1) medical emergencies (requiring immediate attendance), example massive pulmonary embolism; (2) urgent (to be seen as soon as possible), example deep vein thrombosis; (3) semiurgent (to be attended to within 30-90 days), example highly symptomatic chronic venous disease, and (4) discretionary/nonurgent- (to be seen within 6-12 months), example chronic lymphoedema. Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale aims to standardise the triage of patients with venous and lymphatic disease or vascular anomalies by providing an international consensus-based classification of clinical categories and triage urgency. The scale may be used during pandemics such as the current COVID-19 crisis but may also be used as a general framework to classify urgency of the listed conditions

Sclerotherapy of lower limb veins:Indications, contraindications and treatment strategies to prevent complications – A consensus document of the International Union of Phlebology-2023

Background: Sclerotherapy is a non-invasive procedure commonly used to treat superficial venous disease, vascular malformations and other ectatic vascular lesions. While extremely rare, sclerotherapy may be complicated by serious adverse events. Objectives: To categorise contraindications to sclerotherapy based on the available scientific evidence. Methods: An international, multi-disciplinary panel of phlebologists reviewed the available scientific evidence and developed consensus where evidence was lacking or limited. Results: Absolute Contraindications to sclerotherapy where the risk of harm would outweigh any benefits include known hypersensitivity to sclerosing agents; acute venous thromboembolism (VTE); severe neurological or cardiac adverse events complicating a previous sclerotherapy treatment; severe acute systemic illness or infection; and critical limb ischaemia. Relative Contraindications to sclerotherapy where the potential benefits of the proposed treatment would outweigh the risk of harm or the risks may be mitigated by other measures include pregnancy, postpartum and breastfeeding; hypercoagulable states with risk of VTE; risk of neurological adverse events; risk of cardiac adverse events and poorly controlled chronic systemic illness. Conditions and circumstances where Warnings and Precautions should be considered before proceeding with sclerotherapy include risk of cutaneous necrosis or cosmetic complications such as pigmentation and telangiectatic matting; intake of medications such as the oral contraceptive and other exogenous oestrogens, disulfiram and minocycline; and psychosocial factors and psychiatric comorbidities that may increase the risk of adverse events or compromise optimal treatment outcomes. Conclusions: Sclerotherapy can achieve safe clinical outcomes provided that (1) patient-related risk factors and in particular all material risks are (1a) adequately identified and the risk benefit ratio is clearly and openly discussed with treatment candidates within a reasonable timeframe prior to the actual procedure; (1b) when an individual is not a suitable candidate for the proposed intervention, conservative treatment options including the option of ‘no intervention as a treatment option’ are discussed; (1c) complex cases are referred for treatment in controlled and standardised settings and by practitioners with more expertise in the field; (1d) only suitable individuals with no absolute contraindications or those with relative contraindications where the benefits outweigh the risks are offered intervention; (1e) if proceeding with intervention, appropriate prophylactic measures and other risk-mitigating strategies are adopted and appropriate follow-up is organised; and (2) procedure-related risk factors are minimised by ensuring the treating physicians (2a) have adequate training in general phlebology with additional training in duplex ultrasound, procedural phlebology and in particular sclerotherapy; (2b) maintain their knowledge and competency over time and (2c) review and optimise their treatment strategies and techniques on a regular basis to keep up with the ongoing progress in medical technology and contemporary scientific evidence.</p

Triage of patients with venous and lymphatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic – The Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale (VELTAS): A consensus document of the International Union of Phlebology (UIP), Australasian College of Phlebology (ACP), American Vein and Lymphatic Society (AVLS), American Venous Forum (AVF), European College of Phlebology (ECoP), European Venous Forum (EVF), Interventional Radiology Society of Australasia (IRSA), Latin American Venous Forum, Pan-American Society of Phlebology and Lymphology and the Venous Association of India (VAI)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has resulted in diversion of healthcare resources to the management of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus. Elective interventions and surgical procedures in most countries have been postponed and operating room resources have been diverted to manage the pandemic. The Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale was developed to provide an international standard to rationalise and harmonise the management of patients with venous and lymphatic disorders or vascular anomalies. Triage urgency was determined based on clinical assessment of urgency with which a patient would require medical treatment or surgical intervention. Clinical conditions were classified into six categories of: (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE), (2) chronic venous disease, (3) vascular anomalies, (4) venous trauma, (5) venous compression and (6) lymphatic disease. Triage urgency was categorised into four groups and individual conditions were allocated to each class of triage. These included (1) medical emergencies (requiring immediate attendance), example massive pulmonary embolism; (2) urgent (to be seen as soon as possible), example deep vein thrombosis; (3) semi-urgent (to be attended to within 30–90 days), example highly symptomatic chronic venous disease, and (4) discretionary/non-urgent- (to be seen within 6–12 months), example chronic lymphoedema. Ven

Venous hemodynamic changes in lower limb venous disease: the UIP consensus according to scientific evidence

There are excellent guidelines for clinicians to manage venous diseases but few reviews to assess their hemodynamic background. Hemodynamic concepts that evolved in the past have largely remained unchallenged in recent decades, perhaps due to their often complicated nature and in part due to emergence of new diagnostic techniques. Duplex ultrasound scanning and other imaging techniques which evolved in the latter part of the 20th century have dominated investigation. They have greatly improved our understanding of the anatomical patterns of venous reflux and obstruction. However, they do not provide the physiological basis for understanding the hemodynamics of flow, pressure, compliance and resistance. Hemodynamic investigations appear to provide a better correlation with post-treatment clinical outcome and quality of life than ultrasound findings. There is a far better prospect for understanding the complete picture of the patient's disability and response to management by combining ultrasound with hemodynamic studies. Accordingly, at the instigation of Dr Angelo Scuderi, the Union Internationale de Phlebologie (UIP) executive board commissioned a large number of experts to assess all aspects of management for venous disease by evidence-based principles. These included experts from various member societies including the European Venous Forum (EVF), American Venous Forum (AVF), American College of Phlebology (ACP) and Cardiovascular Disease Educational and Research Trust (CDERT). Their aim was to confirm or dispel long-held hemodynamic principles and to provide a comprehensive review of venous hemodynamic concepts underlying the pathophysiology of lower limb venous disorders, their usefulness for investigating patients and the relevant hemodynamic changes associated with various forms of treatment. Chapter 1 is devoted to basic hemodynamic concepts and normal venous physiology. Chapter 2 presents the mechanism and magnitude of hemodynamic changes in acute deep vein thrombosis indicating their pathophysiological and clinical significance. Chapter 3 describes the hemodynamic changes that occur in different classes of chronic venous disease and their relation to the anatomic extent of disease in the macrocirculation and microcirculation. The next four chapters (Chapters 4-7) describe the hemodynamic changes resulting from treatmen by compression using different materials, intermittent compression devices, pharmacological agents and finally surgical or endovenous ablation. Chapter 8 discusses the unique hemodynamic features associated with alternative treatment techniques used by the CHIVA and ASVAL. Chapter 9 describes the hemodynamic effects following treatment to relieve pelvic reflux and obstruction. Finally, Chapter 10 demonstrates that contrary to general belief there is a moderate to good correlation between certain hemodynamic measurements and clinical severity of chronic venous disease. The authors believe that this document will be a timely asset to both clinicians and researchers alike. It is directed towards surgeons and physicians who are anxious to incorporate the conclusions of research into their daily practice. It is also directed to postgraduate trainees, vascular technologists and bioengineers, particularly to help them understand the hemodynamic background to pathophysiology, investigations and treatment of patients with venous disorders. Hopefully it will be a platform for those who would like to embark on new research in the field of venous disease