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

Magnetic resonance venography to assess thrombus resolution with edoxaban monotherapy versus parenteral anticoagulation/warfarin for symptomatic deep vein thrombosis: A multicenter feasibility study

The feasibility of magnetic resonance venography (MRV) for measuring change in thrombus volume with a novel anticoagulation regimen versus standard anticoagulation in patients with symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) has not been assessed. Our aim was to study the feasibility of MRV to measure change in thrombus volume in patients with acute symptomatic objectively confirmed proximal DVT in an open-label multicenter trial (edoxaban Thrombus Reduction Imaging Study, eTRIS). We randomized patients in a 2:1 allocation ratio to edoxaban 90 mg/day for 10 days followed by 60 mg/day versus parenteral anticoagulation bridging to warfarin for 3 months. The primary efficacy outcome was a surrogate end point of the relative change in MRV-quantified thrombus volume from baseline to Day 14–21. A total of 85 eligible patients from 26 study sites were randomized to edoxaban monotherapy (n=56) versus parenteral anticoagulation as a ‘bridge’ to warfarin (n=29). The mean relative change in MRV-quantified thrombus volume from baseline to Day 14–21 was similar in patients treated with edoxaban and parenteral anticoagulation as a ‘bridge’ to warfarin (−50.1% vs −58.9%; 95% confidence interval of treatment difference, −12.7%, 30.2%). However, thrombus extension was observed in eight patients in the edoxaban monotherapy group and in none in the warfarin group. Rates of recurrent venous thromboembolism (3.6% vs 3.6%, p=0.45) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (5.4% vs 7.1%, p=0.34) were also similar. No major bleeds occurred in either on-treatment group during the study period. In conclusion, MRV can assess change in thrombus volume in patients with acute DVT randomized to two different anticoagulant regimens. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01662908 Investigational New Drug (IND) Application: Edoxaban IND # 6326

Global guidelines trends and controversies in lower limb venous and lymphatic disease: Narrative literature revision and experts\u27 opinions following the vWINter international meeting in Phlebology, Lymphology & Aesthetics, 23-25 January 2019.

Guidelines are fundamental in addressing everyday clinical indications and in reporting the current evidence-based data of related scientific investigations. At the same time, a spatial and temporal issue can limit their value. Indeed, variability in the recommendations can be found both among the same nation different scientific societies and among different nations/continents. On the other side, Garcia already published in 2014 data showing how, after three years in average, one out of five recommendations gets outdated (Martinez Garcia LM, Sanabria AJ, Garcia Alvarez E, et al. The validity of recommendations from clinical guidelines: a survival analysis. CMAJ 2014;186(16):1211-1219). The present document reports a narrative literature revision on the major international recommendations in lower limb venous and lymphatic disease management, focusing on the different countries' guidelines, trends and controversies from all the continents, while identifying new evidence-based data potentially influencing future guidelines. World renowned experts' opinions are also provided. The document has been written following the recorded round tables scientific discussions held at the vWINter international meeting (22-26 January 2019; Cortina d'Ampezzo, Italy) and the pre- and post-meeting literature search performed by the leading experts

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

36-month clinical outcomes of patients with venous thromboembolism: GARFIELD-VTE

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), encompassing both deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide.Methods: GARFIELD-VTE is a prospective, non-interventional observational study of real-world treatment practices. We aimed to capture the 36-month clinical outcomes of 10,679 patients with objectively confirmed VTE enrolled between May 2014 and January 2017 from 415 sites in 28 countries.Findings: A total of 6582 (61.6 %) patients had DVT alone, 4097 (38.4 %) had PE +/- DVT. At baseline, 98.1 % of patients received anticoagulation (AC) with or without other modalities of therapy. The proportion of patients on AC therapy decreased over time: 87.6 % at 3 months, 73.0 % at 6 months, 54.2 % at 12 months and 42.0 % at 36 months. At 12-months follow-up, the incidences (95 % confidence interval [CI]) of all-cause mortality, recurrent VTE and major bleeding were 6.5 (7.0-8.1), 5.4 (4.9-5.9) and 2.7 (2.4-3.0) per 100 person-years, respectively. At 36-months, these decreased to 4.4 (4.2-4.7), 3.5 (3.2-2.7) and 1.4 (1.3-1.6) per 100 person-years, respectively. Over 36-months, the rate of all-cause mortality and major bleeds were highest in patients treated with parenteral therapy (PAR) versus oral anti-coagulants (OAC) and no OAC, and the rate of recurrent VTE was highest in patients on no OAC versus those on PAR and OAC. The most frequent cause of death after 36-month follow-up was cancer (n = 565, 48.6 %), followed by cardiac (n = 94, 8.1 %), and VTE (n = 38, 3.2 %). Most recurrent VTE events were DVT alone (n = 564, 63.3 %), with the remainder PE, (n = 236, 27.3 %), or PE in combination with DVT (n = 63, 7.3 %).Interpretation: GARFIELD-VTE provides a global perspective of anticoagulation patterns and highlights the accumulation of events within the first 12 months after diagnosis. These findings may help identify treatment gaps for subsequent interventions to improve patient outcomes in this patient population