Methodist Journal

IN THIS ISSUE

Venous Interventions

Vol 14, Issue 3 (2018)


FEATURED GUEST EDITOR

ISSUE INTRO

It’s Time We Reassess Our Primitive Understanding of the Venous System

See More
RECOGNITIONS

Jean Bismuth Spearheads Issue on Venous Interventions

See More

REVIEW ARTICLES See More

Central Venous Pathologies: Treatments and Economic Impact

Venous Thrombosis and Post-Thrombotic Syndrome: From Novel Biomarkers to Biology

Mechanical Properties of Diseased Veins

Use of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Central Venous Disease

Application of Intravascular Ultrasound in End-Stage Renal Patients with Central Venous Occlusive Disease

Intraoperative Imaging and Image Fusion for Venous Interventions

Endovascular Treatment for Venous Diseases: Where are the Venous Stents?

Endovascular Therapy for Central Venous Thrombosis

CASE REPORTS See More

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Related Cardiotoxicity

Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor-Induced Acute Myocarditis, Myositis, and Cardiogenic Shock

Primary Nonbacterial Thrombotic Endocarditis Presenting with Bowel Infarction Secondary to Superior Mesenteric Artery Embolism

Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava with Absent Right Superior Vena Cava

MUSEUM OF HMH MULTIMODALITY IMAGING CENTER See More

Incision and Drainage of a Forgotten Vascular Graft

CLINICAL PERSPECTIVES See More

EXCERPTA

Telemedicine Shakes Up the ICU Experience

POINTS TO REMEMBER

Venous Thrombosis in Nephrotic Syndrome

EXCERPTA

Heartsick: Medical and Ethical Challenges of Infective Endocarditis in the Opioid Epidemic

EXCERPTA

Redefining “Worth It” for CTO PCI

EDITORIALS

Letter to the Editor

Vol 14, Issue 3 (2018)

Article Full Text

REVIEW ARTICLES

Central Venous Pathologies: Treatments and Economic Impact

Jump to:
Article Citation:

Ouriel K. Central Venous Pathologies: Treatments and Economic Impact. Methodist DeBakey Cardiovasc J. 2018;14(3):166-172.



Abstract

Chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) is responsible for significant costs to society in the form of medical and surgical treatment and, importantly, unmeasurable lost work productivity due to pain and disability. Symptomatic chronic central vein obstruction, a cause of CVI, is potentially treatable using open surgical and endovascular techniques to restore vessel patency. Although upper extremity central vein obstruction often requires an open surgical procedure for durable relief, endovascular stents have proven remarkably useful for iliofemoral disease.

Containment of healthcare resources requires accurate diagnosis, durable treatment modalities, and appropriate patient selection so that therapy is targeted to those individuals most likely to benefit. In this regard, identification of appropriate lesions should be based on intravascular ultrasound and 3-dimensional imaging studies. Treatment with dedicated venous stents offers the potential for long-term symptomatic improvement and increased work productivity when used in a well-defined, anatomically appropriate population with significant, symptomatic CVI.

Keywords
chronic venous insufficiency , central vein obstruction , venous stents

BACKGROUND

Central venous pathologies include thrombotic and nonthrombotic causes of venous obstruction in the large central veins that drain the upper and lower extremities.1 Whether primarily thrombotic, compressive, or malignant, lesions of the central veins produce outflow obstruction that culminates in symptomatic chronic venous insufficiency, post-thrombotic syndrome, and occasionally, pulmonary embolism. Advanced venous disease is said to affect approximately six million individuals in the United States alone.2

Upper and lower extremity central vein obstructions are distinct clinical entities with different etiologies, symptoms, and sequelae. Upper extremity obstruction occurs from malignancy, thoracic outlet syndrome, or indwelling central venous catheters that cause luminal thrombus and scar formation. Malignant upper extremity central vein obstruction is commonly found in the mediastinum, obstructing the brachiocephalic veins and/or the superior vena cava. Symptoms often include those related to compression of other structures, such as finger numbness and tingling from a compressed subclavian artery, hoarseness due to compressed phrenic and recurrent laryngeal nerves, and other sequelae often found with a Pancoast tumor.3 Although primary vascular malignancies occur, most of these cases occur from extravascular malignancies such as non-small cell lung cancer (50%), small cell lung cancer (22%), lymphoma (12%), and metastatic lesions (9%).4 Less frequent malignant causes of superior vena caval obstruction include germ cell cancers, thymoma, and mesothelioma.

Nonmalignant upper extremity central vein obstruction occurs from venous thoracic outlet syndrome or indwelling catheters, which are often placed for hemodialysis, and pacemaker wires.5 Venous obstruction from compression at the thoracic outlet, often initiated by extreme effort, remains a surgical problem, and venous stents have not performed well at this location.6

This review discusses chronic venous disease with a focus on central vein pathologies of the legs, specifically the iliofemoral venous segment. Specific attention is paid to prevalence, diagnostic and treatment modalities, proper patient selection, and the economic burden to society. For clarity, venous disease with symptoms lasting more than 14 days will be identified by the term chronic venous insufficiency (CVI). Although it is possible for CVI patients to have symptoms without central vein obstruction, the scope of this review will be limited to those with venous obstruction and symptoms of pain, edema, skin changes, or ulceration.

PREVALENCE OF CHRONIC VENOUS DISEASE

CVI is widespread, with a prevalence that far exceeds that of symptomatic peripheral arterial disease. Depending on the study and the definitions used, CVI exclusive of varicose veins is found in 1% to 10% of the population (Table 1).7-14 In a seminal study of 2,215 randomly selected current and former employees of the University of California, San Diego, Criqui and colleagues identified functional disease of the deep veins in 11.3% of men and 7.8% of women.7 The prevalence of functional deep vein disease increased with age, from 6.9% in patients younger than age 50 to 11.3% in those aged 70 and older. Deep venous disease was more common in Caucasians than in other ethnicities, with a prevalence of 10.3% in Caucasians, 6.2% in Hispanics, 6.9% in African Americans, and 8.8% in Asians. In a multivariable analysis of the same data, the odds-ratio for functional deep vein disease was 0.69 for women (reference = men), 1.54 for people aged 70 and older (reference = age < 50), and 0.66 and 0.72 for Hispanics and African Americans, respectively (reference = Caucasians).15
A subsequent analysis of the San Diego study population identified risk factors for severe clinical findings, etiology, anatomy, and pathophysiology (the CEAP classification) of venous disease in men and women. In men, age, family history of venous disease, larger waist circumference, laborer occupation, and smoking were statistically significant predictors of severe CVI, whereas increased diastolic blood pressure was protective. In women, age, family history, larger waist circumference, long periods of standing, flat feet or small arches, leg injuries, multiparity, and a history of cardiovascular disease were predictors, but African American ethnicity was protective.15

Table 1. Prevalence of chronic venous insufficiency excluding varicose veins. Data modified from Rabe et al.7,9-14

ECONOMIC BURDEN OF CHRONIC VENOUS DISEASE

Symptomatic CVI affects society in two ways. First, severely symptomatic disease interferes with the patient’s ability to perform a broad spectrum of job functions, including those that involve prolonged standing or sitting and especially those that require physical labor. Second, the treatment of CVI requires frequent outpatient visits for wound care and, when severe, costly hospitalizations and interventions.
A prospective French study found that the principal costs for treating venous ulcers were attributed 48% to wound care, 33% to medications, and 16% to hospitalizations. The cost of treating a patient’s venous ulcer was reported to be €101/week in Sweden and €184/week in Germany (between $101/week and $222/week in U.S. dollars).16,17 At the time of these studies, the total expenditures for venous ulcers accounted for approximately 2% of the national healthcare budget in Western Europe and the United States.8,18,19
A 2010 publication by Rabe and Pannier reported the CVI healthcare expenditures using data principally from the Bonn Vein Study.8 Treatment of CVI was more common in females than males (31% vs 12.7%, respectively). Not unexpectedly, the use of compression stockings rose from 7.3% in CEAP-score C1 patients (those with telangiectasies or reticular veins) to 81.8% in C5-6 patients (those with healed or active ulcers). Surgical intervention was necessary in only 3.1% of C1 patients, rising to 36.4% in those with C5-6 symptomatology. Tabulation of the costs from the German official statistical calculations showed that, excluding treatment for varicose veins, the healthcare cost for treating diseases of the veins and lymphatics was approximately €1.4 million in 2006, or about 1.6% of the annual budget of the Ministry of Health and Social Security.8
With respect to lost work productivity, a study by McGuckin et al. estimated that venous ulcers accounted for 2 million lost work days annually in the United States.20 A French study found that approximately 7% of the working population is out of work at any given time due to venous disease. The impact to French society was ?320 million (€48,783,685) annually in lost productivity.21

TREATMENT OF ILIOFEMORAL VEIN OBSTRUCTION

The information presented in the previous sections documents the high prevalence of CVI, which accounts for significant societal costs related to both treatment and losses from decreased occupational productivity and disability. Identification of the precise proportion of symptomatic CVI population with iliofemoral outflow obstruction, the segment of the population most amenable to venous stenting, remains elusive. Looking forward, physicians must be able to clearly and objectively differentiate patients with anatomic obstruction severe enough to warrant definitive treatment so that interventions are performed on patients with good prospects for symptomatic relief.

Before the 1990s, treatment of venous obstructive disease was relegated to open surgical procedures. Venous bypass with autogenous conduit (either the saphenous vein femoro-femoral crossover, the rarely performed autogenous in-line femoro-iliac/caval bypass, or prosthetic femoro-iliac/caval procedures) were fraught with low rates of patency. Creation of a temporary arteriovenous fistula to improve flow and discourage early thrombosis can be considered a de facto declaration of unacceptably low patency rates of venous bypass procedures. In the best hands, venous bypass patency rates at 1 year are around 75% for autogenous conduits and as low as 50% for prosthetic grafts.22-25 Today, endovascular interventions have all but eliminated the need for open surgical reconstruction. Other than hybrid procedures (e.g., principally localized endophlebectomy at the common femoral vein that can improve inflow to an endovascular intervention),26,27 current indications for open surgical bypass are limited to failed endovascular procedures, trauma, and malignancy.

The definitive endovascular treatment of iliofemoral venous obstruction was pioneered by Raju and Neglen.28 Beginning with an initial clinical experience in the late 1990s and first reported in 2000, these clinicians led the way in using metallic stents to percutaneously resolve symptomatic large vein obstruction. They showed that excellent results could be achieved with a minimally invasive approach and identified intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) as an important diagnostic tool for screening venous lesions appropriate for intervention and gauging the intraprocedural adequacy of stent deployment.29

The 15 years following Raju and Neglen’s work witnessed a slow acceptance of venous stenting for obstructive lesions.30-35 Most of the studies during this time used the braided Elgiloy WALLSTENT (Boston Scientific); although it is not approved in the United States for the treatment of iliofemoral venous occlusion, it is the best choice for endovascular venous intervention in the hands of most venous interventionalists. Patency rates of venous stents were excellent, approaching between 80% and 90% at 1 year.33,36-38 Reported patency rates were better when stenting nonthrombotic lesions (e.g., those that occur in May-Thurner syndrome) compared with the longer, more diffuse post-thrombotic lesions that develop after deep vein thrombosis.
These studies confirm that venous stenting is effective in the restoration of iliofemoral venous patency. Newer stent designs dedicated to the treatment of venous lesions hold promise for precise deployment and long-term reductions in restenosis and occlusion.34,35,38,39

CHOOSING THE PROPER PATIENTS FOR VENOUS STENTING

Figure 1. Correlation between target lesion severity (% diameter reduction) by venography and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). The gray shaded area identifies lesions of > 50% diameter reduction on IVUS but < 50% by three-view venography. Reprinted with permission.40

With the introduction of any new therapy, initial caution is often followed by unjustified enthusiasm. Venous stenting is no different. After confirmation of acceptable patency rates, venous interventionalists sought to employ this tool in their patients—particularly since no definitive therapy existed before stenting. The enthusiasm to treat patients with venous stenting helped stimulate commercial interest in the development of dedicated venous stents. However, the widespread use of venous stents without defining exactly which patients benefited most from the therapy was problematic. Further, the diagnostic insensitivity of standard contrast venography for assessing nonthrombotic lesions risked overuse of the therapy. Intravascular ultrasound solved some of these issues, as have 3-dimensional (3D) imaging modalities such as computed tomography and magnetic resonance venography. The recently published VIDIO study documented the importance of IVUS in identifying anatomic lesions appropriate for intervention.40,41 Using IVUS as the reference, venography underestimated the severity (percent diameter reduction) of venous lesions by an average of 11% (Figure 1).40 Moreover, IVUS identified significant lesions missed by venography in 26% of cases. When correlated with symptom resolution after stenting, patients with lesions exceeding approximately 50% area reduction in preintervention IVUS had significantly better clinical outcomes compared to those with milder lesions.41

Failure of symptom resolution after venous stenting can result from an improper diagnosis of the main cause of symptoms. A significant psychological overlay is found in many patients with venous disease.42,43 In a 2013 publication, Amsler, Rabe, and Blättler reported an analysis of 1,978 patients from the Bonn Vein Study followed for a mean of 6.6 years.44 The Psychic versus Somatic Venous Disease Questionnaire (PsySoVDQ), a 9-item survey, was administered to distinguish true somatic symptoms from those of psychological origin. The PsySoVDQ score was divided into a somatic component (SC) and a psychic component (PC). After excluding patients with CEAP classification ? C4 from the analysis, an elevated PC score was observed in 43.4% of 1,095 patients with CEAP 0-1 and 34.2% of 705 patients with CEAP 2-3 (Table 2). An elevated PC score was associated with female sex, younger age, and lower body mass index. Patients with CEAP 0-1 had higher PC scores than those with CEAP 2-3. The authors concluded that the PsySoVDQ provides a tool to identify patients who have a significant psychic component to their symptoms.44 The unstated conclusion is that such patients might be less likely to benefit from venous interventions. These findings, however, do not take into account the exclusion of the severely symptomatic CEAP 4-6 cohort from the analysis—a group that would be predicted to have a greater propensity for anatomic venous disease.

Table 2. Somatic and psychic scores by CEAP classification in the Bonn Vein Study (BVS). Modified from Amsler, Rabe, and Blättler.44 CEAP: clinical-etiology-anatomy-pathophysiology classification for venous disorders; SC: somatic component of Psychic versus Somatic Venous Disease Questionnaire (PsySoVDQ); PC: psychic component of PsySoVDQ.

PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE AND COMMERCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Iliofemoral venous stenting is applicable only in a minority of the CVI population. The large proportion of patients with isolated superficial venous disease, deep venous reflux in the absence of obstruction, or iliofemoral obstruction but mild symptoms can be treated effectively with conservative antithrombotic therapies or with superficial vein ablation.

The subset of patients with severe symptoms and significant anatomic lesions of the iliofemoral segment comprise the population appropriate for venous stenting. Dedicated venous stents, when available, should be used instead of stents designed for the arterial circulation.45 Furthermore, 3D imaging modalities should be used in the diagnosis and treatment of central venous lesions.40

Many unanswered questions remain. A stent’s radial force and flexibility are opposing design features with clinical tradeoffs. Stents with greater radial force may be associated with greater pain during deployment, more straightening of the vein segment, and a higher risk of stent fracture over time. By contrast, stents with lower radial force may be more susceptible to external compression and suffer the hemodynamic shortcomings of an elliptical rather than a round cross-sectional profile after deployment. In addition, the optimal postprocedure antithrombotic regimen remains poorly defined and likely to be different in nonthrombotic versus post-thrombotic cases.

The clarification of these issues and those not yet identified will markedly affect the commercial use of venous stents. Market penetration of stent technology into the less-severe CEAP categories will depend on long-term results. Practitioners will avoid the use of stents in less severely symptomatic patients if the risk of long-term complications is high, either from the stent itself or from an antithrombotic regimen necessary to sustain patency. Lastly, the increasing identification of right-sided nonthrombotic lesions at the external and internal iliac vein confluence could dramatically increase the use of venous stents, raising yet another question about the timing of bilateral treatment.

CONCLUSION

In summary, CVI is responsible for significant costs to society related to treatment and lost work productivity. The use of diagnostic modalities such as IVUS and 3D imaging studies identify patients who will benefit the most from venous intervention. Treatment with dedicated venous stents has the potential to achieve improved outcomes, and the upcoming release of data from current regulatory trials is eagerly awaited.

KEY POINTS

  • Chronic venous insufficiency is a common condition that is responsible for significant costs to society, including high treatment costs and lost work productivity.
  • Stents have provided a minimally-invasive treatment for patients with central vein obstruction, and the newer dedicated venous stents hold great potential to further improve outcomes.
  • Imaging studies that include intravascular ultrasound should be used to evaluate the appropriateness and the anatomic location of central vein interventions.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Dr. Ouriel is an employee of and holds equity in Syntactx, a contract research organization that receives research funding from a variety of companies with diagnostic and therapeutic products for venous disease.

References
  1. Eberhardt RT, Raffetto JD. Chronic venous insufficiency. Circulation. 2014 Jul 22;130(4):333-46.
  2. Beebe-Dimmer JL, Pfeifer JR, Engle JS, Schottenfeld D. The epidemiology of chronic venous insufficiency and varicose veins. Ann Epidemiol. 2005 Mar;15(3):175-84.
  3. Bois MC, Yi JE, Erickson LA. Pancoast Tumor of the Lung. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016 May;91(5):e69-70.
  4. Wilson LD, Detterbeck FC, Yahalom J. Clinical practice. Superior vena cava syndrome with malignant causes. N Engl J Med. 2007 May 3;356(18):1862-9.
  5. Kucher N. Clinical practice. Deep-vein thrombosis of the upper extremities. N Engl J Med. 2011 Mar 3;364(9):861-9.
  6. Mallios A, Taubman K, Claiborne P, Blebea J. Subclavian Vein Stent Fracture and Venous Motion. Ann Vasc Surg. 2015 Oct;29(7):1451.e1-4.
  7. Criqui MH, Jamosmos M, Fronek A, et al. Chronic venous disease in an ethnically diverse population: the San Diego Population Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2003 Sep 1;158(5):448-56.
  8. Rabe E, Pannier F. Societal costs of chronic venous disease in CEAP C4, C5, C6 disease. Phlebology. 2010 Oct;25 Suppl 1:64-7.
  9. Coon WW, Willis PW 3rd, Keller JB. Venous thromboembolism and other venous disease in the Tecumseh community health study. Circulation. 1973 Oct;48(4):839-46.
  10. da Silva A, Widmer LK, Martin H, Mall T, Glaus L, Schneider M. Varicose veins and chronic venous insufficiency. Vasa. 1974;3(2):118-25.
  11. Widmer LK, ed. Peripheral venous disorders—prevalence and socio-medical importance. Bern: Hans Huber; 1978. 90 p.
  12. Franks PJ, Wright DD, Moffatt CJ, et al. Prevalence of venous disease: a community study in west London. Eur J Surg. 1992 Mar;158(3):143-7.
  13. Komsuoglu B, Göldeli O, Kulan K, Cetinarslan B, Komsuoglu SS. Prevalence and risk factors of varicose veins in an elderly population. Gerontology. 1994;40(1):25-31.
  14. Ruckley CV, Evans CJ, Allan PL, Lee AJ, Fowkes FG. Chronic venous insufficiency: clinical and duplex correlations. The Edinburgh Vein Study of venous disorders in the general population. J Vasc Surg. 2002 Sep;36(3):520-5.
  15. Criqui MH, Denenberg JO, Bergan J, Langer RD, Fronek A. Risk factors for chronic venous disease: the San Diego Population Study. J Vasc Surg. 2007 Aug;46(2):331-7.
  16. Tennvall GR, Andersson K, Bjellerup M, Hjelmgren J, Oien R. Treatment of venous leg ulcers can be better and cheaper. Annual costs calculation based on an inquiry study. Lakartidningen. 2004 Apr 22;101(17):1506-10, 1512-3.
  17. Purwins S, Herberger K, Debus ES, et al. Cost-of-illness of chronic leg ulcers in Germany. Int Wound J. 2010 Apr;7(2):97-102.
  18. Lafuma A, Fagnani F, Peltier-Pujol F, Rauss A. Venous disease in France: an unrecognized public health problem. J Mal Vasc. 1994;19(3):185-9.
  19. Hampton S. Jobst UlcerCARE compression hosiery for venous leg ulcers. Br J Community Nurs. 2003 Jun;8(6):279-83.
  20. McGuckin M, Waterman R, Brooks J, et al. Validation of venous leg ulcer guidelines in the United States and United Kingdom. Am J Surg 2002 Feb;183(2):132-7.
  21. Lévy E, Lévy P. Management of venous leg ulcer by French physicians, diversity and related costs: a prospective medicoeconomic observational study. J Mal Vasc. 2001 Feb;26(1):39-44.
  22. Behrendt CA, Heidemann F, Riess HC, et al. Open surgical treatment for postthrombotic syndrome. Phlebology. 2016 Mar;31(1 Suppl):48-55.
  23. Bond RT, Cohen JM, Comerota A, Kahn SR. Surgical treatment of moderate-to-severe post-thrombotic syndrome. Ann Vasc Surg. 2013 Feb;27(2):242-58.
  24. AbuRahma AF, Robinson PA, Boland JP. Clinical, hemodynamic, and anatomic predictors of long-term outcome of lower extremity venovenous bypasses. J Vasc Surg. 1991 Nov;14(5):635-44.
  25. Schleimer K, Barbati ME, Gombert A, Wienert V, Grommes J, Jalaie H. The Treatment of Post-Thrombotic Syndrome. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016 Dec 16;113(50):863-70.
  26. Garg N, Gloviczki P, Karimi KM, et al. Factors affecting outcome of open and hybrid reconstructions for nonmalignant obstruction of iliofemoral veins and inferior vena cava. J Vasc Surg. 2011 Feb;53(2):383-93.
  27. Vogel D, Comerota AJ, Al-Jabouri M, Assi ZI. Common femoral endovenectomy with iliocaval endoluminal recanalization improves symptoms and quality of life in patients with postthrombotic iliofemoral obstruction. J Vasc Surg. 2012 Jan;55(1):129-35.
  28. Neglén P, Berry MA, Raju S. Endovascular surgery in the treatment of chronic primary and post-thrombotic iliac vein obstruction. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2000 Dec;20(6):560-71.
  29. Neglén P, Raju S. Intravascular ultrasound scan evaluation of the obstructed vein. J Vasc Surg. 2002 Apr;35(4):694-700.
  30. Mussa FF, Peden EK, Zhou W, Lin PH, Lumsden AB, Bush RL. Iliac vein stenting for chronic venous insufficiency. Tex Heart Inst J. 2007;34(1):60-6.
  31. Gutzeit A, Zollikofer ChL, Dettling-Pizzolato M, Graf N, Largiadèr J, Binkert CA. Endovascular stent treatment for symptomatic benign iliofemoral venous occlusive disease: long-term results 1987-2009. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2011 Jun;34(3):542-9.
  32. Alhalbouni S, Hingorani A, Shiferson A, et al. Iliac-femoral venous stenting for lower extremity venous stasis symptoms. Ann Vasc Surg. 2012 Feb;26(2):185-9.
  33. Ye K, Lu X, Li W, et al. Long-term outcomes of stent placement for symptomatic nonthrombotic iliac vein compression lesions in chronic venous disease. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012 Apr;23(4):497-502.
  34. O’Sullivan GJ, Sheehan J, Lohan D, McCann-Brown JA. Iliofemoral venous stenting extending into the femoral region: initial clinical experience with the purpose-designed Zilver Vena stent. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2013 Apr;54(2):255-61.
  35. de Wolf MA, de Graaf R, Kurstjens RL, Penninx S, Jalaie H, Wittens CH. Short-Term Clinical Experience with a Dedicated Venous Nitinol Stent: Initial Results with the Sinus-Venous Stent. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015 Oct;50(4):518-26.
  36. Wen-da W, Yu Z, Yue-Xin C. Stenting for chronic obstructive venous disease: A current comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review. Phlebology. 2016 Jul;31(6):376-89.
  37. Razavi MK, Jaff MR, Miller LE. Safety and Effectiveness of Stent Placement for Iliofemoral Venous Outflow Obstruction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Oct;8(10):e002772.
  38. Razavi M, Marston W, Black S, Bentley D, Neglen P. The initial report on 1-year outcomes of the feasibility study of the VENITI VICI VENOUS STENT in symptomatic iliofemoral venous obstruction. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2018 Mar;6(2):192-200.
  39. van Vuuren T, Doganci S, Wittens CHA. Patency rates and clinical outcomes in a cohort of 200 patients treated with a dedicated venous stent. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2018 May;6(3):321-329.
  40. Gagne PJ, Tahara RW, Fastabend CP, et al. Venography versus intravascular ultrasound for diagnosing and treating iliofemoral vein obstruction. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2017 Sep;5(5):678-87.
  41. Gagne PJ, Gasparis A, Black S, et al. Analysis of threshold stenosis by multiplanar venogram and intravascular ultrasound examination for predicting clinical improvement after iliofemoral vein stenting in the VIDIO trial. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2018 Jan;6(1):48-56.e1.
  42. Kuny S, Blättler W. Psychological findings in alleged phlebologic disorders of the leg. Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1988 Jan 9;118(1):18-22.
  43. Blättler W. Possible correlation between venous complaints and psychological status. Vasa Suppl. 1991;32:599-604.
  44. Amsler F, Rabe E, Blättler W. Leg symptoms of somatic, psychic, and unexplained origin in the population-based Bonn vein study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013 Aug;46(2):255-62.
  45. de Graaf R, Arnoldussen C, Wittens CH. Stenting for chronic venous obstructions a new era. Phlebology. 2013 Mar;28 Suppl 1:117-22.

Add Comments

Please login to dialogue with author.

Comments