Extended anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism: A survey of the American Venous Forum and the European Venous Forum.

OBJECTIVE: Extended anticoagulation therapy should always be considered after standard treatment of an unprovoked episode of venous thromboembolism (VTE). It can also be considered for selected patients with provoked VTE. However, the evidence-based protocols suggested by some clinical guidelines and risk assessment tools to guide this practice are limited and ambiguous. The goal of the present survey research was to analyze current practices in applying extended anticoagulation therapy for patients with VTE among members of the American Venous Forum (AVF) and European Venous Forum (EVF). METHODS: An online survey was created by the AVF Research Committee. The survey consisted of 16 questions to identify the country of practice, specialty, experience of the participating physicians, and their clinical practice patterns in applying extended anticoagulation therapy for VTE patients. The survey was distributed via e-mail to the members of the AVF and EVF. RESULTS: A total of 144 practitioners, 48 AVF members (33%) and 96 EVF members (66%), participated in the survey. Most of the respondents identified themselves as vascular specialists with primary certification in vascular surgery (70%), vascular medicine or angiology (9%), and venous disease or phlebology (3%). Of the 144 respondents, 72% believed that the risk of VTE recurrence will generally overweigh the risk of bleeding for patients with unprovoked VTE. Extended anticoagulation therapy might be used by 97% of providers. Different patterns in real world clinical practice were identified. More than one half of the practitioners estimated the VTE recurrence and bleeding risk subjectively. The antithrombotic drugs most commonly used for secondary prophylaxis were rivaroxaban, apixaban, warfarin, dabigatran, and aspirin, in decreasing order of frequency. Among the reasons selected for not regularly considering extended anticoagulation therapy were the lack of specific clinical practice guidelines (24%), lack of reported evidence (9%), and absence of valid VTE and/or bleeding risk prediction calculators (8%). Twelve participants (8%) stated that extended anticoagulation therapy would not be beneficial for most patients with VTE. Ten participants (7%) indicated that prescribing extended anticoagulation therapy was outside the scope of their specialty. CONCLUSIONS: Different practice patterns exist regarding extending anticoagulation therapy beyond the standard treatment for patients with VTE. Major gaps in knowledge remain a serious challenge at least partially explaining the inaccuracy and inconsistency in long-term VTE management. Appropriately designed studies are needed to evaluate risk stratification tools when contemporary best medical therapy is used, accurately predict VTE recurrence and its long-term outcomes, and tailor safe and effective secondary prophylaxis.

Early thrombus removal strategies for acute deep venous thrombosis: clinical practice guidelines of the Society for Vascular Surgery and the American Venous Forum.

BACKGROUND: The anticoagulant treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis (DVT) has been historically directed toward the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism. However, such treatment imperfectly protects against late manifestations of the postthrombotic syndrome. By restoring venous patency and preserving valvular function, early thrombus removal strategies can potentially decrease postthrombotic morbidity. OBJECTIVE: A committee of experts in venous disease was charged by the Society for Vascular Surgery and the American Venous Forum to develop evidence-based practice guidelines for early thrombus removal strategies, including catheter-directed pharmacologic thrombolysis, pharmacomechanical thrombolysis, and surgical thrombectomy. METHODS: Evidence-based recommendations are based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of the relevant literature, supplemented when necessary by less rigorous data. Recommendations are made according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, incorporating the strength of the recommendation (strong: 1; weak: 2) and an evaluation of the level of the evidence (A to C). RESULTS: On the basis of the best evidence currently available, we recommend against routine use of the term "proximal venous thrombosis" in favor of more precise characterization of thrombi as involving the iliofemoral or femoropopliteal venous segments (Grade 1A). We further suggest the use of early thrombus removal strategies in ambulatory patients with good functional capacity and a first episode of iliofemoral DVT of <14 days in duration (Grade 2C) and strongly recommend their use in patients with limb-threatening ischemia due to iliofemoral venous outflow obstruction (Grade 1A). We suggest pharmacomechanical strategies over catheter-directed pharmacologic thrombolysis alone if resources are available and that surgical thrombectomy be considered if thrombolytic therapy is contraindicated (Grade 2C). CONCLUSIONS: Most data regarding early thrombus removal strategies are of low quality but do suggest patient-important benefits with respect to reducing postthrombotic morbidity. We anticipate revision of these guidelines as additional evidence becomes available.

The care of patients with varicose veins and associated chronic venous diseases: clinical practice guidelines of the Society for Vascular Surgery and the American Venous Forum.

The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) and the American Venous Forum (AVF) have developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with varicose veins of the lower limbs and pelvis. The document also includes recommendations on the management of superficial and perforating vein incompetence in patients with associated, more advanced chronic venous diseases (CVDs), including edema, skin changes, or venous ulcers. Recommendations of the Venous Guideline Committee are based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system as strong (GRADE 1) if the benefits clearly outweigh the risks, burden, and costs. The suggestions are weak (GRADE 2) if the benefits are closely balanced with risks and burden. The level of available evidence to support the evaluation or treatment can be of high (A), medium (B), or low or very low (C) quality. The key recommendations of these guidelines are: We recommend that in patients with varicose veins or more severe CVD, a complete history and detailed physical examination are complemented by duplex ultrasound scanning of the deep and superficial veins (GRADE 1A). We recommend that the CEAP classification is used for patients with CVD (GRADE 1A) and that the revised Venous Clinical Severity Score is used to assess treatment outcome (GRADE 1B). We suggest compression therapy for patients with symptomatic varicose veins (GRADE 2C) but recommend against compression therapy as the primary treatment if the patient is a candidate for saphenous vein ablation (GRADE 1B). We recommend compression therapy as the primary treatment to aid healing of venous ulceration (GRADE 1B). To decrease the recurrence of venous ulcers, we recommend ablation of the incompetent superficial veins in addition to compression therapy (GRADE 1A). For treatment of the incompetent great saphenous vein (GSV), we recommend endovenous thermal ablation (radiofrequency or laser) rather than high ligation and inversion stripping of the saphenous vein to the level of the knee (GRADE 1B). We recommend phlebectomy or sclerotherapy to treat varicose tributaries (GRADE 1B) and suggest foam sclerotherapy as an option for the treatment of the incompetent saphenous vein (GRADE 2C). We recommend against selective treatment of perforating vein incompetence in patients with simple varicose veins (CEAP class C(2); GRADE 1B), but we suggest treatment of pathologic perforating veins (outward flow duration ≥500 ms, vein diameter ≥3.5 mm) located underneath healed or active ulcers (CEAP class C(5)-C(6); GRADE 2B). We suggest treatment of pelvic congestion syndrome and pelvic varices with coil embolization, plugs, or transcatheter sclerotherapy, used alone or together (GRADE 2B).

Increasing awareness about venous disease: The American Venous Forum expands the National Venous Screening Program.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the results of the expanded National Venous Screening Program (NVSP) as administered by the American Venous Forum. METHODS: Eighty-three physicians across 40 states participated in screening Americans for venous disease. The NVSP instrument included demographics, venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment, quality-of-life (QOL) assessment, duplex ultrasound scan for reflux and obstruction, and clinical inspection. Participants received educational materials and a report card to give their physician. RESULTS: A total of 2234 individuals underwent screening (mean, 26 people/site; range, 4-42). Demographic data observed included mean age of 60 years (range, 17-93 years); 77% female; 80% Caucasian; mean BMI of 29 (range, 11-68); 40% current or previous smoker; and 24% taking antiplatelet therapy and 4% taking warfarin. If placed in a situation conducive for VTE, 40% of participants were low risk, 22% were moderate risk, 21% were high risk, and 17% were very high risk. On a venous QOL assessment, 17% had a combined total score for all 11 questions of "very limited" or "impossible to do." Reflux or obstruction was noted in 37% and 5% of participants, respectively. CEAP class 0 to 6 was 29%, 29%, 23%, 10%, 9%, 1.5%, 0.5%, respectively. DISCUSSION: Despite a dramatic expansion in the second annual NSVP (from 17 to 83 centers), the presence of venous disease observed in a larger screened population continues to be high. The NVSP represents one pathway to increasing public awareness about venous disease.

Results of the national pilot screening program for venous disease by the American Venous Forum.

OBJECTIVE: This report describes the pilot of a free comprehensive national screening program for venous disease. METHODS: The screening process consisted of a venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment, abbreviated duplex examination for venous obstruction and reflux, inspection for signs of chronic venous insufficiency (CVI), and an exit interview. Physicians coordinating the screenings were members of the American Venous Forum. RESULTS: Seventeen institutions screened 476 people (mean, 28 per site; range, 6 to 71). Mean age was 60 years (range, 40 to 91 years), with 78% women and 68% with a body mass index of > or =25. If placed in a situation conducive for VTE, 22 participants (5%) were low risk, 87 (18%) were moderate risk, 186 (39%) were high risk, and 179 (38%) were at very high risk. In 26 people (6%), one or more segments had venous obstruction, and 190 (40%) had one or more segments of venous reflux in the lower extremities. Varicose veins were present in 32%, edema without skin changes in 11%, skin changes attributable to venous disease in 8%, and healed or active venous stasis ulcer in 1.3% (CEAP classification 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively). Increasing age and increasing deep venous thrombosis risk score significantly correlated with increasing clinical classification, r = 0.09, P = .04, and r = 0.16, P = .0004, respectively. Those participants with reflux in one or more segments were significantly more likely to have a higher clinical classification compared with those with no reflux (P = .0001). CONCLUSION: The first comprehensive national screening for venous disease was performed. Participants were informed of their risk for VTE if placed in a situation conducive to VTE, screened for evidence of obstruction, reflux, and CVI, and empowered to share their results with their primary care provider.