A scoping review of scores or grading systems for pelvic venous disorders.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic venous disorders (PeVD) encompass a variety of conditions linked to chronic pelvic pain in women. However, PeVD remain underdiagnosed due to the absence of universally accepted diagnostic criteria. The complexity of PeVD classifications across specialties leads to delays in treatment. This scoping review aims to fill a gap in PeVD diagnosis and management by identifying all existing scoring or grading systems to lay the foundation for standardized clinical scoring tools for PeVD. METHODS: This scoping review was undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping reviews. Online databases were searched up to April 2023. Studies implementing a scoring or grading system for patients with confirmed or suspected PeVD were included. Scores or grading systems were classified into four main categories based on their use in the study: screening, diagnosis, measure of disease severity, and measure of response to treatment. RESULTS: Of the 2976 unique records identified, 82 were reviewed in full, and 20 were included in this study. The publication dates ranged from 1984 to 2023 (median, 2018; interquartile range, 2003-2022). A total of 21 scores and/or grading systems were identified. Of these 21 scores, 10 (47.6%) were clinical scores, and 10 (47.6%) were scores based on radiological findings; one study included a score that used both clinical and radiological findings. The identified scores were used in various settings. Of the 21 scores, 2 (9.52%) were used for screening in a tertiary care setting; 3 (14.3%) were used to establish the PeVD diagnosis; 8 (38.1%) were used to assess disease severity; and 8 (38.1%) were used as measures of response to treatment. Of the eight scores assessing disease severity, four (50.0%) assessed the degree of dilatation of pelvic veins and four (50%) assessed the severity of reflux. Only three of the scores were validated. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review identified a range of scoring and grading systems for PeVD. We note a lack of a validated scoring system, both clinical and radiological, for screening and assessment of disease severity. This is an important first step in developing validated disease-specific scoring systems for patient screening, appropriate referral, assessment of symptom severity, and assessment of the response to treatment.

Identification of outcomes in clinical studies for pelvic venous disorders.

OBJECTIVE: There is increasing recognition that health systems need to measure and improve the value of patient care by measuring outcomes. Chronic pelvic pain secondary to pelvic venous insufficiency can have a significant impact on the quality of life (QOL) of women affected. Despite growing recognition, pelvic venous disorders (PeVDs), an important cause of chronic pelvic pain, remain underdiagnosed. Developing a core outcome set (COS) for benchmarking care delivery enhances the standardization of care. However, there is no consensus regarding a standardized minimum set of outcomes for PeVD. We aimed to generate a list of outcomes reported in previous PeVD treatment studies to lay the foundation for developing a COS for PeVD. METHODS: This scoping review was undertaken according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Initially, screening, full-text review and extraction was conducted on studies published between 2018 and 2023. Subsequently, the search was expanded using 1-year intervals, until, over a 1-year interval, no new outcomes were recorded. Closely related outcomes were classified into domains, and domains into three core areas: disease-specific, treatment-related, and QOL-related outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 1579 records identified, 51 publications were included. From these studies, 108 different outcomes were identified. The median number of outcomes per study was 8 (interquartile range, 6-13). Closely related outcomes were organized into 42 outcome domains, which were then categorized into 3 core outcome areas; 47.6% (20/42) were disease specific, 35.7% (15/42) treatment related, and 16.7% (7/42) were QOL related. Of the 51 included studies, disease-specific outcomes were identified in 96.1% of the studies (49/51), treatment-related outcomes in 94.1% (48/51), and QOL outcomes in only 13.7% (7/51). CONCLUSIONS: There was significant heterogeneity in outcomes reported in PeVD studies. Most PeVD treatment studies evaluated disease-specific and treatment-related outcomes of PeVD, but few reported outcomes that measured the impact on QOL. These findings will inform the next steps in developing a COS for PeVD.

Progressive Device Failure at Long Term Follow Up of the Nellix EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing (EVAS) System.

OBJECTIVE: High rates of midterm failure of the Nellix EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing (EVAS) System resulted in device withdrawal from the UK market. The study aim was to report long term Nellix EVAS outcomes and management of a failing device. METHODS: A retrospective review of EVAS procedures at a tertiary unit was performed. Device failure was defined as a triad of stent migration, stent separation, and secondary sac expansion, or any intervention for type 1 endoleak, device rupture, or explant. RESULTS: 161 (male n = 140, female n = 21) patients with a median follow up of 6.0 (IQR 5.0-6.6) years were included. Freedom from all cause mortality estimate at six years was 41.5%. There were 70 (43.5%) device failures with a freedom from device failure estimate at six years of 32.3%. Failure was the result of sac expansion (n = 41), caudal stent migration (n = 36), stent separation (n = 26), and secondary AAA rupture (n = 15). A substantial number of type 1 endoleaks was present (1a n = 33, 1b n = 11), but the type 2 endoleak rate was low at 3.7%. Some 36 (22.4%) patients required re-intervention. Twenty-one patients underwent explant with no 30 day deaths. Six patients underwent Nellix-in-Nellix application (NINA) with one early death from bowel ischaemia and one patient who died later from non-aneurysm related cause. Two NINA patients have ongoing sac expansion and two have had thrombosis of a Nellix limb or visceral stent. Proximal embolisation was only successful in one of six cases. CONCLUSION: The long term failure rate of Nellix EVAS is high. All patients with a device must be informed and be enrolled in enhanced surveillance. EVAS explant is an acceptable technique with favourable outcomes. Management by open explant, if the patient is fit, should be considered early and offered to those with device failure.

Long-term maintenance rituximab for ANCA-associated vasculitis: relapse and infection prediction models.

OBJECTIVES: Following a maintenance course of rituximab (RTX) for ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV), relapses occur on cessation of therapy, and further dosing is considered. This study aimed to develop relapse and infection risk prediction models to help guide decision making regarding extended RTX maintenance therapy. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of AAV who received 4-8 grams of RTX as maintenance treatment between 2002 and 2018 were included. Both induction and maintenance doses were included; most patients received standard departmental protocol consisting of 2× 1000 mg 2 weeks apart, followed by 1000 mg every 6 months for 2 years. Patients who continued on repeat RTX dosing long-term were excluded. Separate risk prediction models were derived for the outcomes of relapse and infection. RESULTS: A total of 147 patients were included in this study with a median follow-up of 63 months [interquartile range (IQR): 34-93]. Relapse: At time of last RTX, the model comprised seven predictors, with a corresponding C-index of 0.54. Discrimination between individuals using this model was not possible; however, discrimination could be achieved by grouping patients into low- and high-risk groups. When the model was applied 12 months post last RTX, the ability to discriminate relapse risk between individuals improved (C-index 0.65), and once again, clear discrimination was observed between patients from low- and high-risk groups. Infection: At time of last RTX, five predictors were retained in the model. The C-index was 0.64 allowing discrimination between low and high risk of infection groups. At 12 months post RTX, the C-index for the model was 0.63. Again, clear separation of patients from two risk groups was observed. CONCLUSION: While our models had insufficient power to discriminate risk between individual patients they were able to assign patients into risk groups for both relapse and infection. The ability to identify risk groups may help in decisions regarding the potential benefit of ongoing RTX treatment. However, we caution the use of these prediction models until prospective multi-centre validation studies have been performed.