Outcomes of Fluoroscopy-Guided Percutaneous High Ligation of the Great Saphenous Vein Combined With Foam Sclerotherapy for Symptomatic Great Saphenous Veins

PurposeTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous high ligation (FPHL) combined with fluoroscopy-guided foam sclerotherapy (FGFS) to treat varicose veins of the great saphenous veins (GSVs).Materials and MethodsThis was a retrospective study of 113 patients (mean age, 62.1 ± 10.8 years; 60 men) with varicose veins of the GSVs (133 limbs) that were treated with FPHL combined with FGFS between April 1 and October 31, 2019. Demographic and clinical data were collected from these patients before the FPHL procedure, after which FGFS was performed. The preterminal GSV was ligated percutaneously by a percutaneously-positioned polypropylene ligature under fluoroscopic guidance. The outcome of ligation was confirmed by venography. Then, foam sclerotherapy was performed under fluoroscopy. At 1-year follow-up, GSV occlusion was evaluated by ultrasound. The venous clinical severity scores (VCSSs) were compared between the preoperative and 1-year follow-up periods.ResultsThe technical success rate was 100% (133 limbs). Complete 12-month follow-up was available for 112 limbs (84.2%) and 103 of these limbs (92.0%) remained occluded during this period. The VCSS improved from 4.71 ± 2.15 to 0.74 ± 0.60 (V = 6328, P < .001). During follow-up, there were 16 limbs with thrombophlebitis and 38 limbs with saphenous junction pain; these events were alleviated within 2 weeks of the procedure. There was no deep venous thrombosis or other severe adverse events.ConclusionsFPHL combined with FGFS to treat varicose veins in the GSVs achieved an occlusion rate of 92% and improved the clinical symptoms within 1 year; this minimally-invasive procedure was safe and effective.     

Comparison between standard Vs. Escalated dose venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A two centers,observational study

IntroductionThe risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 was found to be significantly higher in patients who experienced thromboembolic events. Thus, several guidelines recommend using prophylactic anticoagulants in all COVID-19 hospitalized patients. However, there is uncertainty about the appropriate dosing regimen and safety of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, this study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of standard versus escalated dose pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19.MethodsA two-center retrospective cohort study including critically ill patients aged ≥ 18-years with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at two tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia from March 1st, 2020, until January 31st, 2021. Patients who received either Enoxaparin 40 mg daily or Unfractionated heparin 5000 Units three times daily were grouped under the “standard dose VTE prophylaxis and patients who received higher than the standard dose but not as treatment dose were grouped under ”escalated VTE prophylaxis dose“. The primary outcome was the occurance of thrombotic events, and the secondary outcomes were bleeding, mortality, and other ICU-related complications.ResultsA total of 758 patients were screened; 565 patients were included in the study. We matched 352 patients using propensity score matching (1:1). In patients who received escalated dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis, any case of thrombosis and VTE were similar between the two groups (OR 1.22;95 %CI 0.52–2.86; P = 0.64 and OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.16–3.38; P = 0.70 respectively). However, the odds of minor bleeding was higher in patients who received escalated VTE prophylaxis dose (OR 3.39; 95% CI 1.08–10.61; P = 0.04). There was no difference in the 30-day mortality nor in-hospital mortality between the two groups (HR 1.17;95 %CI0.79–1.73; P = 0.43 and HR 1.08;95 %CI 0.76–1.53; P = 0.83, respectively).ConclusionEscalated-dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not associated with thrombosis, or mortality benefits but led to an increased risk of minor bleeding. This study supports previous evidence regarding the optimal dosing VTE pharmacological prophylaxis regimen for critically ill patients with COVID-19.     

Gynecologic Malignancy-Associated Venous Thromboembolism and Predictive Tool at Thammasat University Hospital

Objectives: Aims were to investigate the prevalence and risk factors of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in gynecologic malignancy cases. Value of screening tool (Caprini) for prediction of VTE was also assessed. Study design: A retrospective study of gynecologic malignancy subjects who underwent major gynecological operation via exploratory laparotomy at Thammasat University Hospital, Pathum Thani, Thailand from January 2015 to December 2020. Participants were categorized into VTE and non-VTE groups. Caprini score, associated laboratory and clinical factors of both groups were evaluated. Results: A total of 392 subjects were recruited into the study. Prevalence of VTE was 7.4 (29/392) percent. VTE was diagnosed in subjects with endometrial, ovarian and cervical cancer at percentage of 7.8 (15/192), 7.9 (11/138) and 5.7 (3/53), respectively. Demographic characters of both groups were comparable. VTE group had significant more Caprini score, platelets count and platelet lymphocyte ratio (PLR) than non-VTE group. Modified Caprini score (2 multiply Caprini score plus 1 multiply PLR) was generated for better VTE prediction. Sensitivity and specificity of Caprini (≥5.5) and modified Caprini scores (≥22.8) were 72.4 vs 39.4, and 79.3 vs 52.1 percent, respectively. Conclusion: Prevalence of VTE among gynecologic malignancy cases was 7.4 percent. The modified Caprini score was an alternative VTE predictive tool. Cut-off point of modified Caprini score at equal or more than 22.8 was proposed.     

Utilization of and Outcomes Associated with Intravascular Ultrasound during Deep Venous Stent Placement among Medicare Beneficiaries

PurposeTo evaluate temporal trends, practice variation, and associated outcomes with the use of intravascular ultrasound (US) during deep venous stent placement among Medicare beneficiaries.Materials and MethodsAll lower extremity deep venous stent placement procedures performed between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019 among Medicare beneficiaries were included. Temporal trends in intravascular US use were stratified by procedural setting and physician specialty. The primary outcome was a composite of 12-month all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, or repeat target vessel intervention. The secondary outcome was a composite of 12-month stent thrombosis, embolization, or restenosis.ResultsAmong the 20,984 deep venous interventions performed during the study period, 15,184 (72.4%) utilized intravascular US. Moderate growth in intravascular US use was observed during the study period in all clinical settings. There was a variation in the use of intravascular US among all operators (median, 77.3% of cases; interquartile range, 20.0%–99.2%). In weighted analyses, intravascular US use during deep venous stent placement was associated with a lower risk of both the primary (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69–0.76; P < .001) and secondary (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.27–0.39; P < .001) composite end points.ConclusionsIntravascular US is frequently used during deep venous stent placement among Medicare beneficiaries, with further increase in use from 2017 to 2019. The utilization of intravascular US as part of a procedural strategy was associated with a lower cumulative incidence of adverse outcomes after the procedure, including venous stent thrombosis and embolization.     

超声及应变式弹性成像预测超声引导下腘静脉置入血管鞘用于治疗下肢深静脉血栓形成成功与否

目的 分析超声及应变式弹性成像预测超声引导下置入腘静脉血管鞘治疗下肢深静脉血栓形成(DVT)成功与否的价值。方法 回顾性分析103例接受超声引导下置入患侧腘静脉血管鞘的DVT患者的术前超声资料,比较置入血管鞘失败与成功病例腘静脉超声及应变式弹性成像表现差异;绘制差异有统计学意义超声参数的受试者工作特征曲线,获得其预测血管鞘置入失败的阈值,对每个参数阈值赋值1分,得到联合超声评分,以实际置入结果为标准,评价超声单一参数及联合评分的预测效能。结果 103例中,对100例行单侧、3例行双侧腘静脉置入血管鞘,包括左侧腘静脉71支、右侧35支,共106支腘静脉;对其中95支腘静脉置入血管鞘成功(成功组),11支失败(失败组)。相比成功组,失败组腘静脉内径及腘静脉与腘动脉内径比值均较小,血栓为等或高回声,与血管壁边界模糊,腘静脉应变式弹性评分为硬。以超声单一参数及联合评分预测置入血管鞘成功与否的曲线下面积分别为0.909、0.926、0.865、0.899、0.958及0.940(P均＜0.001)。结论 患侧腘静脉超声及应变式弹性成像能有效预测对下肢DVT患者行超声引导下置入腘静脉血管鞘成功与否。     

Systematic review of drug–drug interactions between rifamycins and anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents and considerations for management

Rifamycins (rifampin, rifabutin, and rifapentine) play an essential role in the treatment of mycobacterial and some nonmycobacterial infections. They also induce the activity of various drug transporting and metabolizing enzymes, which can impact the concentrations and efficacy of substrates. Many anticoagulant and antiplatelet (AC/AP) agents are substrates of these enzymes and have narrow therapeutic indices, leading to risks of thrombosis or bleeding when coadministered with rifamycins. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects on AC/AP pharmacokinetics, laboratory markers, and clinical safety and efficacy of combined use with rifamycins. A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidance was performed. The PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were queried for English-language reports on combination use of rifamycins and AC/AP agents from database inception through August 2021. The 29 studies identified examined warfarin (n = 17), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (n = 8), and antiplatelet agents (n = 4) combined with rifampin (n = 28) or rifabutin (n = 1). Eleven studies were case reports or small case series; 14 reported on pharmacokinetic or laboratory markers in healthy volunteers. Rifampin-warfarin combinations led to reductions in warfarin area under the curve (AUC) of 15%–74%, with variability by warfarin isomer and study. Warfarin dose increases of up to 3–5 times prerifampin doses were required to maintain coagulation parameters in the therapeutic range. DOAC AUCs were decreased by 20%–67%, with variability by individual agent and with rifampin versus rifabutin. The active metabolite of clopidogrel increased substantially with rifampin coadministration, whereas prasugrel was largely unaffected and ticagrelor saw decreases. Our review suggests most combinations of AC/AP agents and rifampin are problematic. Further studies are required to determine whether rifabutin or rifapentine could be safe alternatives for coadministration with AC/AP drugs.