| Literature DB >> 30652160 |
Ole Grøtta1,2, Tone Enden1, Gunnar Sandbæk1,2, Gard Filip Gjerdalen3, Carl-Erik Slagsvold3, Dag Bay1, Nils-Einar Kløw1,2, Antonio Rosales4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the technical success, patency, and clinical outcome, following assessment of inflow and infrainguinal endovenous stent placement in patients with iliofemoral post-thrombotic obstruction with infrainguinal involvement.Entities:
Keywords: Endovenous; Inflow; Infrainguinal; Post-thrombotic; Stent
Year: 2018 PMID: 30652160 PMCID: PMC6319667 DOI: 10.1186/s42155-018-0038-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: CVIR Endovasc ISSN: 2520-8934
Fig. 1Imaging of typical post-thrombotic obstruction (black arrows) of the left common femoral vein at the level of the femoral head on MRV (a) and CV (b), respectively
Fig. 2Examples of grading of axial transformation of the deep femoral vein on conventional venography. a Grade 0, normal anatomy with no post-thrombotic changes. b Grade 1, a popliteal-deep femoral collateral connection (black arrow) and normal caliber deep femoral vein. c Grade 3, the deep femoral vein (black arrows) is larger than the obstructed femoral vein. d Grade 4, large caliber deep femoral vein (black arrows) and occluded femoral vein. White * indicates the femoral vein
Fig. 3Examples of classification of deep femoral vein inflow.0 a, b Good inflow with a grade 3 axial transformation. c, d Fair inflow with a grade 3 axial transformation and post-thrombotic obstruction caudal to lower stent border. 0 e, f, g Poor inflow with grade 2 axial transformation and post-thrombotic obstruction of both the femoral and deep femoral vein caudal to lower stent border. 0 a, b and e, f, g With contrast injection into the deep femoral vein and no opacification of the femoral vein. * indicates the level of the lower stent border in the deep femoral vein. {indicates post-thrombotic segment caudal to lower stent border
Baseline patient characteristics
| Age, years (median – range) | 46 (26–74) | ||
| Female, n (%) | 26 (67) | ||
| Left limb involvement, n (%) | 32 (82) | ||
| Venous claudication, n (%) | 34 (87) | ||
| VCSS, mean (range) | 8 (2–20) | ||
| CEAP | C0 | 2 | |
| C3 | 22 | ||
| C4 | 3 | ||
| C5 | 8 | ||
| C6 | 4 | ||
Axial transformation of the deep femoral vein and lower stent border
| Axial transformationa | Lower stent border | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Common femoral veinb | Deep femoral vein | Femoral vein | |
| Grade 0 | 5 | 0 | 1 |
| Grade 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Grade 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 |
| Grade 3 | 10 | 9 | 0 |
| Grade 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
aGrade 0 = normal vein anatomy, grade 1 = popliteal-deep femoral vein collateral connection with normal deep femoral vein caliber, grade 2 = enlarged deep femoral vein smaller than or equal to the femoral vein, grade 3 = deep femoral vein larger than obstructed femoral vein, grade 4 = total occlusion of femoral vein14
bMissing data n = 2
Infrainguinal stent placement; baseline inflow, clinical results, and patency at final follow-up
| Baseline inflow | Final follow-up | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VCSS | Patency | Complete recovery from venous claudication | |||||||
| Good | Fair | Poor | Decreased | Unchanged | Increased | Yes | No | ||
| All patients ( | 24 | 13 | 2 | 28 | 8 | 3 | 30 | 9 | 23 of 34 |
| Lower stent border in the | |||||||||
| Common femoral vein ( | 18 | 5 | 1 | 16 | 6 | 2 | 21 | 3 | 14 of 19 |
| Deep femoral vein ( | 5 | 8 | 1 | 11 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 6 | 8 of 14 |
| Femoral vein ( | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 of 1 |
VCSS venous clinical severity score
Fig. 4Cumulative primary patency for stents extending into the common femoral vein (◊), overall (○), and deep femoral vein (□),respectively
Fig. 5Cumulative primary patency in patients classified with “good” inflow (□) versus “fair/poor” inflow (○) (p = 0.01)