Pelvic venous insufficiency secondary to iliac vein stenosis and ovarian vein reflux treated with iliac vein stenting alone

Management of Extra-Pelvic Varicose Veins of Pelvic Origin in Female Patients

Extra-pelvic varicose veins (VVs), originating from incompetent pelvic veins, present a significant clinical challenge, due to their complex anatomy, etiology, and symptomatology. This review aims at providing a comprehensive overview of the diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for these cases and emphasizes the importance of a tailored, evidence-based approach to the effective management of these varicosities, particularly regarding the interplay between the pelvic and extra-pelvic venous systems. Diagnostic workup should be multifaceted, incorporating patient-reported symptoms, physical examinations, and duplex ultrasound imaging. Specific diagnostic assessments include evaluation of the pelvic escape points and the transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasonography, to analyze venous hemodynamics and identify anatomical abnormalities in the pelvic floor and pelvis. In patients presenting with additional pelvic venous insufficiency (PVI)-related pelvic symptoms, advanced diagnostic techniques, such as cross-sectional imaging, venography, and intravascular ultrasound can be valuable to confirm and establish the appropriate treatment strategy. Since most patients with extra-pelvic VVs of pelvic origin do not report pelvic symptoms, minimally invasive procedures, using the "bottom-up" approach, such as ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy of the pelvic escape points and extra-pelvic VVs, or surgical ligation and miniphlebectomy for these incompetent veins, are usually sufficient. There are several advantages of these local procedures: they are simple, radiation exposure and injection contrast agents are avoided, they are convenient for the patient since they are performed on an outpatient basis, and they can be easily repeated, if required. When the "bottom-up" treatment fails and the extra-pelvic VVs recur quickly or the patient develops pelvic symptoms, management of the pelvic veins including embolization of the ovarian veins or stenting of the iliac veins should be considered. Careful patient selection is essential to avoid overtreatment and achieve optimal clinical outcomes.

Prospective Cohort Study of a Treatment Strategy for a Combination of the Left Common Iliac Vein Compression Stenosis and Pelvic Venous Insufficiency

PURPOSE

To develop a strategy for the iliac vein stenting in patients with a combination of the left common iliac vein (LCIV) compression stenosis and pelvic venous insufficiency (PVI).

METHODS

This prospective comparative cohort study included 55 patients with hemodynamically significant LCIV stenosis out of 285 females with PVI screened in 2014-2022. All 55 patients underwent duplex ultrasound, multi-detector computed venography, ovarian venography, and multiplanar pelvic venography. Patients underwent LCIV stenting or the left gonadal vein (LGV) embolization as the primary intervention. The endpoints (chronic pelvic pain [CPP] relief, patency of stents, and reduction in pelvic venous reflux [PVR]) were evaluated 1 and 10 days, as well as 1, 6, and 12 months after the procedure. All patients received antithrombotic therapy after the interventions.

RESULTS

The primary LCIV stenting was performed in 49 patients and resulted in the CPP relief in 69.4%, pain reduction from 7.9±1.3 to 1.7±1.1 visual analog scale (VAS) scores (p=0.005), and substantial reduction of PVR in LGV (from 4.3±0.6 seconds to 1.9±0.3 seconds, p=0.003). The LGV embolization as the second stage of treatment was performed in 30.6% of patients with the LGV reflux greater than 5 seconds as a possible cause for the CPP persistence. The primary LGV embolization failed in 100% of patients (no changes in CPP and PVR). The LCIV stenting at the second stage resulted in the CPP relief within 10 days and the pelvic venous reflux (PVR) reduction. There were no complications of stenting, and the patency of stents in the follow-up period was 100%. Postembolization syndrome occurred in 9.5% of patients. No thromboses of the veins of the pelvis and lower extremities were identified.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of patients with a combination of LCIV compression and PVI involves staged endovascular interventions: the LCIV stenting should be considered the first-line treatment, while the LGV embolization is performed when the PVI symptoms persist for more than 6 months and is not acceptable as the first-line treatment.Clinical ImpactThe developed strategy of endovascular treatment for the combination of left common iliac vein (LCIV) and pelvic venous insufficiency (PVI) provides an effective elimination of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) and reflux in the pelvic veins and avoids unnecessary embolizations of the gonadal veins, thereby eliminating possible risks related to complications of embolization. The use of antithrombotic therapy is an effective and safe approach for preventing venous thromboembolic events after endovascular interventions.

Pelvic Varicose Veins in Women. Russian Experts Consensus

Pelvic Varicose Veins in Women. Russian Experts Consensus.

The impact of stent protrusion into the inferior vena cava or jailing of the contralateral iliac vein on the incidence of contralateral deep vein thrombosis following venous stenting

OBJECTIVE

Iliac vein stenting is the standard of care for patients with pelvic venous disorders secondary to symptomatic iliac vein outflow obstruction. Venous stents are often extended proximally into the inferior vena cava (IVC) which may result in partial or complete coverage of the contralateral iliac vein. The purpose of this investigation is to determine if extension of iliac vein stents into the IVC results in increased risk of contralateral deep venous thrombosis (DVT).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data from 409 patients who underwent iliac vein stenting at the Center for Vascular Medicine (CVM) from 2019 to 2020. Stent type, covered territories, initial and follow-up consults, ultrasound and operative reports were reviewed to assess for incidence of post-implantation DVT. Patients were stratified into three groups: Iliac vein stents which protruded into the IVC, stents that completely covered the orifice of the contralateral iliac vein and those with no stent protrusion into the IVC.

RESULTS

Out of 409 patients, the average age was 53.96 ± 13.40 years with 94 males and 315 females. All stents placed were Venovo stents and all iliac vein lesions were non-thrombotic stenoses. The average follow-up period was 14.35 ± 10.09 months. The most common territories stented were the IVC-LCIV-LEIV (n = , 74%) and the IVC-RCIV-REIV (n = , 26%). Stent protrusion and distance into the IVC in millimeters (mm) was the following: Partial protrusion (n = 314, 77%, 27.6 ± 19.1), jailing of the contralateral iliac vein (n = 78, 19%, 45.9 ± 18.6), no protrusion (n = 16, 4%). The overall DVT rate post-implantation was 0.49% (n = 2). No DVTs ipsilateral to the index stent were identified and both DVTs were contralateral DVTs. A hypercoaguable disorder was reported in 6 patients (1.5%). There were no significant differences in prevalence of contralateral DVT between the three groups. (p = .35).

CONCLUSION

The rate of contralateral DVTs post iliac vein stenting with Nitonol based stents is extremely low. Partial or complete coverage of the contralateral iliac vein via stenting does not result in an increased incidence of contralateral DVT in the short-term. Longer follow up is needed to determine if contralateral DVTs occur after long-term implantation.

Pelvic Venous Disorders in Women: 5-Year Update from a Society of Interventional Radiology Foundation-Sponsored Research Consensus Panel

Pelvic venous disorders (PeVDs) are rarely considered as a cause of chronic pelvic pain in women being evaluated by nonvascular specialists. A Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) Foundation-sponsored Research Consensus Panel addressing this issue identified multiple gaps in the literature and made recommendations to enhance the evidence. Since publication of these recommendations in 2019, significant progress has been made in developing the necessary tools to improve the ability to conduct rigorous clinical studies and advance the evidence supporting the diagnosis and treatment of PeVD. This report summarizes the 5-year impact of the panel's recommendations. The investment made by SIR Foundation to host a Research Consensus Panel on PeVD has facilitated enduring academic productivity related to this clinical issue.

Iliac venous stenting provides long-term relief from chronic pelvic pain

OBJECTIVE

Iliac venous obstruction has been reported as a cause of chronic pelvic pain (CPP), however, there is a paucity of data in the literature reporting outcomes of venous stenting in this population. This study reports on a group of women with CPP and evidence of iliac venous obstruction: (1) the long-term impact of iliac vein stenting on pain scores; (2) the associations of age, stenosis severity, and concurrent presence of ovarian vein reflux (OVR) on pain; and (3) the effect of pregnancy after stenting.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of women with chronic pelvic pain who subsequently underwent iliac vein stenting. Data analyzed included demographics, venous measures (iliac and ovarian veins), visual analog scales, and pregnancy after stenting.

RESULTS

A total of 113 female patients who had a history of chronic pelvic pain and underwent iliac venous stenting were included in analyses. The mean age at the time of stenting was 46.5 ± 15.7 years (range, 17-88 years). The baseline left common iliac vein diameter on duplex was 0.43 ± 0.18 cm and left common iliac vein area stenosis on intravascular ultrasound was 77.4 ± 9.4%. The baseline pain severity was correlated with younger age, degree of stenosis and presence of OVR. At a median follow-up of 5 years after stenting, 98% had improved pain scores and 73% had complete resolution of their pain despite the presence of residual OVR. Pregnancy after stenting did not result in the recurrence of pain and there were no stent-related complications with pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Iliac venous stenting provides long-term relief from CPP even with residual OVR and poststent pregnancy. With 73% of women having full pain resolution, and the rest having a mean residual pain score of <3, this study supports venous stenting for the treatment of CPP of venous origin, especially in young women.

Long-term follow-up for the treatment of symptomatic pelvic venous insufficiency secondary to combined iliac vein stenosis and ovarian vein reflux treated with iliac vein stenting alone

BACKGROUND

We previously reported that in women with symptomatic pelvic venous insufficiency secondary to combined iliac vein stenosis (IVS) and ovarian vein reflux (OVR), treated with iliac vein stenting alone that 78% reported complete symptom resolution up to 6 months. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the long-term effectiveness of this treatment strategy, the poststent reintervention rate and the incidence of poststent ovarian vein embolization (OVE) for residual symptoms.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data at the Center for Vascular Medicine was performed. We investigated women with pelvic pain or dyspareunia secondary to combined IVS and OVR who were treated with stenting alone. Patients whose primary complaint was dysmenorrhea and/or leg symptoms were excluded from the analysis. Assessments and interventions consisted of an evaluation for other causes of pelvic venous disorder by a gynecologist, documentation of preintervention and 3-, 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-month visual analog scale pain scores; transabdominal duplex ultrasound examination; stent type, diameter, and length; vein territory covered; and reintervention rates. All patients underwent diagnostic venography of their pelvic, left ovarian veins, and pelvic reservoirs, and intravascular ultrasound examination of their iliac veins.

RESULTS

From February 2018 to January 2023, 141 women with a pelvic venous disorder secondary to IVS and OVR were identified. The average age was 44.7 ± 10.5 years with 3.18 ± 1.82 pregnancies. The average follow-up time for the entire cohort was 12.0 ± 12.1 months (median, 10.65 months). Types of stents were Venovo 48 (34%), Wallstent 14 (10%), and Abre 79 (56%). The most common diameter and stent lengths used were 14 and 16 mm and 140 and 150 mm, respectively. The most common vein territories covered were the inferior vena cava to the left external iliac vein in 83% and inferior vena cava to right external iliac vein in 13%. Pelvic and dyspareunia VAS scores before the intervention and at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after the intervention were as follows: 6.4 ± 73 (n = 141), 2.6 ± 3.3 (n = 98), 1.71 ± 2.83 (n = 77), 2.04 ± 3.5 (n = 76), 2.4 ± 3.7 (n = 30), and 1.15 ± 3 (n = 13) (P ≤ .001). Of the entire cohort no patients required OVE and pelvic reservoir embolization. Pelvic reservoirs were present in 113 of 141 patients (83%). Stent reinterventions were required in 19 of 141 patients (13%).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of women with pelvic pain secondary to combined IVS and OVR achieved near complete symptom resolution with iliac vein stenting alone, despite the presence of a pelvic reservoir in 83% of patients. Although most women complained of some minimal residual pelvic pain or dyspareunia, the majority were satisfied with their outcomes and did not require further intervention. In this patient population, iliac vein stenting should be considered the primary treatment modality. OVE should be reserved for patients with persistent or recurrent pelvic pain unresolved with stenting.

Diagnosis and Management of Pelvic Venous Disorders in Women

Pelvic venous reflux and obstruction can lead to chronic pelvic pain and extra-pelvic varicosities. This paper will discuss the contemporary understanding of this pathophysiology and its clinical manifestations. It will review evidence-based clinical and imaging criteria of pelvic venous disorders, data supporting benefit from venous interventions, criticisms of the available data and highlight evidence research gaps that exist. Finally, it will argue that comparative outcomes research utilizing standardized patient selection for embolization and stenting, embolization treatment strategies that eliminate the pelvic varices (at least to start), and clinically relevant outcome measures are necessary to establish the benefit of vascular treatments.

Pelvic congestion syndrome analysis through quantitative 2-dimensional phase-contrast MRI: a promising vision from an observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

To examine the application of quantitative 2-dimensional phase-contrast MRI (2D PC-MRI) for treating patients with pelvic congestion syndrome (PCS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis by using quantitative 2D PC-MRI data enrolled between April 2017 and September 2023. In addition, 32 healthy female controls (HCs) were included.

RESULTS

Most patients with PCS presented with chronic pelvic pain and more than half had extrapelvic venous symptoms (80/81, 98% and 45/81, 56%, respectively). Quantitative 2D PC-MRI analyzed the 81 patients with PCS, 239 patients without PCS, and 32 HCs. The patients with PCS had higher stroke volume (SV), absolute SV (ASV), and mean flux (MF) in the calf region (interstitial pixel shift) than did the HCs. In the left gonadal vein, the patients with PCS had higher SV, backward flow volume (BFV), ASV, and MF and lower forward flow volume (FFV), stroke distance (SD), and mean velocity (MV) than did the HCs. However, the patients with PCS had lower SV, FFV, MF, SD, and MV in the great saphenous veins. Quantitative 2D PC-MRI analysis revealed that the PCS group had higher SV, FFV, BFV, ASV, and MF in the calf region than did the non-PCS group. The variables that most strongly differentiated the patients with PCS from the HCs were SV in the great saphenous veins, SD in the great saphenous veins and left gonadal vein, and MV in the great saphenous veins and left gonadal vein. Caudal flow in the left gonadal vein was identified in half of the patients with PCS (39/81, 48.1%); 14 of them received embolization for left gonadal vein.

CONCLUSIONS

In additional to providing an objective 3-dimensional morphology of the pelvic veins and extrapelvic leaks, quantitative 2D PC-MRI analysis reveals distinct hemodynamic profiles between patients with PCS, those without PCS, and HCs, especially in the gonadal veins and regional perfusion of the calves.

Application of the Symptoms-Varices-Pathophysiology classification system in patients with pelvic venous disorders

Introduction: In 2021, the American Vein and Lymphatic Society convened a multi-disciplinary group to develop a valid and reliable discriminative instrument for the classification of patients suffering from pelvic venous disorders (PeVD) referred to as the Symptoms-Varices-Pathophysiology (SVP) system. Limited data exists regarding the utility of this instrument in the care of patients with PeVD. The goal of this investigation is to apply the SVP classification system to a group of patients treated for PeVDs. Methods: From January 2018 to January 2019, we retrospectively reviewed the records of 70 female patients treated for a PeVD at the Center for Vascular Medicine. Age, race, gender, medical/surgical histories, CEAP classification and intervention types were assessed and patients were categorized according to their SVP classification. The prevalence of each S and V class, their association with gonadal or iliac vein obstructive lesions and the prevalence of lower extremity varicosities was evaluated. Results: The average age of the entire cohort was 47.4 ± 13.4. The race distribution was as follows: African American (6), Hispanic (1), and Caucasian (63). Of the 140 limbs, 57% were C3 or greater with an average rVCSS score of 4.53. At the time of intervention, 54 patients (77%) demonstrated CEAP class 2 disease or greater with 25 patients (35%) demonstrating lower extremity varicosities. Medical co-morbidities included the following: Endometriosis (n = 1), Uterine Fibroids (n = 1), Ovarian cysts (n = 4), history of venous thrombosis (n = 2) and prior lower extremity venous procedures (n = 3). Overall, 47 patients (67.1%) demonstrated S2 disease secondary to dyspareunia, post-coital pain, or dysmenorrhea. S2 alone was observed in 17 patients (24.3%), S2,3a and S2,3a,3b in nine patients each (12.9%), and S2,3b was in 12 patients (17.1%). Thirteen patients presented with isolated extra-pelvic symptoms (19%); four (5.7%) were classified as S3a,3b, and nine (12.9%) were classified as S3b only. Finally, 10 patients (14%) had no pelvic symptoms and thus were classified as S0. V0 disease was observed in 17 patients (24.3%) secondary to a high incidence of iliac vein stenoses (IVS). V1 disease was observed in 1 patient (1.43%). V2 disease was observed in 53 patients (74.3%) secondary to iliac or ovarian vein reflux. Of these, 45 patients (64.3%) presented with reflux in the iliac veins. Sixteen patients had reflux in the common iliac veins, 17 patients exhibited reflux of the external iliac veins, and 41 patients demonstrated reflux of the internal iliac veins. Thirty-two patients (45.7%) presented with V2 disease secondary to reflux of the ovarian veins, 8 of whom presented with isolated ovarian vein reflux without IVS. Bilateral ovarian vein reflux was observed in 6 patients (9%) and unilaterally in 26 (37%) patients with concomitant ovarian vein reflux and IVS observed in 31 patients (44%). In patients with ovarian vein reflux, 89% had a concomitant iliac vein stenosis: (96.9% in the common iliac vein, 81.3% in the external iliac vein and 3.1% in the internal iliac vein). Conclusion: In our patient cohort, 70 women demonstrated 14 different SV classifications. The most common was S2V2, found in 10 patients. Chronic pelvic pain of venous origin, S2 disease, was the most common symptom, present in 47 patients (67.1%); followed by extra-pelvic symptoms as 22 patients demonstrated symptoms of the external genitalia (S3a), and 21 patients had symptoms secondary to the non-saphenous leg veins (S3b). Pelvic varicosities, V2, were also the most common variceal pattern seen in 53 patients, and 17 patients did not have any varices noted by venogram. Non-thrombotic IVS either alone or with ovarian vein reflux was the most common cause of PeVD in this cohort and may reflect referral patterns to our center. To determine the true incidence of these SVP patterns, larger cohort studies are necessary.

Indications, technical aspects, and outcomes of stent placement in chronic iliofemoral venous obstruction

BACKGROUND

Iliofemoral venous stent placement (IVS) has evolved to a well-established endovascular treatment modality for chronic iliofemoral venous obstruction (CIVO). Dedicated venous stents gained approval from the US Food and Drug Administration in 2019 and solidified IVS as a defined intervention with clear indications, contraindications, risks, benefits, and procedural management principles. This review focuses on the indications, technical aspects and outcomes of stenting for CIVO. Other aspects pertaining to IVS are covered in other articles that are a part of this series.

METHODS

This study conducted a literature search limited to English articles. Three search strategies were used, and references were managed in Covidence software. Four investigators screened and evaluated articles independently, excluding meta-analyses, clinical trial protocols, and nonrelevant studies. Eligible studies, focused on clinical outcomes and stent patencies, underwent thorough review.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 1704 studies, with 147 meeting eligibility criteria after screening and evaluation. Exclusions were based on duplicates, irrelevant content, and noniliac vein stent placement.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful IVS for CIVO relies on meticulous patient selection, consistent use of intravascular ultrasound examination during procedures and attention to the technical details of IVS.

Review of the literature supporting international clinical practice guidelines on iliac venous stenting and their applicability to Australia and New Zealand practice

BACKGROUND

The overall goal of this report is to provide a high-level, practical approach to managing venous outflow obstruction (VOO).

METHODS

A group of vascular surgeons from Australia and New Zealand with specific interest, training, and experience in the management of VOO were surveyed to assess current local practices. The results were analyzed and areas of disagreement identified. After this, the group performed a literature review of consensus guidelines published by leading international organizations focused on the management of chronic venous disease, namely, the Society for Vascular Surgery, American Venous Forum, European Society for Vascular Surgery, American Vein and Lymphatic Society, Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society of Europe, and American Heart Association. These guidelines were compared against the consensus statements obtained through the surveys to determine how they relate to Australian and New Zealand practice. In addition, selected key studies, reviews, and meta-analyses on venous stenting were discussed and added to the document. A selection of statements with >75% agreement was voted on, and barriers to the guideline's applicability were identified. The final recommendations were further reviewed and endorsed by another group of venous experts.

RESULTS

The document addresses two key areas: patient selection and technical aspects of venous stenting. Regarding patient selection, patients with clinically relevant VOO, a Clinical-Etiologic-Anatomic-Physiologic score of ≥3 or a Venous Clinical Severity Score for pain of ≥2, or both, including venous claudication, with evidence of >50% stenosis should be considered for venous stenting (Level of Recommendation Ib). Patients with chronic pelvic pain, deep dyspareunia, postcoital pain affecting their quality of life, when other causes have been ruled out, should also be considered for venous stenting (Level of Recommendation Ic). Asymptomatic patients should not be offered venous stenting (Level of Recommendation IIIc). Patients undergoing thrombus removal for acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis, in whom a culprit stenotic lesion of >50% has been uncovered, should be considered for venous stenting (Level of Recommendation Ib).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with VOO have been underdiagnosed and undertreated for decades; however, in recent years, interest from physicians and industry has grown substantially. International guidelines aimed at developing standards of care to avoid undertreating and overtreating patients are applicable to Australia and New Zealand practice and will serve as an educational platform for future developments.

Interventional Therapy of Pelvic Venous Disorders (PeVD)

BACKGROUND

Pelvic venous disorders (PeVD) are an underdiagnosed cause of chronic pelvic pain in women. They are caused by venous insufficiency of the pelvic or ovarian veins, leading to the development of mainly periuterine and periovarian varices. It is a progressive disease if left untreated and can cause swelling, dyspareunia, dysmenorrhea, and other symptoms, some non-specific, that affect the patient's quality of life. Interventional therapies are a central component of the treatment of PeVD, with a variety of techniques available for both diagnosis and treatment.

METHOD

This review provides an overview of the pathophysiologic background, diagnosis, and, most importantly, interventional treatment options for PeVD.

RESULTS

There is a lack of standardized nomenclature and internationally accepted diagnostic criteria for PeVD as well as randomized controlled trials demonstrating clinical success. However, in clinical trials, endovascular therapy for PeVD has been shown to be safe and effective. This review presents the various interventional techniques for the treatment of PeVD, including embolization, stenting, and sclerotherapy.

CONCLUSION

The importance of PeVD is receiving growing recognition. Recent advances, such as the development of the Symptoms-Varices-Pathophysiology (SVP) classification, provide an impetus to standardize nomenclature and are the first step toward systematizing disease management. Interventional therapies provide a safe and tailored minimally invasive treatment option for patients with PeVD.

KEY POINTS

· Pelvic venous disorders are an underdiagnosed condition with frequently delayed diagnosis and debilitating symptoms.. · Until now, the PeVD nomenclature has been imprecise, with terms like May-Thurner syndrome/Nutcracker syndrome.. · Interventional approaches are effective and play a central role in PeVD treatment..

CITATION FORMAT

· Dewald CL, Becker LS, Meyer BC. Interventional Therapy of Pelvic Venous Disorders (PeVD). Fortschr Röntgenstr 2024; 196: 921 - 927.

The role of iliac vein stent placement in pelvic venous disorder management

Pelvic venous disease (PeVD) has historically been challenging to diagnose and treat. This paper describes a comprehensive approach to the diagnosis of PeVD and reviews the role of iliac vein stent placement in treatment. Patient selection is vital for non-thrombotic iliac vein lesions (NIVLs) as only a small subset of patients with an NIVL will benefit from stent placement. There is limited, inconclusive data on optimal treatment for patients with both primary ovarian vein reflux and an NIVL. Patients with chronic post-thrombotic outflow obstruction typically have a more favorable risk/benefit ratio for intervention but require anticoagulation and close follow-up due to poorer long-term stent patency. Intravascular ultrasound is a useful tool for identifying obstructive lesions, sizing stents, and planning landing zones. More research is needed to characterize underlying pathophysiology, validate thresholds for intervention, develop reliable methods for outcomes assessment, and determine treatment response. Until this data is produced, an individualized treatment approach is warranted.

Diagnosis and Management of Pelvic Venous Disorders: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Pelvic venous disorders (PeVD), previously known by various imprecise terms including pelvic congestion syndrome, have historically been underdiagnosed as a cause of chronic pelvic pain (CPP), a significant health problem associated with reduced quality of life. However, progress in the field has helped to provide heightened clarity with respect to definitions relating to PeVD, and evolution in algorithms for PeVD workup and treatment has been accompanied by new insights into the causes of a pelvic venous reservoir and associated symptoms. Ovarian and pelvic vein embolization, as well as endovascular stenting of common iliac vein compression, should be considered as management options for PeVD. Both treatments have been shown to be safe and effective for patients with CPP of venous origin, regardless of age. Current therapeutic protocols for PeVD exhibit significant heterogeneity owing to limited prospective randomized data and evolving understanding of the factors driving successful outcomes; forthcoming clinical trials are anticipated to improve understanding of CPP of venous origin as well as algorithms for PeVD management. This Expert Panel Narrative Review provides a contemporary update relating to PeVD, summarizing the entity's current classification, diagnostic workup, endovascular treatments, management of persistent or recurrent symptoms, and future research directions.

Female Gonadal Venous Insufficiency in a Clinical Presentation Which Suggested an Acute Abdomen-A Case Report and Literature Review

Pelvic venous insufficiency (PVI) is frequently associated with symptoms of abdominal pain or discomfort that is overlooked or under-diagnosed in women. Despite the fact that pelvic venous insufficiency in men is very well documented, its occurrence in women needs to be further studied. Patients with pelvic varicose veins undergo a long and inconclusive diagnostic work-up before the exact cause of the symptoms is identified. Gonadal venous insufficiency (GVI) is a condition that can present acutely, leading to diagnostic challenges. We present a case report of a 47-year-old female with acute abdominal pain and GVI, where endovascular embolization was used for successful treatment. The patient was diagnosed with GVI based on imaging findings of an enlarged left ovarian vein with retrograde flow and dilated pelvic veins seen on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with contrast material. Due to the severity of her symptoms and imaging findings, endovascular embolization was chosen as the treatment modality. The embolization was successful, and the patient's symptoms resolved completely. This case highlights the challenge of diagnosing GVI with acute clinical expression and the potential benefits of endovascular embolization as a treatment option. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal management strategies for acute GVI, but endovascular embolization should be considered a safe and effective option. At the same time, we present a short review of the recent literature data related to this topic.

Deep venous stenting in females

Deep venous stenting has gained increasing prominence in recent years. This issue focuses on special considerations in female patients. The specific challenge relates to the fact that these patients are often much younger than those in whom arterial stents are placed. The stents have to perform adequately over potentially 60 years- and there is no data of that length available.

A practice audit of short-term outcomes of Wallstents versus Venovo stents for the treatment of nonthrombotic iliac vein outflow stenoses

OBJECTIVE

The Wallstent (WS; Boston Scientific, Malborough, MA) is currently the standard of care for comparisons of clinical efficacy for new stent devices in the treatment of iliac vein outflow disease. Many vein-specific Nitinol-based stents have been now approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the iliofemoral venous system. However, few comparisons of these devices to the current standard have been reported. The purpose of this investigation was to compare the complication and reintervention rates between the WS and Venovo stent (VS; BD, Franklin Lakes, NJ).

METHODS

A random sample of 100 WS and 100 VS cases performed from April 2018 through December 2020 were selected for retrospective analysis. The demographics, presenting symptoms, and CEAP (Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, Pathophysiology) class were assessed. The complication logs and 90-day follow-up data were reviewed for every case to assess the incidence of postoperative deep vein thrombosis, stent thrombosis, in-stent restenosis, bleeding, and transient back pain.

RESULTS

WSs had been placed more often in the left common iliac vein segment (52 vs 1), and VSs had been placed more often in the left common iliac vein and external iliac vein segments (36 vs 63; P = .0069). The average diameter and length of the WSs and VSs were 19.7 ± 2.2 mm vs 15 ± 1.4 mm (P = 2.4∗10^-44) and 80.8 ± 9 mm vs 117.6 ± 20.4 mm (P = 2.4∗10^-38), respectively. The average number of stents per patient was 1.05 for the WSs and 1.03 for the VSs (P = .47). The reintervention rates were similar between the two groups: WS, n = 5; and VS, n = 4 (P = .74). Four of the five WS reinterventions were stent extensions to treat in-stent restenosis and recurrence of symptoms, and one was secondary to occlusion requiring ipsilateral venoplasty and stenting. Two of the four VS reinterventions were venoplasty for in-stent restenosis and two were stent extensions for symptom recurrence. Transient back pain was the most common complication (WS, 37%; VS, 47%; P = 0.28). Insertion site deep vein thrombosis had developed in the three patients in the WS group and four patients in the VS group (P = .71). No patient had experienced bleeding requiring hospitalization, and no stent fractures, stent migration, or deaths had occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

The complication and reintervention rates between the WS and VS groups were similar. Both stents demonstrated evidence of in-stent stenosis requiring reintervention. Implanted VSs tended to be smaller in diameter and longer in length and covered the common and external iliac veins more often compared with the WSs. Therefore, one VS can be used to cover two territories compared with the WS for which two stents will be required to cover the same vein territory length.

Nitinol stents placed in iliac veins are not associated with prolonged back pain

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular stenting is the standard of care for the management of symptomatic chronic venous obstruction. The increased radial resistive force and longer lengths of Nitinol stents have led to questions over persistent post-operative back pain. The purpose of this investigation was to assess the incidence and severity of post-operative back pain of Nitinol stents compared to Wallstents.

METHODS

A retrospective review of data at the Center for Vascular Medicine was performed. Patient demographics, pre-operative, one week, three-, six,- and 12 month visual analog pain scores (VAS) for back pain, stent type, diameter, length, and vein locations were assessed.

RESULTS

From April 2014 to November 2021, 627 (412 women/215 men) patients were assessed for the presence of post-operative back pain after an initial iliac vein stent placement. Stents utilized were Wallstents (n = 114), Venovo (n = 342), and Abre (n = 171). The most common Nitinol stent diameter and lengths were 14 mm, 16 mm, and 120 mm, respectively (p ≤ .03). The incidence of back pain at one week was 66% (411/627). VAS scores at one week and one, three, and six months post-operatively were the following: Wallstents-2.6 ± 3 (n = 66), 1.7 ± 2.6 (n = 43) 0.7 ± 2 (n = 51), and 0 ± 0 (n = 27); Abre-3.5 ± 3 (n = 130), 3.8 ± 3 (n = 19), 1.2 ± 2.5 (n = 12), and 1 ± 2 (n = 5); and Venovo- 2.5 ± 3 (n = 216), 2.4 ± 3 (n = 70), 0.9 ± 2 (n = 68), and 0.6 ± 1.7 (n = 49). There was no difference in the severity of back pain at any time point (p ≥ .99). The development of back pain was unrelated to stent type, diameter, length, or covered vein territory.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-operative back pain was observed in 66% of patients at one week. The average pain score at one week for the entire cohort was three, which declined to less than one at one month. No difference in the severity of back pain between groups was observed at any time point, and the development of back pain is unrelated to stent type, diameter, length, or covered vein territory.

Insights into pelvic venous disorders

Pelvic venous disorders (PeVD), sometimes referred to as pelvic congestion syndrome (PCS), widely impact affected patients-mainly young women's quality of life, causing puzzling, uncomfortable symptoms sometimes requiring months or years to get an explanation, while simply remaining undiagnosed in other cases. Because pelvic pain is a non-specific symptom, an appropriate diagnosis requires a careful patient workup, including a correlation between history and non-invasive imaging. Invasive imaging is frequently required to confirm the diagnosis and plan treatment. Current therapeutic approaches principally rely on minimally invasive techniques delivered through endovascular access. However, while comprehensive descriptive classifications such as the symptoms-varices-pathophysiology (SVP) classification exist, universally accepted guidelines regarding therapy to apply for each SVP category are still lacking. This review strongly focuses on PeVD imaging and discusses available therapeutic approaches with regard to pathophysiological mechanisms. It proposes a new classification scheme assisting clinical decision-making about endovascular management to help standardize the link between imaging findings and treatment.

Comprehensive overview of the venous disorder known as pelvic congestion syndrome

Pelvic venous disorders (PeVD) also known as Pelvic Congestion Syndrome (PCS) affect a great number of women worldwide and often remain undiagnosed. Gynecological symptoms caused by vascular background demand a holistic approach for appropriate diagnosis. This is a relevant cause of chronic pelvic pain and atypical varicose veins. The diagnosis is based on imaging studies and their correlation with clinical presentation. Although the aetiology of PCS still remains unclear, it may result from a combination of factors including genetic predisposition, anatomical abnormalities, hormonal factors, damage to the vein wall, valve dysfunction, reverse blood flow, hypertension and dilatation. The following paper describes an in-depth overview of anatomy, pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of PCS. In recent years, minimally invasive interventions have become the method of first choice for the treatment of this condition. The efficacy of a percutaneous approach is high and it is rarely associated with serious complications.Key MessagesPelvic venous disorders demand a holistic approach for appropriate diagnosis.This article takes an in-depth look at existing therapies of Pelvic Congestion Syndrome and pathophysiology of this condition.Embolisation is an effective and safe treatment option.

Pregnancy after iliac vein stenting for pelvic venous insufficiency

BACKGROUND

The use of iliac vein stenting for the treatment of pelvic pain secondary to pelvic venous insufficiency has significantly increased. In women of childbearing age, the effect of the gravid uterus on stent function and patency is unclear. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the effect of pregnancy on stent patency and reintervention rate in women with iliac vein stents.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review and email survey was performed to identify women treated at the Center for Vascular Medicine who were treated with iliac vein stenting and who had subsequent pregnancies. Medical and surgical comorbidities, stent type, location, length, number of stents, reintervention rates, number of pregnancies after stenting, anticoagulation usage during pregnancy, and type of delivery were assessed.

RESULTS

From January 2014 to December 2020, 15 women with 16 iliac vein stents and who had 17 subsequent pregnancies were identified. The average age at stenting was 35.3 ± 4.13 years. The average interval between stenting and conception was 350 ± 287 days. Before pregnancy, stent location was in the right common/right external iliac veins in 1 patient and left common/external iliac veins in 14 patients. The average stent diameter and length were 19.6 ± 3 and 79.5 ± 20.3 mm, respectively. Thirteen Boston Scientific Wallstents and three Bard Venovo stents were used before pregnancy. One patient with a Wallstent required a stent extension before pregnancy and one patient had two stents placed at the initial procedure. Two women were pregnant twice after stenting for a total of 17 pregnancies. There were 16 term and 1 premature delivery of single infants. Patients were treated with enoxaparin (Lovenox) for stent-related thrombosis prophylaxis in 11 of 17 pregnancies, 5 had no prophylaxis, and the status of 1 pregnancy is unknown. One asymptomatic patient underwent a stent venoplasty after delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

Iliac vein stents tolerate a gravid uterus well. No stents thrombosed during or after pregnancy and none required reintervention secondary to pregnancy-related compression. Anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin should be considered for stent thrombosis prophylaxis. Potential pregnancy should not be considered a contraindication to iliac vein stenting for the treatment of symptomatic pelvic venous insufficiency.