Search

Duplex ultrasound (DUS) is an essential tool for characterizing and monitoring arteriovenous (AV) access for hemodialysis. The aim of the work described here, requested by the French Society of Vascular Medicine in collaboration with the French-Speaking Vascular Access Society, is to propose a standardized methodology for performing and documenting DUS, taking into account the variety of AV access techniques and the problems routinely encountered. A steering committee reviewed the literature and selected the relevant references. A draft was prepared, and all items with missing or conflicting data were submitted to a Delphi consensus. The final document was discussed and approved by all participants. The principles of DUS evaluation of AV access consist of examination of the afferent artery, the anastomosis and the entire venous drainage system. DUS uses B-mode ultrasound, color flow, pulsed wave and power Doppler analysis. DUS can be used in a variety of clinical situations, which can directly influence the methodology of the examination and the interpretation of the results. Blood flow should be assessed as it correlates with the risk of thrombosis. The measurement should be adapted to the different anatomical and hemodynamic conditions encountered. Characterization of stenosis should take into account the residual diameter of the drainage vein and its hemodynamic consequences. Other complications can be assessed with a standardized DUS examination. When performed according to a rigorous methodology, DUS of the AV access allows a comprehensive assessment of its functionality and eliminates the need for further invasive diagnostic procedures., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Venous insufficiency is a very common disease affecting about 25% of the French population (if we combine all stages of its progression). It is a complex disease and its aetiology has not yet been fully elucidated. Some of its causes are well known, such as valvular dysfunction, vein wall defect, and the suctioning effect common to all varicose veins. These factors are generally associated and together lead to dysfunction of one or more of the saphenous veins. Saphenous vein dysfunction is revealed by ultrasound scan, a reflux lasting more than 0.5 seconds indicating venous incompetence. The potential consequences of saphenous vein dysfunction over time include: symptoms (heaviness, swellings, restlessness, cramps, itching of the lower limbs), acute complications (superficial venous thrombosis, varicose bleeding), chronic complications (changes in skin texture and colour, stasis dermatitis, eczema, vein atresia, leg ulcer), and appearance of unaesthetic varicose veins. It is not possible to repair an incompetent saphenous vein. The only therapeutic options at present are ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy, physical removal of the vein (saphenous stripping), or its thermal ablation (by laser or radiofrequency treatment), the latter strategy having now become the gold standard as recommended by international guidelines. Recommendations concerning thermal ablation of saphenous veins were published in 2014 by the Société française de médecine vasculaire. Our society has now decided to update these recommendations, taking this opportunity to discuss unresolved issues and issues not addressed in the original guidelines. Thermal ablation of an incompetent saphenous vein consists in destroying this by means of a heating element introduced via ultrasound-guided venous puncture. The heating element comprises either a laser fibre or a radiofrequency catheter. The practitioner must provide the patient with full information about the procedure and obtain his/her consent prior to its implementation. The checklist concerning the interventional procedure issued by the HAS should be validated for each patient (see the appended document)., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Background: After a proximal lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT; involving popliteal veins or above), up to 40% of patients develop postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) as assessed by the Villalta scale (VS). Poor initial anticoagulant treatment is a known risk factor for PTS. The risk of developing PTS after isolated distal DVT (infra-popliteal DVT without pulmonary embolism), and the impact of anticoagulant treatment on this risk, are uncertain., Methods: Long-term follow-up of CACTUS double-blind trial comparing 6 weeks of s.c. nadroparin (171 IU/kg/d) versus s.c. placebo for a first symptomatic isolated distal DVT. At least 1 year after randomization, patients had a PTS assessment in clinic or by phone using the VS., Results: After a median follow-up of 6 years, PTS was present in 30% (n = 54) of the 178 patients who had a PTS assessment. PTS was moderate or severe in 24% (n = 13) of cases. There was no statistically significant difference in prevalence of PTS in the nadroparin versus placebo groups (29% versus 32%, P = .6), except in patients without evidence of primary chronic venous insufficiency (9% versus 24%, P = .04). Rates of venous thromboembolism recurrence during follow-up in the nadroparin and placebo groups were, respectively, 8% (n = 7) and 14% (n = 13; P = .2)., Conclusion: After a first isolated distal DVT, the risk of PTS is substantial but much lower than that reported after proximal DVT. Anticoagulation with nadroparin doesn't provide any clear benefit to prevent PTS, except in patients without preexisting chronic venous insufficiency. Anticoagulation might be associated with a lower risk of venous thromboembolism recurrence., (© 2020 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.)

The quality standards of the French Society of Vascular Medicine for the ultrasound assessment of lower limb arteries in vascular medicine practice are based on the principle that these examinations have to meet two requirements: technical know-how (knowledge of devices and methodologies); medical know-how (level of examination matching the indication and purpose of the examination, interpretation and critical analysis of results)., Objectives of the Quality Standards: To describe an optimal level of examination adjusted to the indication or clinical hypothesis; to establish harmonious practices, methodologies, terminologies, results description and report; to provide good practice reference points and to promote a high quality process., Themes of the Quality Standards: The three levels of examination, indications and objectives for each level; the reference standard examination (level 2) and its variants according to indications; the minimal content of the exam report, the medical conclusion letter to the corresponding physician (synthesis, conclusion and management suggestions); commented glossary (anatomy, hemodynamics, signs and symptoms); technical basis; device settings. Here, we discuss duplex ultrasound for the supervision of the aortic stent grafts., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: The efficacy and safety of anticoagulant treatment is not established for patients with acute symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of the calf. We aimed to assess whether therapeutic anticoagulation is superior to placebo in patients with symptomatic calf DVT., Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled low-risk outpatients (without active cancer or previous venous thromboembolic disease) with a first acute symptomatic DVT in the calf from 23 university medical centres or community medical clinics in Canada, France, and Switzerland. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to receive either the low-molecular-weight heparin nadroparin (171 UI/kg, subcutaneously, once a day) or placebo (saline 0·9%, subcutaneously, once a day) for 6 weeks (42 days). Central randomisation was done using a computer-generated randomisation list, stratified by study centre. Random allocation sequences of variable block size were centrally determined by an independent research clinical centre. Study staff, patients, and outcome assessors (central adjudication committee) were masked to group assignment. Numbered boxes of active drug or placebo were provided to pharmacies in identical packaging. All patients were prescribed compression stockings and followed up for 90 days. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite measure of extension of calf DVT to proximal veins, contralateral proximal DVT, and symptomatic pulmonary embolism at day 42 in the modified intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding at day 42. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00421538., Findings: Between Feb 1, 2008, and Nov 30, 2014, we screened 746 patients, enrolling 259 patients (50% of the prespecified sample size), before the trial steering committee terminated the trial because of expiry of study drug and slow recruitment. The intention-to-treat analysis population comprised 122 patients in the nadroparin group and 130 in the placebo group. There was no significant difference between the groups in the composite primary outcome, which occurred in four patients (3%) in the nadroparin group and in seven (5%) in the placebo group (risk difference -2·1%, 95% CI -7·8 to 3·5; p=0·54). Bleeding occurred in five patients (4%) in the nadroparin group and no patients in the placebo group (risk difference 4·1, 95% CI 0·4 to 9·2; p=0·0255). In the nadroparin group one patient died from metastatic pancreatic cancer and one patient was diagnosed with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia type 2., Interpretation: Nadroparin was not superior to placebo in reducing the risk of proximal extension or venous thromboembolic events in low-risk outpatients with symptomatic calf DVT, but did increase the risk of bleeding. Avoidance of systematic anticoagulation for calf DVT could have a substantial impact on individual patients and from a public health perspective., Funding: Swiss National Science Foundation, the Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique in France, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (iDDVT) (i.e. without proximal DVT or pulmonary embolism) represents half of all cases of lower limb DVT. Its clinical significance and management are controversial. Data on long-term follow-up are scarce, especially concerning risk and predictors of venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence., Methods: Using data from the OPTIMEV (OPTimisation de l'Interrogatoire dans l'évaluation du risque throMbo-Embolique Veineux) study, a prospective, observational, multicenter study, we compared, 3 years after an index VTE event and after discontinuation of anticoagulants, (i) the incidence and type of recurrence in patients without cancer with a first iDDVT vs. a first isolated proximal DVT (iPDVT) and (ii) predictors of recurrence after iDDVT., Results: Compared with patients with iPDVT (n = 259), patients with an iDDVT (n = 490) had a lower annualized incidence of overall VTE recurrence (5.2% [95% confidence interval 3.6-7.6] vs. 2.7% [1.9-3.8], respectively; P = 0.02) but a similar incidence of pulmonary embolism recurrence (1.0% [0.5-2.3] vs. 0.9% [0.5-1.6], respectively; P = 0.83). An age of > 50 years, unprovoked character of index iDDVT, and involvement of more than one vein in one or both legs each independently tripled the risk of recurrence, with the latter then being ≥ 3% per patient-year. Neither muscular vein nor deep-calf vein location of iDDVT nor clot diameter with compression influenced the risk of recurrence., Conclusions: After stopping anticoagulants, patients with iDDVT have a significantly lower risk of overall VTE recurrence than did patients with iPDVT but a similar risk of serious recurrent VTE. Age > 50 years, unprovoked iDDVT, and number of thrombosed veins (more than one) influenced the risk of recurrence and may help to define patients at significant risk of recurrence., (© 2014 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.)