Davies, Alun H

Background Inadvertent intra-arterial injection of sclerosants is an uncommon adverse event of both ultrasound-guided and direct vision sclerotherapy. This complication can result in significant tissue or limb loss and significant long-term morbidity. Objectives To provide recommendations for diagnosis and immediate management of an unintentional intra-arterial injection of sclerosing agents. Methods An international and multidisciplinary expert panel representing the endorsing societies and relevant specialities reviewed the published biomedical, scientific and legal literature and developed the consensus-based recommendations. Results Actual and suspected cases of an intra-arterial sclerosant injection should be immediately transferred to a facility with a vascular/interventional unit. Digital Subtraction Angiography (DSA) is the key investigation to confirm the diagnosis and help select the appropriate intra-arterial therapy for tissue ischaemia. Emergency endovascular intervention will be required to manage the risk of major limb ischaemia. This includes intra-arterial administration of vasodilators to reduce vasospasm, and anticoagulants and thrombolytic agents to mitigate thrombosis. Mechanical thrombectomy, other endovascular interventions and even open surgery may be required. Lumbar sympathetic block may be considered but has a high risk of bleeding. Systemic anti-inflammatory agents, anticoagulants, and platelet inhibitors and modifiers would complement the intra-arterial endovascular procedures. For risk of minor ischaemia, systemic oral anti-inflammatory agents, anticoagulants, vasodilators and antiplatelet treatments are recommended. Conclusion Inadvertent intra-arterial injection is an adverse event of both ultrasound-guided and direct vision sclerotherapy. Medical practitioners performing sclerotherapy must ensure completion of a course of formal training (specialty or subspecialty training, or equivalent recognition) in the management of venous and lymphatic disorders (phlebology), and be personally proficient in the use of duplex ultrasound in vascular (both arterial and venous) applications, to diagnose and provide image guidance to venous procedure. Expertise in diagnosis and immediate management of an intra-arterial injection is essential for all practitioners performing sclerotherapy.

Objective To review the current approaches to the diagnosis of Post-Thrombotic Syndrome (PTS) and to evaluate the potential need for a diagnostic tool. Method Medical specialists were invited to participate in an online survey of their current approaches to the diagnosis and management of PTS, including the use of scoring systems, diagnostic imaging techniques and the extent the practitioner reviews the patient’s venous history. Results 502 participants completed the survey. Over 80% obtained imaging reports to confirm a history of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). 72% of participants always obtained an up-to-date duplex ultrasound for PTS diagnosis. Over 50% did not use a scoring system for either PTS diagnosis or management. 65% of the participants agreed that a new system for PTS diagnosis should be devised. Conclusion Heterogeneity was observed in methods of diagnosing PTS by medical practitioners with frequent use of medical imaging studies and moderate use of scoring systems. Development of a new diagnostic tool for PTS should be considered for future studies.

Despite the publication of several national/international guidelines, the optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) remains controversial. This article compares 3 recently released guidelines (the 2020 German–Austrian, the 2021 European Stroke Organization [ESO], and the 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery [SVS] guidelines) vs the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) guidelines regarding the optimal management of AsxCS patients. The 2017 ESVS guidelines defined specific imaging/clinical parameters that may identify patient subgroups at high future stroke risk and recommended that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) should or carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered for these individuals. The 2020 German–Austrian guidelines provided similar recommendations with the 2017 ESVS Guidelines. The 2021 ESO Guidelines also recommended CEA for AsxCS patients at high risk for stroke on best medical treatment (BMT), but recommended against routine use of CAS in these patients. Finally, the SVS guidelines provided a strong recommendation for CEA+BMT vs BMT alone for low-surgical risk patients with >70% AsxCS. Thus, the ESVS, German–Austrian, and ESO guidelines concurred that all AsxCS patients should receive risk factor modification and BMT, but CEA should or CAS may also be considered for certain AsxCS patient subgroups at high risk for future ipsilateral ischemic stroke.