Rij, André M. van

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.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has resulted in diversion of healthcare resources to the management of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus. Elective interventions and surgical procedures in most countries have been postponed and operating room resources have been diverted to manage the pandemic. The Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale was developed to provide an international standard to rationalise and harmonise the management of patients with venous and lymphatic disorders or vascular anomalies. Triage urgency was determined based on clinical assessment of urgency with which a patient would require medical treatment or surgical intervention. Clinical conditions were classified into six categories of: (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE), (2) chronic venous disease, (3) vascular anomalies, (4) venous trauma, (5) venous compression and (6) lymphatic disease. Triage urgency was categorised into four groups and individual conditions were allocated to each class of triage. These included (1) medical emergencies (requiring immediate attendance), example massive pulmonary embolism; (2) urgent (to be seen as soon as possible), example deep vein thrombosis; (3) semi-urgent (to be attended to within 30–90 days), example highly symptomatic chronic venous disease, and (4) discretionary/non-urgent- (to be seen within 6–12 months), example chronic lymphoedema. Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale aims to standardise the triage of patients with venous and lymphatic disease or vascular anomalies by providing an international consensus-based classification of clinical categories and triage urgency. The scale may be used during pandemics such as the current COVID-19 crisis but may also be used as a general framework to classify urgency of the listed conditions.

Background Intracranial aneurysms ( IAs ), abdominal aortic aneurysms ( AAAs ), and thoracic aortic aneurysms ( TAAs ) all have a familial predisposition. Given that aneurysm types are known to co‐occur, we hypothesized that there may be shared genetic risk factors for IAs , AAAs, and TAAs . Methods and Results We performed a mega‐analysis of 1000 Genomes Project‐imputed genome‐wide association study ( GWAS ) data of 4 previously published aneurysm cohorts: 2 IA cohorts (in total 1516 cases, 4305 controls), 1 AAA cohort (818 cases, 3004 controls), and 1 TAA cohort (760 cases, 2212 controls), and observed associations of 4 known IA , AAA , and/or TAA risk loci (9p21, 18q11, 15q21, and 2q33) with consistent effect directions in all 4 cohorts. We calculated polygenic scores based on IA ‐, AAA ‐, and TAA ‐associated SNP s and tested these scores for association to case‐control status in the other aneurysm cohorts; this revealed no shared polygenic effects. Similarly, linkage disequilibrium–score regression analyses did not show significant correlations between any pair of aneurysm subtypes. Last, we evaluated the evidence for 14 previously published aneurysm risk single‐nucleotide polymorphisms through collaboration in extended aneurysm cohorts, with a total of 6548 cases and 16 843 controls ( IA ) and 4391 cases and 37 904 controls ( AAA ), and found nominally significant associations for IA risk locus 18q11 near RBBP 8 to AAA (odds ratio [ OR ]=1.11; P =4.1×10 −5 ) and for TAA risk locus 15q21 near FBN 1 to AAA ( OR =1.07; P =1.1×10 −3 ). Conclusions Although there was no evidence for polygenic overlap between IAs , AAAs , and TAAs , we found nominally significant effects of two established risk loci for IAs and TAAs in AAAs . These two loci will require further replication.