Iliac Vein Interrogation Augments Venous Ulcer Healing in Patients Who Have Failed Standard Compression Therapy along with Pathological Venous Closure

Abstract

Background: Treatment of venous ulcers is demanding for patients, as well as clinicians, and the investigation of underlying venous hypertension is the cornerstone of therapy. We propose that occult iliac vein stenosis should be ruled out by iliac vein interrogation (IVI) in patients with advanced venous stasis.

Methods: We conducted a systematic retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of patients who presented with CEAP (clinical, etiological, anatomical, and pathophysiological) 6 venous disease. All patients had great saphenous vein ablation, compressive treatment, wound care (including Unna boot compression), and perforator closure using ablation therapy. Iliac vein stenosis was defined as ≥50% stenosis in cross-sectional surface area on intravascular ultrasound. Primary outcomes include time of venous ulcer healing and/or measurable change in the Venous Clinical Severity Score.

Results: Twenty-two patients with CEAP 6 venous disease met the inclusion criteria (active ulcers >1.5 cm in diameter). The average age and body mass index were 62.2 ± 9.2 years and 41.7 ± 16.7, respectively. The majority were female (72.7%) with common comorbidities, such as hyperlipidemia (54.5%), hypertension (36.4%), and diabetes mellitus (27.3%). Twenty-nine ulcers with an average diameter of 3.4 ± 1.9 cm and a depth of 2.2 ± 0.5 mm were treated. The majority of the ulcers occurred on the left limb (n = 17, 58.6%). Average perforator venous reflux was 3.6 ± 0.8 sec, while common femoral reflux was 1.8 ± 1.6. The majority (n = 19, 64.5%) of the perforator veins were located at the base of the ulcer, while the remainder (n = 10, 34.5%) were within 2 cm from the base. Of the 13 patients who underwent IVI, 8 patients (61.5%) had stenosis >50% that was corrected with iliac vein angioplasty and stenting (IVAS). There was a strong trend toward shorter healing time in the IVI group (7.9 ± 9.5 weeks) than for patients in the no iliac vein interrogation (NIVI) group (20.2 ± 15.3 weeks, P = 0.055). The final VCCS score was not significantly different (IVI = 7.9 ± 9.5 vs. NIVI = 10.0 ± 6.5, P = 0.578). However, compared with the NIVI group, the healing time for patients who actually received IVAS was marginally lower (5.8 ± 3.6 weeks, P = 0.075) and final VCCS was significantly lower (2.4 ± 2.9, P = 0.031). Veins that received IVI and IVAS remained patent and the associated ulcers were healed (100%).

Conclusion: The small sample size and retrospective design limit the strength of the conclusions but the findings suggest that further studies are needed to define the exact role of IVI including angioplasty/stenting for patients with chronic venous ulcers.