Application of the Symptoms-Varices-Pathophysiology classification system in patients with pelvic venous disorders
Neel Gadhoke,Shreeya Bahethi,Gaurav Lakhanpal,Levan Sulakvelidze,Richard Kennedy,Sanjiv Lakhanpal,Peter J Pappas
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02683555241257155
Phlebology
Abstract: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.