Clinical significance of standing versus reversed trendelenburg position for the diagnosis of lower-extremity venous reflux in the great saphenous vein

R. Patrick DeMuth, Kathy Caylor, Tina Walton, LuAnne Leondar, Eric Rosero, Jayer Chung, Frank Arko, G. Patrick Clagett, R. James Valentine

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction. - Sonographic detection of incompetence in the deep and superficial veins requires proper patient positioning. Although these tests have been traditionally performed in the reversed Trendelenburg (RT) position, recent mandates from The Intersocietal Commission for the Accreditation of Vascular Laboratories and some insurance providers require that patients be evaluated for reflux in the standing position (SP). The purpose of this study was to determine whether performing venous duplex in the SP versus RT position adds information that affects patient treatment. Methods. - Twenty-eight subjects (25 women; mean age of 52 years) with signs and symptoms of venous insufficiency were evaluated prospectively with the use of ultrasound imaging and Doppler in the 5- to 8-MHz ranges. The great saphenous vein (GSV) was evaluated for each limb from below the knee to the saphenofemoral junction. Patients were initially evaluated at 15-25 degrees of RT position. Reflux was defined by reversal of flow for >0.5 seconds via use of the Valsalva and/or manual compression maneuvers. The GSV was measured in A-P diameter at the saphenofemoral junction and at the knee level. The subjects were then elevated to SP and measurements were repeated while the limb was in a nonweight-bearing position. Results. - A total of 52 limbs were evaluated for venous reflux in 28 study subjects. The mean lower-extremity CEAP score was 3 SD ± 3. Twenty-six (50%) GSVs were positive for venous reflux in the RT position. Of these GSVs, three were negative for reflux in SP. Twenty-seven (53%) GSVs were positive for venous reflux in SP; however, four of these GSVs were negative for reflux in RT. The median difference in reflux time from RT to SP was 0.15 seconds (interquartile range 0-3.8 seconds and 0-2.7seconds, respectively, p = 0.02). The mean difference in GSV diameter from RT to SP was 0.7 mm (±0.96 mm SD, p < 0.0001). These results changed the clinical course for one subject who did not have reflux in RT but did in SP (3.5%, p = 0.085). Conclusion. - The results from evaluating subjects in SP were not independently associated with a change in clinical outcome. However, 15% of GSVs negative for reflux in RT were positive for reflux in the SP. As a result, 3.5% of subjects in our study had a change in clinical course as the result of evaluation of the GSV in SP. This finding suggests that failure to identify GSV reflux in RT in patients with signs and symptoms of venous insufficiency may be an indication to evaluate the GSV in SP.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)19-22
Number of pages4
JournalJournal for Vascular Ultrasound
Volume36
Issue number1
StatePublished - Mar 2012

Fingerprint

Head-Down Tilt
Saphenous Vein
Posture
Lower Extremity
Venous Insufficiency
Extremities
Signs and Symptoms
Knee
Patient Positioning
Doppler Ultrasonography
Accreditation
Insurance
Blood Vessels
Veins

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Clinical significance of standing versus reversed trendelenburg position for the diagnosis of lower-extremity venous reflux in the great saphenous vein. / DeMuth, R. Patrick; Caylor, Kathy; Walton, Tina; Leondar, LuAnne; Rosero, Eric; Chung, Jayer; Arko, Frank; Clagett, G. Patrick; Valentine, R. James.

In: Journal for Vascular Ultrasound, Vol. 36, No. 1, 03.2012, p. 19-22.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

DeMuth, RP, Caylor, K, Walton, T, Leondar, L, Rosero, E, Chung, J, Arko, F, Clagett, GP & Valentine, RJ 2012, 'Clinical significance of standing versus reversed trendelenburg position for the diagnosis of lower-extremity venous reflux in the great saphenous vein', Journal for Vascular Ultrasound, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 19-22.
DeMuth, R. Patrick ; Caylor, Kathy ; Walton, Tina ; Leondar, LuAnne ; Rosero, Eric ; Chung, Jayer ; Arko, Frank ; Clagett, G. Patrick ; Valentine, R. James. / Clinical significance of standing versus reversed trendelenburg position for the diagnosis of lower-extremity venous reflux in the great saphenous vein. In: Journal for Vascular Ultrasound. 2012 ; Vol. 36, No. 1. pp. 19-22.
@article{404e67a530004d02ae33bbb0db35884c,
title = "Clinical significance of standing versus reversed trendelenburg position for the diagnosis of lower-extremity venous reflux in the great saphenous vein",
abstract = "Introduction. - Sonographic detection of incompetence in the deep and superficial veins requires proper patient positioning. Although these tests have been traditionally performed in the reversed Trendelenburg (RT) position, recent mandates from The Intersocietal Commission for the Accreditation of Vascular Laboratories and some insurance providers require that patients be evaluated for reflux in the standing position (SP). The purpose of this study was to determine whether performing venous duplex in the SP versus RT position adds information that affects patient treatment. Methods. - Twenty-eight subjects (25 women; mean age of 52 years) with signs and symptoms of venous insufficiency were evaluated prospectively with the use of ultrasound imaging and Doppler in the 5- to 8-MHz ranges. The great saphenous vein (GSV) was evaluated for each limb from below the knee to the saphenofemoral junction. Patients were initially evaluated at 15-25 degrees of RT position. Reflux was defined by reversal of flow for >0.5 seconds via use of the Valsalva and/or manual compression maneuvers. The GSV was measured in A-P diameter at the saphenofemoral junction and at the knee level. The subjects were then elevated to SP and measurements were repeated while the limb was in a nonweight-bearing position. Results. - A total of 52 limbs were evaluated for venous reflux in 28 study subjects. The mean lower-extremity CEAP score was 3 SD ± 3. Twenty-six (50{\%}) GSVs were positive for venous reflux in the RT position. Of these GSVs, three were negative for reflux in SP. Twenty-seven (53{\%}) GSVs were positive for venous reflux in SP; however, four of these GSVs were negative for reflux in RT. The median difference in reflux time from RT to SP was 0.15 seconds (interquartile range 0-3.8 seconds and 0-2.7seconds, respectively, p = 0.02). The mean difference in GSV diameter from RT to SP was 0.7 mm (±0.96 mm SD, p < 0.0001). These results changed the clinical course for one subject who did not have reflux in RT but did in SP (3.5{\%}, p = 0.085). Conclusion. - The results from evaluating subjects in SP were not independently associated with a change in clinical outcome. However, 15{\%} of GSVs negative for reflux in RT were positive for reflux in the SP. As a result, 3.5{\%} of subjects in our study had a change in clinical course as the result of evaluation of the GSV in SP. This finding suggests that failure to identify GSV reflux in RT in patients with signs and symptoms of venous insufficiency may be an indication to evaluate the GSV in SP.",
author = "DeMuth, {R. Patrick} and Kathy Caylor and Tina Walton and LuAnne Leondar and Eric Rosero and Jayer Chung and Frank Arko and Clagett, {G. Patrick} and Valentine, {R. James}",
year = "2012",
month = "3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "19--22",
journal = "Journal for Vascular Ultrasound",
issn = "1544-3167",
publisher = "Society of Vascular Ultrasound",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical significance of standing versus reversed trendelenburg position for the diagnosis of lower-extremity venous reflux in the great saphenous vein

AU - DeMuth, R. Patrick

AU - Caylor, Kathy

AU - Walton, Tina

AU - Leondar, LuAnne

AU - Rosero, Eric

AU - Chung, Jayer

AU - Arko, Frank

AU - Clagett, G. Patrick

AU - Valentine, R. James

PY - 2012/3

Y1 - 2012/3

N2 - Introduction. - Sonographic detection of incompetence in the deep and superficial veins requires proper patient positioning. Although these tests have been traditionally performed in the reversed Trendelenburg (RT) position, recent mandates from The Intersocietal Commission for the Accreditation of Vascular Laboratories and some insurance providers require that patients be evaluated for reflux in the standing position (SP). The purpose of this study was to determine whether performing venous duplex in the SP versus RT position adds information that affects patient treatment. Methods. - Twenty-eight subjects (25 women; mean age of 52 years) with signs and symptoms of venous insufficiency were evaluated prospectively with the use of ultrasound imaging and Doppler in the 5- to 8-MHz ranges. The great saphenous vein (GSV) was evaluated for each limb from below the knee to the saphenofemoral junction. Patients were initially evaluated at 15-25 degrees of RT position. Reflux was defined by reversal of flow for >0.5 seconds via use of the Valsalva and/or manual compression maneuvers. The GSV was measured in A-P diameter at the saphenofemoral junction and at the knee level. The subjects were then elevated to SP and measurements were repeated while the limb was in a nonweight-bearing position. Results. - A total of 52 limbs were evaluated for venous reflux in 28 study subjects. The mean lower-extremity CEAP score was 3 SD ± 3. Twenty-six (50%) GSVs were positive for venous reflux in the RT position. Of these GSVs, three were negative for reflux in SP. Twenty-seven (53%) GSVs were positive for venous reflux in SP; however, four of these GSVs were negative for reflux in RT. The median difference in reflux time from RT to SP was 0.15 seconds (interquartile range 0-3.8 seconds and 0-2.7seconds, respectively, p = 0.02). The mean difference in GSV diameter from RT to SP was 0.7 mm (±0.96 mm SD, p < 0.0001). These results changed the clinical course for one subject who did not have reflux in RT but did in SP (3.5%, p = 0.085). Conclusion. - The results from evaluating subjects in SP were not independently associated with a change in clinical outcome. However, 15% of GSVs negative for reflux in RT were positive for reflux in the SP. As a result, 3.5% of subjects in our study had a change in clinical course as the result of evaluation of the GSV in SP. This finding suggests that failure to identify GSV reflux in RT in patients with signs and symptoms of venous insufficiency may be an indication to evaluate the GSV in SP.

AB - Introduction. - Sonographic detection of incompetence in the deep and superficial veins requires proper patient positioning. Although these tests have been traditionally performed in the reversed Trendelenburg (RT) position, recent mandates from The Intersocietal Commission for the Accreditation of Vascular Laboratories and some insurance providers require that patients be evaluated for reflux in the standing position (SP). The purpose of this study was to determine whether performing venous duplex in the SP versus RT position adds information that affects patient treatment. Methods. - Twenty-eight subjects (25 women; mean age of 52 years) with signs and symptoms of venous insufficiency were evaluated prospectively with the use of ultrasound imaging and Doppler in the 5- to 8-MHz ranges. The great saphenous vein (GSV) was evaluated for each limb from below the knee to the saphenofemoral junction. Patients were initially evaluated at 15-25 degrees of RT position. Reflux was defined by reversal of flow for >0.5 seconds via use of the Valsalva and/or manual compression maneuvers. The GSV was measured in A-P diameter at the saphenofemoral junction and at the knee level. The subjects were then elevated to SP and measurements were repeated while the limb was in a nonweight-bearing position. Results. - A total of 52 limbs were evaluated for venous reflux in 28 study subjects. The mean lower-extremity CEAP score was 3 SD ± 3. Twenty-six (50%) GSVs were positive for venous reflux in the RT position. Of these GSVs, three were negative for reflux in SP. Twenty-seven (53%) GSVs were positive for venous reflux in SP; however, four of these GSVs were negative for reflux in RT. The median difference in reflux time from RT to SP was 0.15 seconds (interquartile range 0-3.8 seconds and 0-2.7seconds, respectively, p = 0.02). The mean difference in GSV diameter from RT to SP was 0.7 mm (±0.96 mm SD, p < 0.0001). These results changed the clinical course for one subject who did not have reflux in RT but did in SP (3.5%, p = 0.085). Conclusion. - The results from evaluating subjects in SP were not independently associated with a change in clinical outcome. However, 15% of GSVs negative for reflux in RT were positive for reflux in the SP. As a result, 3.5% of subjects in our study had a change in clinical course as the result of evaluation of the GSV in SP. This finding suggests that failure to identify GSV reflux in RT in patients with signs and symptoms of venous insufficiency may be an indication to evaluate the GSV in SP.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84858162533&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84858162533&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 19

EP - 22

JO - Journal for Vascular Ultrasound

JF - Journal for Vascular Ultrasound

SN - 1544-3167

IS - 1

ER -