Introduction: Central venous cannulation is crucial in the management of the critical care patient. This study was designed to evaluate whether real-time ultrasound-guided cannulation of the internal jugular vein is superior to the standard landmark method. Methods: In this randomised study, 450 critical care patients who underwent real-time ultrasound-guided cannulation of the internal jugular vein were prospectively compared with 450 critical care patients in whom the landmark technique was used. Randomisation was performed by means of a computer-generated random-numbers table, and patients were stratified with regard to age, gender, and body mass index. Results: There were no significant differences in gender, age, body mass index, or side of cannulation (left or right) or in the presence of risk factors for difficult venous cannulation such as prior catheterisation, limited sites for access attempts, previous difficulties during catheterisation, previous mechanical complication, known vascular abnormality, untreated coagulopathy, skeletal deformity, and cannulation during cardiac arrest between the two groups of patients. Furthermore, the physicians who performed the procedures had comparable experience in the placement of central venous catheters (p = non-significant). Cannulation of the internal jugular vein was achieved in all patients by using ultrasound and in 425 of the patients (94.4%) by using the landmark technique (p < 0.001). Average access time (skin to vein) and number of attempts were significantly reduced in the ultrasound group of patients compared with the landmark group (p < 0.001). In the landmark group, puncture of the carotid artery occurred in 10.6% of patients, haematoma in 8.4%, haemothorax in 1.7%, pneumothorax in 2.4%, and central venous catheter-associated blood stream infection in 16%, which were all significantly increased compared with the ultrasound group (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The present data suggest that ultrasound-guided catheterisation of the internal jugular vein in critical care patients is superior to the landmark technique and therefore should be the method of choice in these patients.

Objective: To determine the prevalence and impact of subclavian steal syndrome (SSS) in patients undergoing assessment of the carotid arteries. Summary Background Data: Vertebral artery flow reversal is often found among patients undergoing imaging of the extracranial vessels; however, there are no large studies evaluating the prevalence and natural history of SSS in stratified patients. Methods: Patients presenting for duplex ultrasound of the carotid arteries underwent 2 sets of bilateral arm pressure measurements. Patients with a pressure differential (PD) >20 mm Hg were examined in detail for vascular obstruction ipsilateral to the affected arm. When appropriate, computer tomographic angiography (CTA), magnetic resonance angiography, and angiography were performed. Signs and symptoms related to SSS and the types of interventions performed were recorded. Results: In a period of 6 years, 7881 carotid duplex scans were performed, with a PD >20 mm Hg in 514 (6.5%) patients and a left arm preponderance (82%). SSS was complete in 61%, partial in 23%, and absent in 16%. Symptoms were present in 38 patients with 32 experiencing symptoms of the posterior circulation, 4 of arm ischemia, and 2 of cardiac ischemia. Symptoms occurred more frequently as the arm PD increased. Of the 38 symptomatic patients, only 7 underwent an intervention (2 with subclavian-carotid bypass and 5 with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty stenting of the subclavian). Conclusions: SSS is a frequent finding in patients undergoing carotid duplex scanning. Patients are commonly asymptomatic and rarely require an intervention. A significantly elevated arm PD (>40–50 mm Hg) is more commonly associated with symptoms, complete steal, and the need for intervention.

Patients with lower limb edema are frequently referred to vascular specialists for evaluation. Multiple etiologies must be considered and often more than one cause may be present. Notably, the role of lymphatic system regardless of the underlying pathology has been underestimated. A thorough history and physical examination and a carefully considered laboratory and imaging evaluation are critical in differentiating causes. In this opinion article, we propose a diagnostic algorithm that incorporates a systematic approach to the patient with leg swelling and provides an efficient pathway for the differential diagnosis for this problem.

Background: Lymphedema imposes a significant economic and social burden in modern societies. Controversies about its risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment permeate the literature. The goal of this study was to assess experts’ opinions on the available literature on lymphedema while following the Delphi methodology. Methods: In December of 2019, the American Venous Forum created a working group tasked to develop a consensus statement regarding current practices for the diagnosis and treatment of lymphedema. A panel of experts was identified by the working group. The working group then compiled a list of clinical questions, risk factors, diagnosis and evaluation, and treatment of lymphedema. Fifteen questions that met the criteria for consensus were included in the list. Using a modified Delphi methodology, six questions that received between 60% and 80% of the votes were included in the list for the second round of analysis. Consensus was reached whenever >70% agreement was achieved. Results: The panel of experts reached consensus that cancer, infection, chronic venous disease, and surgery are risk factors for secondary lymphedema. Consensus was also reached that clinical examination is adequate for diagnosing lymphedema and that all patients with chronic venous insufficiency (C3–C6) should be treated as lymphedema patients. No consensus was reached regarding routine clinical practice use of radionuclide lymphoscintigraphy as a mandatory diagnostic tool. However, the panel came to consensus regarding the importance of quantifying edema in all patients (93.6% in favor). In terms of treatment, consensus was reached favoring the regular use of compression garments to reduce lymphedema progression (89.4% in favor, 10.6% against; mean score of 79), but the use of Velcro devices as the first line of compression therapy did not reach consensus (59.6% in favor vs 40.4% against; total score of 15). There was agreement that sequential pneumatic compression should be considered as adjuvant therapy in the maintenance phase of treatment (91.5% in favor vs. 8.5% against; mean score of 85), but less so in its initial phases (61.7% in favor vs. 38.3% against; mean score of 27). Most of the panel agreed that manual lymphatic drainage should be a mandatory treatment modality (70.2% in favor), but the panel was split in half regarding the proposal that reductive surgery should be considered for patients with failed conservative treatment. Conclusion: This consensus process demonstrated that lymphedema experts agree on the majority of the statements related to risk factors for lymphedema, and the diagnostic workup for lymphedema patients. Less agreement was demonstrated on statements related to treatment of lymphedema. This consensus suggests that variability in lymphedema care is high even among the experts. Developers of future practice guidelines for lymphedema should consider this information, especially in cases of low-level evidence that supports practice patterns with which the majority of experts disagree.