Thrombotic events occur infrequently following GSV EVTA. Given the large numbers of procedures worldwide and the potential for serious consequences, further research is needed on the burden of these complications and their management.

Background: Critical limb ischemia (CLI) is the most severe manifestation of peripheral vascular disease. Revascularization is the preferred therapy, but it is not achievable in 25%À40% of patients due to diffuse anatomic distribution of the disease or medical comorbidities. No-option CLI represents an unmet medical need. Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) may provide salvage therapy through their angiogenic and tissue-trophic properties. This article reports a phase 1b clinical study examining the safety and feasibility of intramuscular transplantation of autologous bone-marrow MSCs for patients with no-option CLI. Methods: Twelve patients were enrolled in the clinical trial, and nine proceeded to bone marrow aspiration and culture expansion of MSCs. Results: A high rate of karyotype abnormality (>30%) was detected in the produced cell batches, resulting in failure of release for clinical administration. Four patients were treated with the investigational medicinal product (IMP), three with a low dose of 20 £ 10 6 MSCs and one with a mid-dose of 40 £ 10 6 MSCs. There were no serious adverse events related to trial interventions, including bone marrow aspiration, IMP injection or therapy. Conclusions: The results of this trial conclude that an autologous cell therapy approach with MSCs for critical limb ischemia is limited by the high rate of karyotype abnormalities.

Objectives Venous thromboembolism is a potentially fatal complication of superficial endovenous treatment. Proper risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis could mitigate this hazard; however, there are currently no evidence-based or consensus guidelines. This study surveyed UK and Republic of Ireland vascular consultants to determine areas of consensus. Methods A 32-item survey was sent to vascular consultants via the Vascular and Endovascular Research Network (phase 1). These results generated 10 consensus statements which were redistributed (phase 2). ‘Good’ and ‘very good’ consensus were defined as endorsement/rejection of statements by >67% and >85% of respondents, respectively. Results Forty-two consultants completed phase 1. This generated seven statements regarding risk factors mandating peri-procedural pharmacoprophylaxis and three statements regarding specific pharmacoprophylaxis regimes. Forty-seven consultants completed phase 2. Regarding venous thromboembolism risk factors mandating pharmacoprophylaxis, ‘good’ and ‘very good’ consensus was achieved for 5/7 and 2/7 statements, respectively. Regarding specific regimens, ‘very good’ consensus was achieved for 3/3 statements. Conclusions The main findings from this study were that there was ‘good’ or ‘very good’ consensus that patients with any of the seven surveyed risk factors should be given pharmacoprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin. High-risk patients should receive one to two weeks of pharmacoprophylaxis rather than a single dose.

No abstract