
Acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis and chronic iliofemoral venous obstruction cause substantial patient harm and are increasingly managed with endovascular venous interventions, including percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy and stent placement. However, studies of these treatment elements have not been designed and reported with sufficient rigor to support confident conclusions about their clinical utility. In this project, the Trustworthy consensus-based statement approach was utilized to develop, via a structured process, consensus-based statements to guide future investigators of venous interventions. Thirty statements were drafted to encompass major topics relevant to venous study description and design, safety outcome assessment, efficacy outcome assessment, and topics specific to evaluating percutaneous venous thrombectomy and stent placement. Using modified Delphi techniques for consensus achievement, a panel of physician experts in vascular disease voted on the statements and succeeded in reaching the predefined threshold of >80% consensus (agreement or strong agreement) on all 30 statements. It is hoped that the guidance from these statements will improve standardization, objectivity, and patient-centered relevance in the reporting of clinical outcomes of endovascular interventions for acute iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis and chronic iliofemoral venous obstruction in clinical studies and thereby enhance venous patient care.
Venous Thrombosis, Consensus, Delphi Technique, Endovascular Procedures, ICTS (Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences), 610, Femoral Vein, Iliac Vein, Treatment Outcome, 616, Medicine and Health Sciences, Humans, Stents, Special Report, Vascular Patency, Retrospective Studies
Venous Thrombosis, Consensus, Delphi Technique, Endovascular Procedures, ICTS (Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences), 610, Femoral Vein, Iliac Vein, Treatment Outcome, 616, Medicine and Health Sciences, Humans, Stents, Special Report, Vascular Patency, Retrospective Studies
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 1 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
