Skip to content

Venogram vs. Intravascular Ultrasound (IVUS) for Diagnosing Iliac Vein Obstruction

Prospective, Single-arm, Multi-center, Pilot Study of IVUS Imaging Used as an Adjunct to Multiplanar Venography During Iliac-common Femoral Vein Assessment for Possible Endovascular Intervention

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02142062
Acronym
VIDIO
Enrollment
100
Registered
2014-05-20
Start date
2014-07-31
Completion date
2016-08-31
Last updated
2016-08-11

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Iliac Venous Compression

Keywords

Venous outflow obstruction, Iliac Vein, Common Femoral Vein, Iliac Compression

Brief summary

The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that IVUS identifies more instances of significant iliac and common femoral vein outflow obstruction than multiplanar venography.No hypothesis testing is planned.

Interventions

None listed

Sponsors

Volcano Corporation
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 85 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Subject must be \> 18 and \< 85 years of age * Willing to participate in and able to understand, read and sign the informed consent document before the planned procedure * CEAP clinical classification: C4, C5, or C6 (enrollment of C4 and C5 subjects will be capped at 50, such that at least 50 C6 subjects can be enrolled) * On duplex ultrasound: patent common femoral vein, and patent deep femoral vein, and/or femoral vein of the study leg * Undergoing iliofemoral and inferior vena caval venography with the intent to treat obstructive lesions

Exclusion criteria

* Subject cannot or will not provide written informed consent * Previous venous stent implantation involving the study leg or inferior vena cava * Previous venovenous bypass surgery involving the study leg * Known metal allergy precluding endovascular stent implantation * Known reaction or sensitivity to iodinated contrast that cannot be managed with premedication * Subjects who are pregnant (women of childbearing potential must have a negative pregnancy test within 7 days prior to enrollment * Severe, untreated (and readily treatable) superficial venous reflux (great saphenous vein \>7 mm in diameter, and/or small saphenous vein \>4 mm in diameter) * Acute deep venous thrombosis involving either leg * Known history of chronic total occlusion of the common femoral vein of the study leg. * Known history of thrombophilia (e.g., protein C or S deficiency, anti-thrombin III deficiency, presence of lupus anticoagulant, etc.) * Venous compression caused by tumor encasement * Venous outflow obstruction caused by tumor thrombus * Life expectancy of less than 6 months * Elevated baseline blood creatinine (value greater than the upper limit of the normal range) * Any concurrent disease or condition that, in the opinion of the Investigator, would make the subject unsuitable for participation in the study; examples include but are not limited to the inability to lie supine for the index procedure (e.g., severe congestive heart failure), thrombocytopenia or other hematological disorders associated with an unacceptable risk of bleeding, implanted orthopedic hardware that precludes proper imaging, etc.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
100 patients with Clinical-Etiologic-Anatomic-Pathophysiologic (CEAP) classification C4-6 undergoing iliac and common femoral and venography with intention to treat venous outflow obstruction.6 monthPrimary Endpoints: Both venous IVUS and traditional venography will provide measurements of minimum and maximum diameter reduction due to iliofemoral venous obstruction/compression; cross-sectional area reduction will also be measured by IVUS, and calculated for venography (from min. and max. diameters, assuming elliptical cross-section6). The diameters and cross-sectional area are compared to adjacent reference vessel in order to calculate the degree of stenosis. The percentage of significant stenosis detected at various thresholds \[e.g., 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, for diameter reduction, and (separately) for area reduction\] with each method will be compared in a pair-wise fashion. This will be done with descriptive statistics of the detection rates for each method, and the rate of discordance between the two. In addition to the binary outcome of significant stenosis, the numeric values for diameters and cross-sectional areas will be compared.

Countries

Italy, Poland, United Kingdom, United States

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026