Venography versus intravascular ultrasound for diagnosing and treating iliofemoral vein obstruction

Paul J. Gagne, Robert W. Tahara, Carl P. Fastabend, Lukasz Dzieciuchowicz, William Marston, Suresh Vedantham, Windsor Ting, Mark D. Iafrati

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

147 Scopus citations


Objective The Venogram vs IVUS for Diagnosing Iliac vein Obstruction (VIDIO) trial was designed to compare the diagnostic efficacy of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) with multiplanar venography for iliofemoral vein obstruction. Methods During a 14-month period beginning July 2014, 100 patients with chronic Clinical, Etiologic, Anatomic, and Pathophysiologic clinical class C4 to C6 venous disease and suspected iliofemoral vein obstruction were enrolled at 11 U.S. and 3 European sites. The inferior vena cava and common iliac, external iliac, and common femoral veins were imaged. Venograms were measured for vein diameter; IVUS provided diameter and area measurements. Multiplanar venograms included three views: anteroposterior and 30-degree right and left anterior oblique views. A core laboratory evaluated the deidentified images, determining stenosis severity as the ratio between minimum luminal diameter and reference vessel diameter, minimal luminal area, and reference vessel area. A 50% diameter stenosis by venography and a 50% cross-sectional area reduction by IVUS were considered significant. Analyses assessed change in procedures performed on the basis of imaging method and concordance of measurements between each imaging method. Results Venography identified stenotic lesions in 51 of 100 subjects, whereas IVUS identified lesions in 81 of 100 subjects. Compared with IVUS, the diameter reduction was on average 11% less for venography (P <.001). The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.505 for vein diameter stenosis calculated with the two methods. IVUS identified significant lesions not detected with three-view venography in 26.3% of patients. Investigators revised the treatment plan in 57 of 100 cases after IVUS, most often because of failure of venography to detect a significant lesion (41/57 [72%]). IVUS led to an increased number of stents in 13 of 57 subjects (23%) and the avoidance of an endovascular procedure in 3 of 57 subjects (5%). Overall, IVUS imaging changed the treatment plan in 57 patients; 54 patients had stents placed on the basis of IVUS detection of significant iliofemoral vein obstructive lesions not appreciated with venography, whereas 3 patients with significant lesions on venography had no stent placed on the basis of IVUS. Conclusions IVUS is more sensitive for assessing treatable iliofemoral vein stenosis compared with multiplanar venography and frequently leads to revised treatment plans and the potential for improved clinical outcome.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)678-687
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders
Issue number5
StatePublished - 2017


Dive into the research topics of 'Venography versus intravascular ultrasound for diagnosing and treating iliofemoral vein obstruction'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this