Introduction Deep venous obstruction (DVO) has a great impact on quality of life (QoL) comparable to angina pectoris or chronic pulmonary disease. Post-thrombotic scar formation and May-Thurner syndrome (MTS) are the most common causes of DVO. Conventional treatment of DVO focuses on reducing pain or leg swelling by use of (pain) medication and therapeutic elastic stockings. In the past, a venous bypass was offered in severe post-thrombotic cases, but this procedure showed bad clinical and patency outcomes. With the introduction of percutaneous angioplasty and dedicated venous stents new opportunities were created. Deep venous stenting has been shown to be effective in retrospective case series. However, there is no prior research in which QoL after interventional treatment is compared with QoL after conventional treatment. Currently, there is a debate about the true additional value of interventional treatment. We investigate whether those patients who are treated with stenting experience a change in short form 36 (SF-36) and the Veines-QoL/Sym questionnaires compared with conventionally treated patients.
Methods and analysis This is a randomised trial comparing conservative deep venous management to interventional treatment. A total of 130 patients with post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) or MTS, eligible for interventional percutaneous treatment, who did not have previous deep venous intervention will be included. Patients will be randomised to conservative treatment or venous stenting and stratified for the PTS or MTS subgroup. Conservative treatment consists of either one or a combination of pain medications, manual lymphatic drainage, compression stockings and regular postthrombotic anticoagulant therapy. The primary outcome is the QoL change after 12 months compared with baseline QoL. Secondary outcomes are QoL changes at 6 weeks, clinical assessment of DVO, recurrence rate of deep venous thrombosis at 6 weeks and 12 months, and the total amount of working days lost. Intervention-specific outcomes include complications and patency.
Ethics and dissemination The protocol is approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Academisch ziekenhuis Maastricht/Universiteit Maastricht, The Netherlands (protocol number NLNL55641.068.15 / METC 161008). We aim to publish the results of this study in a peer reviewed journal and present our findings at national or international conferences.
- EDITORS CHOICE