https://repub.eur.nl/pub/78905/Chronic-Venous-Disease.pdf

Editor's Choice - Management of Chronic Venous Disease: Clinical Practice Guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS).

Disclaimer Due to the evolving field of medicine, new research may, in due course, modify the recommendations presented in this document. At the time of publication, every attempt has been made to ensure that the information provided is up to date and accurate. It is the responsibility of the treating physician to determine the best treatment for the patient. The authors, committee members, editors, and publishers cannot be held responsible for any legal issues that may arise from the citation of this statement. Rules of evidence Management of patients with chronic venous disorders has been traditionally undertaken subjectively among physicians, often resulting in less than optimal strategies. In this document, a systematic approach has been developed with recommendations based upon cumulative evidence from the literature. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation range from Level I and Grade A to Level III and Grade C. Level I evidence and Grade A recommendations derive from scientifically sound randomized clinical trials in which the results are clear-cut. Level II evidence and Grade B recommendations derive from clinical studies in which the results among trials often point to inconsistencies. Level III evidence and Grade C recommendations result from poorly designed trials or from small case series.1, 2 Meta-analysis Meta-analyses are included in the present document but there should be caution as to their possible abuse. Certain studies may be included in a meta-analysis carelessly without sufficiently understanding of substantive issues, ignoring relevant variables, using heterogenous findings or interpreting results with a bias.3 It has been demonstrated that the outcomes of 12 large randomized controlled trials were not predicted accurately 35% of the time by the meta-analyses published previously on the same topics.4

Management of chronic venous disorders of the lower limbs: guidelines according to scientific evidence.

Background
Minimally invasive techniques to treat great saphenous varicose veins include ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and endovenous laser therapy (EVLT). Compared with flush saphenofemoral ligation with stripping, also referred to as open surgery or high ligation and stripping (HL/S), proposed benefits include fewer complications, quicker return to work, improved quality of life (QoL) scores, reduced need for general anaesthesia and equivalent recurrence rates. This is an update of a review first published in 2011.

Objectives
To determine whether endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy have any advantages or disadvantages in comparison with open surgical saphenofemoral ligation and stripping of great saphenous vein varices.

Search methods
For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched January 2014) and CENTRAL (2013, Issue 12). Clinical trials databases were also searched for details of ongoing or unpublished studies.

Selection criteria
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of UGFS, EVLT, RFA and HL/S were considered for inclusion. Primary outcomes were recurrent varicosities, recanalisation, neovascularisation, technical procedure failure, patient QoL scores and associated complications.

Data collection and analysis
CN and RB independently reviewed, assessed and selected trials which met the inclusion criteria. CN and RB extracted data and used the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. CN and RB contacted trial authors to clarify details as needed.

Main results
For this update, eight additional studies were included making a total of 13 included studies with a combined total of 3081 randomised patients. Three studies compared UGFS with surgery, eight compared EVLT with surgery and five compared RFA with surgery (two studies had two or more comparisons with surgery). Study quality, evaluated through the six domains of risk of bias, was generally moderate for all included studies, however no study blinded participants, researchers and clinicians or outcome assessors. Also, nearly all included studies had other sources of bias. The overall quality of the evidence was moderate due to the variations in the reporting of results, which limited meaningful meta-analyses for the majority of proposed outcome measures. For the comparison UGFS versus surgery, the findings may have indicated no difference in the rate of recurrences in the surgical group when measured by clinicians, and no difference between the groups for symptomatic recurrence (odds ratio (OR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 3.12; P = 0.06 and OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.49, respectively). Recanalisation and neovascularisation were only evaluated in a single study. Recanalisation at 4 months an OR of 5.05 (95% CI 1.67 to 15.28) and for neovascularisation an OR of 0.05 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.94). There was no difference in the rate of technical failure between the two groups (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.57). For EVLT versus surgery, there were no differences between the treatment groups for either clinician noted or symptomatic recurrence (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.22; P = 0.22 and OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.62; P = 0.67, respectively). Both early and late recanalisation were no different between the two treatment groups (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.09 to 12.77; P = 0.97 and OR 4.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 22.65; P = 0.10). Neovascularisation and technical failure were both statistically reduced in the laser treatment group (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.22; P < 0.0001 and OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.60; P = 0.0009, respectively). Long-term (five-year) outcomes were evaluated in one study so no association could be derived,but it appeared that EVLT and surgery maintained similar findings. Comparing RFA versus surgery, there were no differences in clinician noted recurrence (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.39; P = 0.47); symptomatic noted recurrence was only evaluated in a single study. There were also no differences between the treatment groups for recanalisation (early or late) (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.01 to 81.18; P = 0.87 and OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.04; P = 0.87, respectively), neovascularisation (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.65; P = 0.17) or technical failure (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.07 to 10.10; P = 0.88).

QoL scores, operative complications and pain were not amenable to meta-analysis, however quality of life generally increased similarly in all treatment groups and complications were generally low, especially major complications. Pain reporting varied greatly between the studies but in general pain was similar between the treatment groups.

Authors' conclusions
Currently available clinical trial evidence suggests that UGFS, EVLT and RFA are at least as effective as surgery in the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins. Due to large incompatibilities between trials and different time point measurements for outcomes, the evidence is lacking in robustness. Further randomised trials are needed, which should aim to report and analyse results in a congruent manner to facilitate future meta-analysis.

Endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy versus open surgery for great saphenous vein varices

BACKGROUND Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy and endovenous laser ablation are widely used alternatives to surgery for the treatment of varicose veins, but their comparative effectiveness and safety remain uncertain. METHODS In a randomized trial involving 798 participants with primary varicose veins at 11 centers in the United Kingdom, we compared the outcomes of foam, laser, and surgical treatments. Primary outcomes at 6 months were disease-specific quality of life and generic quality of life, as measured on several scales. Secondary outcomes included complications and measures of clinical success. RESULTS After adjustment for baseline scores and other covariates, the mean disease-specific quality of life was slightly worse after treatment with foam than after surgery (P = 0.006) but was similar in the laser and surgery groups. There were no significant differences between the surgery group and the foam or the laser group in measures of generic quality of life. The frequency of procedural complications was similar in the foam group (6%) and the surgery group (7%) but was lower in the laser group (1%) than in the surgery group (P<0.001); the frequency of serious adverse events (approximately 3%) was similar among the groups. Measures of clinical success were similar among the groups, but successful ablation of the main trunks of the saphenous vein was less common in the foam group than in the surgery group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Quality-of-life measures were generally similar among the study groups, with the exception of a slightly worse disease-specific quality of life in the foam group than in the surgery group. All treatments had similar clinical efficacy, but complications were less frequent after laser treatment and ablation rates were lower after foam treatment. (Funded by the Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute for Health Research; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN51995477.)

/pdf/a-randomized-trial-comparing-treatments-for-varicose-veins-1b4jrbncm7.pdf

A Randomized Trial Comparing Treatments for Varicose Veins

Objective Medical compression stockings are a standard, non-invasive treatment option for all venous and lymphatic diseases. The aim of this consensus document is to provide up-to-date recommendations and evidence grading on the indications for treatment, based on evidence accumulated during the past decade, under the auspices of the International Compression Club. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted and, using PRISMA guidelines, 51 relevant publications were selected for an evidence-based analysis of an initial 2407 unrefined results. Key search terms included: 'acute', CEAP', 'chronic', 'compression stockings', 'compression therapy', 'lymph', 'lymphatic disease', 'vein' and 'venous disease'. Evidence extracted from the publications was graded initially by the panel members individually and then refined at the consensus meeting. Results Based on the current evidence, 25 recommendations for chronic and acute venous disorders were made. Of these, 24 recommendations were graded as: Grade 1A (n = 4), 1B (n = 13), 1C (n = 2), 2B (n = 4) and 2C (n = 1). The panel members found moderately robust evidence for medical compression stockings in patients with venous symptoms and prevention and treatment of venous oedema. Robust evidence was found for prevention and treatment of venous leg ulcers. Recommendations for stocking-use after great saphenous vein interventions were limited to the first post-interventional week. No randomised clinical trials are available that document a prophylactic effect of medical compression stockings on the progression of chronic venous disease (CVD). In acute deep vein thrombosis, immediate compression is recommended to reduce pain and swelling. Despite conflicting results from a recent study to prevent post-thrombotic syndrome, medical compression stockings are still recommended. In thromboprophylaxis, the role of stockings in addition to anticoagulation is limited. For the maintenance phase of lymphoedema management, compression stockings are the most important intervention. Conclusion The beneficial value of applying compression stockings in the treatment of venous and lymphatic disease is supported by this document, with 19/25 recommendations rated as Grade 1 evidence. For recommendations rated with Grade 2 level of evidence, further studies are needed.

/pdf/indications-for-medical-compression-stockings-in-venous-and-3zf6l1vknx.pdf

Indications for medical compression stockings in venous and lymphatic disorders: An evidence-based consensus statement:

https://www.jvascsurg.org/article/S0741-5214(12)00719-7/pdf

Cost and Effectiveness of Laser with Phlebectomies Compared with Foam Sclerotherapy in Superficial Venous Insufficiency. Early Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial

Long-term results of a randomized controlled trial on ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy combined with saphenofemoral ligation vs standard surgery for varicose veins.

Superficial vein thrombosis: a consensus statement.

Objectives:Venous filling time (VFT90) is the time taken to reach 90% of the venous volume in the calf. It is recorded by air-plethysmography (APG®) and is assumed to measure global venous reflux duration. However, this has never been confirmed by duplex. The aim of the study was to compare VFT on APG to venous reflux time/duration (RT) measured simultaneously with duplex on the same patients.MethodTwenty-six consecutive patients, M:F = 16:10, age (25–78), C1 = 1, C2 = 4, C3 = 8, C4a = 6, C4b = 4, C5 = 2, C6 = 1, underwent simultaneous APG with duplex. The venous filling index (VFI, mL/second), VFT90 (seconds), great saphenous vein (GSV) RT on duplex, averaged thigh GSV diameter and thigh length (length) between the APG sensor air-cuff and duplex transducer were recorded. The VFT100 was calculated by VFT90/0.9. The additional time taken to fill the thigh was achieved using the VFI, length and deep vein diameter (d), to determine the corrected reflux duration: CRD = VFT100 + (length × πd2/4 (1/VFI)).Result...

Venous filling time using air-plethysmography correlates highly with great saphenous vein reflux time using duplex

ObjectivesThe venous clinical severity score (VCSS) and the Aberdeen varicose vein questionnaire (AVVQ) improve after treating chronic venous insufficiency (CVI). The aim was to examine how and why they improve by evaluating the change in each individual question.MethodsThis was an analysis on prospectively collected data from a clinical study on 100 patients (58% female) with CVI (C2 = 34, C3 = 14, C4a = 29, C4b = 9, C5 = 7, C6 = 7) who were randomized to endovenous laser ablation (n = 50) or foam sclerotherapy (n = 50). The change scores (performance) of each question of the VCSS (questions 1–10) and the AVVQ (questions 1–13) were calculated by subtracting the score at three weeks, and three months, from the pre-treatment score.ResultsBoth the median, interquartile range (IQR), VCSS and the AVVQ scores improved from 6 (4) and 21.4 (15.1) at baseline to 3 (4) and 18.6 (12.1) at three weeks (P < 0.0005, P = 0.031) to 2 (3) and 8.8 (13.6) at three months, (P < 0.0005, P < 0.0005), respectively. The perform...

E Kalodiki

Papers

Cost and Effectiveness of Laser with Phlebectomies Compared with Foam Sclerotherapy in Superficial Venous Insufficiency. Early Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial

Long-term results of a randomized controlled trial on ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy combined with saphenofemoral ligation vs standard surgery for varicose veins.

Superficial vein thrombosis: a consensus statement.

Venous filling time using air-plethysmography correlates highly with great saphenous vein reflux time using duplex

Responsiveness of individual questions from the venous clinical severity score and the Aberdeen varicose vein questionnaire