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 Venous disease is the most common cause of leg ulceration. Although compression therapy improves venous ulcer healing, it does not treat the underlying causes of venous hypertension. Treatment of superficial venous reflux has been shown to reduce the rate of ulcer recurrence, but the effect of early endovenous ablation of superficial venous reflux on ulcer healing remains unclear. Methods In a trial conducted at 20 centers in the United Kingdom, we randomly assigned 450 patients with venous leg ulcers to receive compression therapy and undergo early endovenous ablation of superficial venous reflux within 2 weeks after randomization (early-intervention group) or to receive compression therapy alone, with consideration of endovenous ablation deferred until after the ulcer was healed or until 6 months after randomization if the ulcer was unhealed (deferred-intervention group). The primary outcome was the time to ulcer healing. Secondary outcomes were the rate of ulcer healing at 24 weeks,...

/pdf/a-randomized-trial-of-early-endovenous-ablation-in-venous-4smlwsomt1.pdf

A randomized trial of early endovenous ablation in venous ulceration

http://www.ejves.com/article/S1078588421009795/pdf

European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2022 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Chronic Venous Disease of the Lower Limbs.

BACKGROUND This study compares the outcome 5 years after treatment of varicose veins with endovenous radiofrequency ablation (RFA), endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) or high ligation and stripping (HL/S) by assessing technical efficacy, clinical recurrence and the rate of reoperations. METHODS Five hundred patients (580 legs) with Great Saphenous Vein (GSV) reflux and varicose veins were randomized to one of the 4 treatments. Follow-up included clinical and duplex ultrasound examinations. RESULTS During 5 years there was a difference in the rate of GSV recanalization, recurrence and reoperations across the groups, KM P<0.001, P<0.01, P<0.001 respectively. Thus 8 in the RFA group (Kaplan Meier [KM] estimate 5.8%), 8 in the EVLA group (KM estimate 6.8%), 37 (KM estimate 31.5%) in the UGFS group and 8 in the HL/S group (KM estimate 6.3%) of GSVs recanalized or had a failed stripping procedure. Nineteen (RFA) (KM estimate 18.7%), 42 (EVLA) (KM estimate 38.6%), 28 (UGFS) (KM estimate 31.7%) and 38 (HL/S) (KM estimate 34.6%) legs developed recurrent varicose veins. Within 5 years after treatment, 19 (RFA) (KM estimate 17%), 19 (EVLA) (KM estimate 18.7%), 43 (UGFS) (KM estimate 37.7%) and 25 (HL/S) (KM estimate 23.4%) legs were retreated. CONCLUSIONS More recanalization's of the GSV occurred after UGFS and no difference in the technical efficacy was found between the other modalities during 5-year follow-up. The higher frequency of clinical recurrence after EVLA and HL/S cannot be explained and requires confirmation in other studies.

Comparison of endovenous ablation techniques, foam sclerotherapy and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins. Extended 5-year follow-up of a RCT.

Introduction
This study compares the outcome 3 years after treatment of varicose veins by endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation, ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), or surgery by assessing recurrence, Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), and quality of life (QOL).
Methods
A total of 500 patients (580 legs) were randomized to one of the three endovenous treatments or high ligation and stripping of the great saphenous vein (GSV). Follow-up included clinical and duplex ultrasound examinations and VCSS and QOL questionnaires. Kaplan-Meier (KM) life-table analysis was used. P values below .05 were considered statistically significant.
Results
At 3 years, eight (KM estimate, 7%), eight (KM estimate, 6.8%), 31 (KM estimate, 26.4%), and eight (KM estimate, 6.5%) of GSVs recanalized or had a failed stripping procedure (more than 10 cm open refluxing part of the treated GSV; CLF, EVLA, UGFS, and stripping, respectively; P < .01). Seventeen (KM estimate, 14.9%), 24 (KM estimate, 20%), 20 (KM estimate, 19.1%), and 22 (KM estimate, 20.2%) legs developed recurrent varicose veins (P = NS). The patterns of reflux and location of recurrent varicose veins were not different between the groups. Within 3 years after treatment, 12 (KM estimate, 11.1%), 14 (KM estimate, 12.5%), 37 (KM estimate, 31.6%), and 18 (KM estimate, 15.5%) legs were retreated in the CLF, EVLA, UGFS, and stripping groups, respectively (P < .01). VCSS, SF-36, and Aberdeen QOL scores improved significantly in all the groups with no difference between the groups.
Conclusions
All treatment modalities were efficacious and resulted in a similar improvement in VCSS and QOL. However, more recanalization and reoperations were seen after UGFS.

Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, foam sclerotherapy, and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins with 3-year follow-up.

Comparison of Endovenous Radiofrequency Ablation, Laser Ablation, Foam Sclerotherapy and Surgical Stripping for Great Saphenous Varicose Veins. Extended 5-Year Follow-up of a RCT

Comparison of Endovenous Ablation Techniques, Foam Sclerotherapy and Surgical Stripping for Great Saphenous Varicose Veins. Extended 5-year Follow-up of a RCT

Julie Serup

Papers

Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, foam sclerotherapy, and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins with 3-year follow-up.

Comparison of endovenous ablation techniques, foam sclerotherapy and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins. Extended 5-year follow-up of a RCT.

Comparison of Endovenous Radiofrequency Ablation, Laser Ablation, Foam Sclerotherapy and Surgical Stripping for Great Saphenous Varicose Veins. Extended 5-Year Follow-up of a RCT

Comparison of Endovenous Ablation Techniques, Foam Sclerotherapy and Surgical Stripping for Great Saphenous Varicose Veins. Extended 5-year Follow-up of a RCT