Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial of conventional surgery, endovenous laser ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy in patients with great saphenous varicose veins

Different management options for primary varicose veins in females: A prospective study

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term follow-up results of different management modalities in treating primary uncomplicated lower limb female varicosities.

Methods

A prospective study took place within a 3-year period from June 2010 until May 2012. Patients were divided into 3 groups: group I (n = 35) included those who underwent open surgical treatment. Group II (n = 25) included those who subjected to ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (USGFS). While group III (n = 20) included those who treated with endovenous laser therapy (EVLT). The patients were followed up for 6 years.

Results

All selected patients were female aged from 35-62 years with a mean of 47 ± 7.6 years. Thirty-five patients (43.75%) were treated surgically by saphenofemoral junction disconnection (SFJD), and great saphenous vein (GSV) stripping; 25 patients (31.25%) with ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy and the remaining 20 patients (25%) were treated with endovenous laser therapy. A significant success rate of GSV ablation was obtained for the endovenous laser therapy treated group over the ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy treated patients (P = .023). There was no significant difference between the surgically treated group and those group treated with endovenous laser therapy (P = .85). Recurrence was observed following long-term follow-up after 6 years in 8.5% in group I, 36% in group II, and 10% in group III, respectively. Venous clinical severity score (VCSS) and health-related quality of life score (HRQOLS) improved significantly in all treated groups.

Conclusions

Long-term follow-up of patients with primary superficial varicosities among females is mandatory to elucidate the postoperative recurrence, especially those who underwent ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy. In addition to the observation of the development of newly formed varicosities in susceptible individuals which might develop later following long-term follow-up.

Current Therapeutic Interventions in Lower Extremity Venous Insufficiency: a Comprehensive Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic venous disease (CVD), although affecting up to 40% of the US population, is often underdiagnosed by healthcare professionals due to an incomplete understanding of the presenting symptoms. CVD is a common cause of lower extremity pain and discomfort, including aching, cramping, tingling, burning, swelling, heaviness, restlessness, and fatigue, and may lead to significant morbidity if left untreated. The negative impact of CVD on quality of life is well established and the optimization of management strategies is an important area of evolving research.

RECENT FINDINGS

Management of CVD has rapidly evolved over the last two decades with the development of minimally invasive endovenous ablative techniques, now the mainstay of treatment. We discuss the data supporting various methods of CVD treatment with an emphasis on the impact on patient comfort and quality of life. Both radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and endovenous laser therapy (EVLA) are excellent options for treatment of lower extremity venous disease, but RFA is associated with less post-procedure discomfort. Ultrasound-guided foam therapy is best reserved for the adjuvant setting or for patients ineligible for RFA or EVLA.

Five-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial comparing open surgery, foam sclerotherapy and endovenous laser ablation for great saphenous varicose veins

BACKGROUND

New treatment methods have challenged open surgery as a treatment for great saphenous vein (GSV) insufficiency, the most common being ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) and endovenous laser ablation (EVLA). This study evaluated the long-term results of surgery, EVLA and UGFS in the treatment of GSV reflux.

METHODS

Patients with symptomatic GSV reflux were randomized to undergo either open surgery, EVLA or UGFS. The main outcome measure was the occlusion rate of the GSV at 5 years after operation.

RESULTS

The study included 196 patients treated during 2008-2010; of these, 166 (84·7 per cent) participated in the 5-year follow-up. At 5 years, the GSV occlusion rate was 96 (95 per cent c.i. 91 to 100) per cent in the open surgery group, 89 (82 to 98) per cent after EVLA and 51 (38 to 64) per cent after UGFS (P < 0·001). For patients who had received no additional treatment during follow-up, the occlusion rates were 96 per cent (46 of 48), 89 per cent (51 of 57) and 41 per cent (16 of 39) respectively. UGFS without further GSV treatment was successful in only 16 of 59 patients (27 per cent) at 5 years.

CONCLUSION

UGFS has significantly inferior occlusion rates compared with open surgery or EVLA, and results in additional treatments.

Eight-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial comparing ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy with surgical stripping of the great saphenous vein

BACKGROUND

This was an 8-year follow-up of an RCT comparing ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) with high ligation and surgical stripping (HL/S) of the great saphenous vein (GSV).

METHODS

Patients were randomized to UGFS or HL/S of the GSV. The primary outcome was the recurrence of symptomatic GSV reflux. Secondary outcomes were patterns of reflux according to recurrent varices after surgery, Clinical Etiologic Anatomic Pathophysiologic (CEAP) classification, Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) and EuroQol Five Dimensions (EQ-5D™) quality-of-life scores.

RESULTS

Of 430 patients originally randomized (230 UGFS, 200 HL/S), 227 (52·8 per cent; 123 UGFS, 103 HL/S) were available for analysis after 8 years. The proportion of patients free from symptomatic GSV reflux at 8 years was lower after UGFS than HL/S (55·1 versus 72·1 per cent; P = 0·024). The rate of absence of GSV reflux, irrespective of venous symptoms, at 8 years was 33·1 and 49·7 per cent respectively (P = 0·009). More saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) failure (65·8 versus 41·7 per cent; P = 0·001) and recurrent reflux in the above-knee GSV (72·5 versus 20·4 per cent; P = 0·001) was evident in the UGFS group. The VCSS was worse than preoperative scores in both groups after 8 years; CEAP classification and EQ-5D® scores were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Surgical stripping had a technically better outcome in terms of recurrence of GSV and SFJ reflux than UGFS in the long term. Long-term follow-up suggests significant clinical progression of venous disease measured by VCSS in both groups, but less after surgery. Registration number: NCT02304146 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Great Saphenous Vein Diameters in Phlebological Practice in France: A Report of the DIAGRAVES Study by the French Society of Phlebology

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to evaluate the distribution of the diameter of the great saphenous vein (GSV) at mid-thigh level and to investigate its association with clinical class, symptoms, and proximal extent of reflux.

METHODS

Vascular physicians, members of the French Society of Phlebology, were invited to participate in a consecutive observational study in patients presenting with symptoms and/or signs of uni- or bilateral chronic venous disorders (CVDs) in previously untreated limbs (clinical class of the CEAP classification C0s - C6). Patients were included between January and March 2015. They completed a specially designed venous symptoms questionnaire. Duplex ultrasound of the included limbs was performed with the patient standing to detect reflux in the GSV and to measure the GSV inner diameter at mid-thigh.

RESULTS

Between January and March 2015, 35 physicians examined 1245 patients (2450 limbs after excluding 40 limbs): 77% were female, mean age 52 ± 14; 69% of the patients had venous symptoms in one or both legs. The most frequent symptoms were feeling of heaviness, feeling of swelling and aching. Predominant CEAP clinical classes were C2 (38% of limbs) and C1 (35%). In case of GSV reflux (40% of limbs), the average diameter was 5.6 ± 2 mm and the distribution was 62% < 6 mm, 30% between 6 and 8 mm, and 8% > 8 mm. The study showed a clear association between clinical class and GSV diameter (the higher the clinical class, the larger the diameter; p < .0001), between venous symptoms and diameter (the larger the diameter, the higher the intensity of symptoms, p < .0001 for overall discomfort) and between proximal extent of reflux and diameter (the more proximal the extent of reflux, the larger the diameter, p < .0001).

CONCLUSION

The DIAGRAVES study demonstrated that in France for patients consulting with CVDs, more than half of the incompetent GSVs had a diameter < 6 mm, while large diameters were relatively infrequent. This should be kept in mind when considering management strategies in patients with CVDs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Current and Emerging Treatments of Varicose Veins

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the cost-effectiveness of current technologies (conservative care [CONS], high-ligation surgery [HL/S], ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy [UGFS], endovenous laser ablation [EVLA], and radiofrequency ablation [RFA]) and emerging technologies (mechanochemical ablation [MOCA] and cyanoacrylate glue occlusion [CAE]) for treatment of varicose veins over 5 years.

METHODS

A Markov decision model was constructed. Effectiveness was measured by re-intervention on the truncal vein, re-treatment of residual varicosities, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 5 years. Model inputs were estimated from systematic review, the UK National Health Service unit costs, and manufacturers' list prices. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken.

RESULTS

CONS has the lowest overall cost and quality of life per person over 5 years; HL/S, EVLA, RFA, and MOCA have on average similar costs and effectiveness; and CAE has the highest overall cost but is no more effective than other therapies. The incremental cost per QALY of RFA versus CONS was £5,148/QALY. Time to return to work or normal activities was significantly longer after HL/S than after other procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

At a threshold of £20,000/QALY, RFA was the treatment with highest median rank for net benefit, with MOCA second, EVLA third, HL/S fourth, CAE fifth, and CONS and UGFS sixth. Further evidence on effectiveness and health-related quality of life for MOCA and CAE is needed. At current prices, CAE is not a cost-effective option because it is costlier but has not been shown to be more effective than other options.

The evidence supporting treatment of reflux and obstruction in chronic venous disease

On July 20, 2016, a Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee panel convened to assess the evidence supporting treatment of chronic venous disease. Several societies addressed the questions posed to the panel. A multidisciplinary coalition, representing nine societies of venous specialists, reviewed the literature and presented a consensus opinion regarding the panel questions. The purpose of this paper is to present our coalition's consensus review of the literature and recommendations for chronic venous disease.

Report of the Society for Vascular Surgery and the American Venous Forum on the July 20, 2016 meeting of the Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee panel on lower extremity chronic venous disease

On July 20, 2016, a Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee panel assessed the benefits and risks of currently used lower extremity chronic venous disease (CVD) treatments and their effects on health outcome of the American adult population. The main purpose of the meeting was to advise the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on coverage determination for interventions used for treatment of CVD. A systematic review of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality was presented, followed by lectures of invited experts and a public hearing of representatives of professional societies and the industry. After discussing critical issues, the panel voted for key questions. This report summarizes the presented evidence to support recommendations of the Society for Vascular Surgery/American Venous Forum coalition and the presentations on selected discussion topics. These included important venous disease evidence gaps that have not been sufficiently addressed, venous disease treatment disparities and how they may affect the health outcomes of Medicare beneficiaries, and mechanisms that might be supported by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to improve the evidence base to optimize the care of patients with lower extremity CVD.

Latest Innovations in the Treatment of Venous Disease

Venous disease is more common than peripheral arterial disease. Pathophysiologically, venous disease can be associated with obstruction, reflux, or both. A common feature in chronic venous disease is ambulatory venous hypertension. Inflammatory and pro-thrombotic mechanisms can be activated. The current therapies, including compression, ablation, and recanalization are discussed.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating long-term outcomes of endovenous management of lower extremity varicose veins

BACKGROUND

Early studies have demonstrated that endovenous therapy for varicose veins is associated with a faster recovery and lower complication rates compared with conventional therapy. More than one million procedures have been performed worldwide. The objective of this study was to determine long-term efficacy of currently available endovenous therapy methods for varicose veins compared with conventional surgery (saphenofemoral ligation and stripping of great saphenous vein [GSV] with or without multiple avulsions) in management of GSV-related varicose veins.

METHODS

In July 2017, we searched MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science without date or language restriction for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Bibliographies of included studies were also searched for additional studies. RCTs comparing conventional surgery and endovenous therapy for treating lower extremity varicose veins with 5 years or more of follow-up were selected. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two review authors, and any disagreements were resolved by consensus or by arbitration of a third author. Cochrane RevMan 5 was used for analysis.

RESULTS

At time of data extraction, long-term follow-up was available for endovenous laser therapy (EVLT), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy. Included in the review were nine RCTs. The RCTs included 2185 legs; however, only 1352 legs were followed up for 5 years (61.9%). There was no statically significant difference in recurrence rate in comparing EVLT with conventional surgery in treating GSV incompetence (36.6% vs 33.3%, respectively; pooled risk ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-2.37; P = .3). Also, no significant difference was determined for recurrence rate in comparing RFA with surgery or EVLT.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the analysis showed that EVLT and RFA are as effective as conventional surgery in treating saphenous venous insufficiency, the number of patients available for analysis was too small for definitive conclusions to be drawn.

Liquid and Foam Sclerotherapy for Spider and Varicose Veins

Sclerotherapy has wide applicability in treating venous disease at every stage of clinical disease. The various sclerosant drugs and formulations each have unique properties, utilities, and side effects. Treating physicians should be aware of the differences between agents, accounting for disease presentation, vein characteristics, and patient comorbidities when selecting the appropriate sclerosing agents. Successful outcomes rely on proper patient evaluation and assessment for contraindications to sclerotherapy. Thorough patient education regarding realistic expectations with sclerotherapy in terms of symptoms relief, recurrence, and improvement in appearance is of chief importance.

Current clinical evidence on endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) from randomised trials

Background Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) is globally counted among the most frequently administered methods to treat saphenous vein incompetence. Technical development proceeded in three particular steps: EVLA #1 – Diode lasers linearly emitting wavelengths from 810 to 980 nm through optical bare fibres; EVLA #2 – Diode or Nd:YAG lasers emitting wavelengths from 1064 to 1500 nm; EVLA #3 – Modified optical fibres warranting an optimised emission geometry by centralisation of the fibre tip (Tulip-fibre, Jacket-tip) or radial emission of the laser beam. Due to the number of different EVLA techniques their value compared with standard surgery (high ligation and stripping, HLS) and other endovascular approaches has to be questioned.

Methods Selective literature analysis based on a systematic PubMed search focussed on randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing EVLA with HLS and other thermal or nonthermal ablation techniques – radiofrequency ablation (RFA), ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), endothermal steam ablation (EStA).

Results The search terms “endovenous”, “laser”, “varicose vein” resulted in 509 publications, hereof 57 RCTs, hereof 24 randomised studies comparing EVLA with other treatment approaches: 15 studies comprise comparisons with standard surgery and further 9 studies with other endovenous techniques. 6 RCTs contain long-term followup data on EVLA #1 vs. HLS suggesting superiority of HLS in terms of same site clinical and duplex detected recurrence from the groin. 15 RCTs are reporting short-term results clearly demonstrating inferiority of EVLA #1 against EVLA #2, EVLA #3, and RFA with respect to postoperative complaints and patients’ quality of life.

Conclusions The first generation endovenous laser systems are disadvantageous or even harmful as compared with more advanced EVLA techniques and RFA in terms of patients’ complaints and side effects. Furthermore, evidence is rising that EVLA #1 is inferior to standard surgery regarding long-term treatment efficacy. Therefore, the application of EVLA #1 in the treatment of saphenous vein incompetence cannot be recommended any longer. In view of the more recently published RCTs reporting long-term superiority of standard surgery, HLS should still be implemented as control group in studies investigating endovenous treatment approaches.

Editor's Choice - Five Year Results of Great Saphenous Vein Treatment: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The most frequently used treatment options for great saphenous vein incompetence are high ligation with stripping (HL+S), endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA), mainly consisting of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) or radiofrequency ablation, and ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the long-term efficacy of these different treatment modalities.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with follow-up ≥ 5 years were included. Pooled proportions of anatomical success, which was the primary outcome, rate of recurrent reflux at the saphenofemoral junction (SFJ), and mean difference in venous clinical severity score (VCSS) were compared using a z test or Student t test. Quality of life data were assessed and described.

RESULTS

Three RCTs and 10 follow-up studies of RCTs were included of which 12 were pooled in the meta-analysis. In total, 611 legs were treated with EVLA, 549 with HL+S, 121 with UGFS, and 114 with HL+EVLA. UGFS had significantly lower pooled anatomical success rates than HL+S, EVLA, and EVLA with high ligation: 34% (95% CI 26-44) versus 83% (95% CI 72-90), 88% (95% CI 82-92), and 88% (95% CI 17-100) respectively; p ≤ .001. The pooled recurrent reflux rate at the SFJ was significantly lower for HL+S than UGFS (12%, 95% CI 7-20, vs. 29%, 95% CI 21-38; p ≤ .001) and EVLA (12%, 95% CI 7-20, vs. 22%, 95% CI 14-32; p = .038). VCSS scores were pooled for EVLA and HL+S, which showed similar improvements.

CONCLUSION

EVLA and HL+S show higher success rates than UGFS 5 years after GSV treatment. Recurrent reflux rates at the SFJ were significantly lower in HL+S than UGFS and EVLA. VCSS scores were similar between EVLA and HL+S.

Towards an individualized management strategy for patients with chronic venous disease: Results of a Delphi consensus

Objective To obtain consensus on management criteria for symptomatic patients with chronic venous disease (CVD; C2-C6) and superficial venous reflux. Method We used a Delphi method by means of 36 statements sent by email to experts in the field of phlebology across the world over the course of three rounds. The statements addressed criteria for different venous treatments in patients with different characteristics (e.g. extensive comorbidities, morbid obesity and peripheral arterial disease). If at least 70% of the ratings for a specific statement were between 6 and 9 (agreement) or between 1 and 3 (disagreement), experts' consensus was reached. Results Twenty-five experts were invited to participate, of whom 24 accepted and completed all three rounds. Consensus was reached in 25/32 statements (78%). However, several statements addressing UGFS, single phlebectomies, patients with extensive comorbidities and morbid obesity remained equivocal. Conclusion Considerable consensus was reached within a group of experts but also some gaps in available research were highlighted.

Foam sclerotherapy of the great saphenous vein in association with pre-terminal saphenous junction ligation/division as an office-based procedure: 12-Month results

Objective Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) - one of the most frequently recommended methods for treating great saphenous vein incompetence - is easy and inexpensive. However, it achieves a lower occlusion rate compared to endovenous thermal ablation. The application of UGFS to pre-terminal great saphenous vein interruption, eliminating the saphenous stem wash out effect, enhances the short-term occlusion rate. This study explores the results of this technique at 12 months. Method Thirty great saphenous veins (28 patients) with junction incompetence, with calibres >6 mm and >30 cm reflux stem length were submitted to echo-guided pre-terminal great saphenous vein interruption and foam great saphenous vein occlusion. Participants were subjected to a 12-month post-operative review by ultrasound assessment of great saphenous vein occlusion and terminal stump stability. Comparisons were made between pre-operative and 12-month Validation of Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), photopletismography, Aberdeen questionnaire and complications. Results After 12 months, 28/30 great saphenous veins remained occluded (93%). One complete and one partial recanalization did not require retreatment. Four saphenous stumps showed a reflux during Valsalva (one due to recanalization, one limited to the stump, two with reflux in the anterior accessory saphenous vein). VCSS improved from 3.33 ± 1.64 to 0.67 ± 1.21 ( p < 0.05). Aberdeen questionnaire scores decreased from 9.44 ± 6.18 to 2.47 ± 3.77 ( p < 0.05). For photopletismographic examination, the mean venous refilling time (normal value: > 25 s) improved from 17.94 ± 11.97 to 31.4 ± 11.99 ( p < 0.05). Conclusion Applying pre-terminal great saphenous vein interruption to UGFS of the saphenous stem achieved an occlusion rate at one year similar to that of endovenous thermal ablation. The procedure is simple, effective, office based, and may be used as a 10-min prolongation to a phlebectomy.

Randomized clinical trial comparing surgery, endovenous laser ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy for the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins

Background

Endovenous ablation techniques and ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) have largely replaced open surgery for treatment of great saphenous varicose veins. This was a randomized trial to compare the effect of surgery, endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) (with phlebectomies) and UGFS on quality of life and the occlusion rate of the great saphenous vein (GSV) 12 months after surgery.

Methods

Patients with symptomatic, uncomplicated varicose veins (CEAP class C2–C4) were examined at baseline, 1 month and 1 year. Before discharge and at 1 week, patients reported a pain score on a visual analogue scale. Preoperative and 1‐year assessments included duplex ultrasound imaging and the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Severity Score (AVVSS).

Results

The study included 214 patients: 65 had surgery, 73 had EVLA and 76 had UGFS. At 1 year, the GSV was occluded or absent in 59 (97 per cent) of 61 patients after surgery, 71 (97 per cent) of 73 after EVLA and 37 (51 per cent) of 72 after UGFS (P < 0·001). The AVVSS improved significantly in comparison with preoperative values in all groups, with no significant differences between them. Perioperative pain was significantly reduced and sick leave shorter after UGFS (mean 1 day) than after EVLA (8 days) and surgery (12 days).

Conclusion

In comparison with open surgery and EVLA, UGFS resulted in equivalent improvement in quality of life but significantly higher residual GSV reflux at 12‐month follow‐up.

Foam less effective

Which endovenous ablation method does offer a better long-term technical success in the treatment of the incompetent great saphenous vein? Review

Objective

The aim of this review article was to evaluate the long-term technical success rates of the known endovenous ablation procedures in the treatment of the incompetence of the great saphenous vein.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in the PubMed-database until the 5 January 2016. All publications with four to five years follow-up were eligible. Meta-analysis was performed by the IVhet-model.

Results

Eight hundred and sixty-two unique publications were found; 17 of them were appropriate for meta-analysis. Overall, 1420 limbs were included in the trial, 939 for endovenous laser ablation, 353 for radiofrequency ablation and 128 for ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy. Overall, technical success rates were 84.8% for endovenous laser ablation, 88.7% for radiofrequency ablation and 32.8% for ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy. There were no significant differences between endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation and ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy regarding the great saphenous vein reopening ( p = 0.66; OR: 0.22; 95% of CI: 0.08–0.62 for radiofrequency ablation vs. endovenous laser ablation; p = 0.96; OR: 0.11; 95% of CI: 0.06–0.20 for endovenous laser ablation vs. ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy; p = 0.93; OR: 3.20; 95% of CI: 0.54–18.90 for ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy vs. radiofrequency ablation).

Conclusion

Both endovenous laser ablation and radiofrequency ablation are efficient in great saphenous vein occlusion on the long term. Lacking long-conducted large trials, the efficacy and reliability of ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy to treat great saphenous vein-reflux is not affirmed.

Reconsidering the endovenous revolution

Not as cost-effective as you might think

Relationships between duplex findings and quality of life in long-term follow-up of patients treated for chronic venous disease

OBJECTIVE

Relationships between duplex findings and data on health-related quality of life (QoL) to assess long-term results of treatment of varicose veins and chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) are not well known. The goal of this review was to correlate duplex findings and QoL assessments in clinical studies with long-term follow-up.

METHODS

A review of the English language literature on PUBMED revealed 17 clinical studies, including 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 6 prospective, and 2 retrospective studies that included patients with at least 5-year follow-up after endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), and traditional superficial venous surgery.

RESULTS

At 5 years, great saphenous vein (GSV) occlusion rate on duplex ultrasound ranged from 66% to 82% for EVLA, from 62% to 92% for RFA, from 41% to 58% for UGFS and from 54% to 85% for surgery. Freedom from GSV reflux rates were 82% and 84%, respectively for EVLA and surgery, and ranged between 84% and 95% for RFA. Significant improvements were observed in several domains of generic QoL and in most domains of venous disease-specific QoL, irrespective of the treatment. In at least one RCT, CIVIQ scores correlated well with abnormal duplex findings in patients who underwent treatment with UGFS. In another RCT, long-term AVVQ was significantly better after surgery as compared with UGFS similar to results of duplex findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of the available literature confirmed that all four techniques were effective in the abolishment of reflux or obliteration of the GSV. Moreover, well-designed RCTs with large sample size are needed to produce robust long-term data on clinical outcome after treatment of varicose veins and CVI and to better understand the relationships between duplex-derived data and QoL assessments.

A review of a new Dutch guideline for management of recurrent varicose veins

In 2013, the new Dutch guideline for "Venous Pathology" was published. The guideline was a revision and update from the guideline "Diagnostics and Treatment of Varicose Veins" from 2009 and the guideline "Venous Ulcer" from 2005. A guideline for "Deep Venous Pathology" and one for "Compression Therapy" was added to the overall guideline "Venous Pathology." The chapter about treatment of recurrent varicose veins after initial intervention was recently updated in 2015 and is reviewed here. The Dutch term "recidief varices" or the French "récidive de varices" should be used analogous to the English term "recurrent varicose veins." The DCOP Guideline Development Group Neovarices concluded that "recidief" in Dutch actually suggests recurrence after apparent successful treatment and ignores the natural progression of venous disease in its own right. So the group opted to use the term "neovarices." In the Dutch guideline, neovarices is meant to be an all embracing term for recurrent varicose veins caused by technical or tactical failure, evolvement from residual refluxing veins or natural progression of varicose vein disease at different locations of the treated leg after intervention. This report reviews the most important issues in the treatment of varicose vein recurrence, and discusses conclusions and recommendations of the Dutch Neovarices Guideline Committee.

Long-term follow-up for different varicose vein therapies: is surgery still the best?

Management of varicose vein disease has changed drastically over the past decades. Since its introduction in vein practice, surgery has gone through several stages of evolution until the method of ligation with stripping eventually became and remained the standard for a long time. It was found to be effective at treating the condition and, indications of its beneficial impact on patients' quality of life soon also became evident. However, being associated with significant morbidity, surgery gradually fell out of favour, especially, once the newer endovenous techniques were launched around the turn of the century. These endothermal methods allowed procedures to be carried out under local anaesthetic as day case interventions, often with a similar or even better effect on occlusion rates and quality of life. In addition, there is mounting evidence that these newer techniques might be more cost-effective. This review evaluates surgical treatment of varicose veins compared to endovenous methods and also assesses its place in current phlebological practice.