Injection sclerotherapy for varicose veins

Injection sclerotherapy for varicose veins

BACKGROUND

Varicose veins are enlarged and tortuous veins, affecting up to one-third of the world's population. They can be a cause of chronic venous insufficiency, which is characterised by oedema, pigmentation, eczema, lipodermatosclerosis, atrophie blanche, and healed or active venous ulcers. Injection sclerotherapy (liquid or foam) is widely used for treatment of varicose veins aiming to transform the varicose veins into a fibrous cord. However, there is limited evidence regarding its effectiveness and safety, especially in patients with more severe disease. This is the second update of the review first published in 2002.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of injection sclerotherapy for the treatment of varicose veins.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, and LILACS databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries, on 20 July 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (including cluster-randomised trials and first phase cross-over studies) that used injection sclerotherapy for the treatment of varicose veins.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed, selected and extracted data. Disagreements were cross-checked by a third review author. We used Cochrane's Risk of bias tool to assess the risk of bias. The outcomes of interest were cosmetic appearance, complications, residual varicose veins, quality of life (QoL), persistence of symptoms, and recurrent varicose veins. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the worst-case-scenario for dichotomous data imputation for intention-to-treat analyses. For continuous outcomes, we used the 'last-observation-carried-forward' for data imputation if there was balanced loss to follow-up. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 new RCTs for this update, bringing the total to 28 studies involving 4278 participants. The studies differed in their design, and in which sclerotherapy method, agent or concentration was used. None of the included RCTs compared sclerotherapy to no intervention or to any pharmacological therapy. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded for risk of bias, low number of studies providing information for each outcome, low number of participants, clinical differences between the study participants, and wide CIs. Sclerotherapy versus placebo Foam sclerotherapy may improve cosmetic appearance as measured by IPR-V (independent photography review - visible varicose veins scores) compared to placebo (polidocanol 1%: mean difference (MD) -0.76, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.60; 2 studies, 223 participants; very low-certainty evidence); however, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) rates may be slightly increased in this intervention group (RR 5.10, 95% CI 1.30 to 20.01; 3 studies, 302 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Residual varicose vein rates may be decreased following polidocanol 1% compared to placebo (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.29; 2 studies, 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Following polidocanol 1% use, there may be a possible improvement in QoL as assessed using the VEINES-QOL/Sym questionnaire (MD 12.41, 95% CI 9.56 to 15.26; 3 studies, 299 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and possible improvement in varicose vein symptoms as assessed using the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) (MD -3.25, 95% CI -3.90 to -2.60; 2 studies, 223 participants; low-certainty evidence). Recurrent varicose veins were not reported for this comparison. Foam sclerotherapy versus foam sclerotherapy with different concentrations Three individual RCTs reported no evidence of a difference in cosmetic appearance after comparing different concentrations of the intervention; data could not be pooled for two of the three studies (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.47; 1 study, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there was no clear difference in rates of thromboembolic complications when comparing one foam concentration with another (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.41 to 5.33; 3 studies, 371 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Three RCTs investigating higher concentrations of polidocanol foam indicated the rate of residual varicose veins may be slightly decreased in the polidocanol 3% foam group compared to 1% (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.04; 3 studies, 371 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No clear improvement in QoL was detected. Two RCTs reported improved VCSS scores with increasing concentrations of foam. Persistence of symptoms were not reported for this comparison. There was no clear difference in recurrent varicose vein rates (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.32; 1 study, 148 participants; low-certainty evidence). Foam sclerotherapy versus liquid sclerotherapy One RCT reported on cosmetic appearance with no evidence of a difference between foam or liquid sclerotherapy (patient satisfaction scale MD 0.2, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.67; 1 study, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the RCTs investigated thromboembolic complications, QoL or persistence of symptoms. Six studies individually showed there may be a benefit to polidocanol 3% foam over liquid sclerotherapy in reducing residual varicose vein rate; pooling data from two studies showed a RR of 0.51, with 95% CI 0.41 to 0.65; 203 participants; very low-certainty evidence. One study reported no clear difference in recurrent varicose vein rates when comparing sodium tetradecyl sulphate (STS) foam or liquid (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.42; 1 study, 286 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sclerotherapy versus sclerotherapy with different substances Four RCTs compared sclerotherapy versus sclerotherapy with any other substance. We were unable to combine the data due to heterogeneity or assess the certainty of the evidence due to insufficient data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a very low to low-certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, sclerotherapy is an effective and safe treatment for varicose veins concerning cosmetic appearance, residual varicose veins, QoL, and persistence of symptoms. Rates of DVT may be slightly increased and there were no data concerning recurrent varicose veins. There was limited or no evidence for one concentration of foam compared to another; foam compared to liquid sclerotherapy; foam compared to any other substance; or one technique compared to another. There is a need for high-quality trials using standardised sclerosant doses, with clearly defined core outcome sets, and measurement time points to increase the certainty of the evidence.

Ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy for varicose veins using two needle technique - A case series

INTRODUCTION

Varicose veins are one of the most common vascular problems encountered. Ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy is one such option it was introduced in 2001. We present our two needle technique of ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy along with our short term results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients presenting us between January 2009 to October 2009 with symptomatic primary varicose veins were selected for this procedure. Ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy was done using the two needle technique using sodium tetra decyl sulphate.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients and 19 legs were treated. Complete closure of veins was achieved with a single injection at 1 month follow up in 17 legs. One leg required one additional injection and one leg required two injections. No recurrence has been noted at the end of a follow up of 1-6 months.

CONCLUSION

Foam sclerotherapy is an effective, less expensive day care procedure with minimal complication rates.

Injection sclerotherapy for varicose veins

BACKGROUND

Injection sclerotherapy is widely used for superficial varicose veins. The treatment aims to obliterate the lumen of varicose veins or thread veins. There is limited evidence regarding its efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether sclerotherapy is effective in improving symptoms and cosmetic appearance and has an acceptable complication rate; to define rates of symptomatic or cosmetic varicose vein recurrence following sclerotherapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group trials register (April 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2006), MEDLINE and EMBASE (both inception to April 2006) and reference lists of articles. Manufacturers of sclerosants were contacted for additional trial information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of injection sclerotherapy versus graduated compression stockings (GCS) or 'observation', or comparing different sclerosants, doses, formulations and post-compression bandaging techniques on people with symptomatic and/or cosmetic varicose veins or thread veins were considered for inclusion in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by authors and Review Group Co-ordinators independently.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen studies were included. One study comparing sclerotherapy to GCS in pregnancy found that sclerotherapy improved symptoms and cosmetic appearance. Three studies comparing sodium tetradecyl sulphate (STD) to alternative sclerosants found no significant differences in outcome or complication rates; another study found that sclerotherapy with STD led to improved cosmetic appearance compared with polidocanol, although there was no difference in symptoms. Sclerosant plus local anaesthetic reduced the pain from injection (one study) but had no other effects. Two studies compared foam- to conventional sclerotherapy; one found no difference in failure rate or recurrent varicose veins; a second showed short-term benefit from foam in terms of elimination of venous reflux. The recanalisation rate was no different between the two treatments. One study comparing Molefoam and Sorbo pad pressure dressings found no difference in erythema or successful sclerosis. The degree and duration of elastic compression had no significant effect on varicose vein recurrence rates, cosmetic appearance or symptomatic improvement.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from RCTs suggests that the choice of sclerosant, dose, formulation (foam versus liquid), local pressure dressing, degree and length of compression have no significant effect on the efficacy of sclerotherapy for varicose veins. The evidence supports the current place of sclerotherapy in modern clinical practice, which is usually limited to treatment of recurrent varicose veins following surgery and thread veins. Surgery versus sclerotherapy is the subject of a further Cochrane Review.