The Discord Outcome Analysis (DOA) as a Reporting Standard at Three Months and Five Years in Randomised Varicose Vein Treatment Trials

Effectiveness of Sclerotherapy to Cure Lower Limb Chronic Venous Insufficiency Grades 1-6: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Chronic venous insufficiency is a medical condition that impacts the venous system in the lower limbs. The primary characteristic of this condition is the continual elevation of pressure within the leg veins due to walking, which leads to a range of associated issues, such as discomfort, swelling, alterations in the skin, and the development of ulcers. Sclerotherapy has emerged as a potentially effective treatment for chronic venous insufficiency, involving the injection of a sclerosing agent into the affected veins. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of sclerotherapy in treating chronic venous insufficiency grades 1-6 in the lower limb through a systematic review and meta-analysis. The method for conducting this research is by searching articles with relevant keywords carried out through electronic databases, such as Cochrane Library, Pubmed, and Google Scholar. The researchers conducted a comprehensive search and included randomized controlled trials and clinical trials that assessed outcomes, such as patient satisfaction, clinical resolution, quality of life (QoL), and closure rates. Statistical methods were used to analyze the data. The results of the meta-analysis from 9.670 total samples showed that sclerotherapy is the most effective therapy for reducing clinical severity in lower limb venous insufficiency patients (pooled MD = -0.85, 95% CI (-1.41, -0.29), p < 0.00001, I2 = 99%). Sclerotherapy is the most effective therapy for increasing QoL if we use Venous Insufficiency Epidemiology and Economic Study-Quality of Life (VEINES-QOL) as a tool for measuring the QoL (VEINES-QOL scale types; pooled MD = 10.34, 95% CI (8.78, 11.90), p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%). Additionally, sclerotherapy is a more effective therapy for increasing QoL compared to placebo (pooled MD = -1.64, 95% CI (-2.60, -0.67), p = 0.002, I2 = 90%), deferred ablation (pooled MD = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.40, -0.03), p = 0.02), and ligation therapy (pooled MD = -1.29, 95% CI (-1.62, -0.97), p = 0.00001). It is also the most effective therapy for increasing the closure rate for 12-month duration outcome measures (pooled RR = 0.72, 95% CI (0.55, 0.94), p = 0.001, I2 = 91%). However, high heterogeneity was observed in the meta-analysis results, indicating the need for further research to address this variability. This study contributes to the existing body of knowledge on the treatment options for chronic venous insufficiency and highlights the potential of sclerotherapy as an effective treatment modality.

Quantifiable remaining reflux 1 year after treatment of superficial venous incompetence is associated with impaired clinical outcome

OBJECTIVE

Remaining symptoms after treatment of superficial venous incompetence is a common problem. Duplex ultrasound is often used during follow-up, but does not permit an overall quantification of venous function. We have developed a plethysmographic method using occlusion cuffs for separation of superficial and deep venous reflux. By assessing the superficial component it is possible to quantify a potential suboptimal hemodynamic treatment in patients with superficial venous incompetence. The aim was to examine whether patients with hemodynamically quantifiable remaining reflux after treatment experience impaired clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This single-center prospective cohort study evaluated 156 limbs with great saphenous vein incompetence treated with radiofrequency ablation or high ligation and stripping. Duplex ultrasound and strain-gauge plethysmography (SGP) with and without selective superficial occlusion were performed before and one-year after treatment. Time taken (seconds) to reach 50% of the venous volume (T50) was evaluated. A difference in the T50of >5 seconds between postoperative strain-gauge plethysmography with and without superficial occlusion was defined as remaining reflux. The Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ) were evaluated and compared between patients with and without remaining reflux. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate risk factors for remaining plethysmographic reflux.

RESULTS

In all patients, median (25th, 75th percentile) T50 increased preoperatively from 7 seconds (3, 12 seconds) to 17 seconds (11, 28 seconds) (P < .001) 1 year after treatment. The VCSS and AVVQ were reduced (VCSS, 8.0 [6.0, 10.0] vs 3.0 [1.0, 5.0] [P < .001]; AVVQ, 21.8 [15.8, 32.1] vs 6.4 [2.2, 11.0] [P < .001]). Of the 156 limbs, 87 (56%) demonstrated remaining reflux 1 year after treatment. Patients with remaining plethysmographic reflux displayed higher median (25th, 75th percentile) VCSS (3.0 [2.0, 5.0] vs 2.0 [1.0, 4.0]; P = .012) and AVVQ (7.5 [2.7, 14.9] vs 4.7 [1.6, 9.2]; P = .025). Multivariate logistic regression showed that higher preoperative C in the Clinical Etiology Anatomy Pathophysiology classification (CEAP) (odds ratio [OR], 2.9 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34-6.46), age (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.001-1.065), small saphenous vein incompetence (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.30-13.73) and postoperative great saphenous vein reflux below the treated area (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.02-4.56) were significant risk factors for remaining plethysmographic reflux.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of treated limbs showed quantifiable reflux 1 year after intervention and these patients displayed worse patient related outcomes assessed with the VCSS and AVVQ. Remaining plethysmographic reflux was associated with preoperative small saphenous vein incompetence and reflux below the treated area as well as advanced age and higher C in CEAP.

Outcome Measures of In-Office Endovenous Radiofrequency Treatment of Varicose Vein Feasibility

RFA is a relatively new treatment, approved by the FDA in 1999 and is a minimally invasive intervention that has become one of the most common alternatives due to its many advantages, including decreased pain, less morbidity, shorter hospital stay and faster return to work. We retrospectively analyzed a total of 503 limbs submitted for surgical interventions for VVs using the RFA, combined or not with surgical phlebectomies and sclerotherapy, in our institution between April 2012 and December 2020. The technical success was 99.8%, as in one case the RFA catheter arrested at the first third of the thigh due to the tortuosity of the vessel. On the first post-operative day, the mean VAS scale was 0.32 ± 0.56 (0-2). Perioperative complications occurred in 77 cases (15.3%): intraoperative pain in 24 cases, in nine cases associated with vagal syndrome, superficial hematoma in 30 cases, EHIT in seven cases, phlebitis in 14 cases and paresthesia in two cases. RFA procedures had been shown to be cost-effective therapeutic options in adult patients requiring treatment due to the incompetence of the GSV. In our study, we highlighted that this technique is feasible as an ambulatory procedure; it improves quality of life and symptoms in the majority of patients with varicose veins, with a rapid return to normal life and work activities.

Relationship between clinical severity and hemodynamic impact of great saphenous vein incompetence using strain gauge plethysmography and duplex ultrasound

Objectives

To evaluate the relation of quantitative Duplex ultrasound (DUS) and strain gauge plethysmography (SGP) parameters with clinical severity and quality of life in patients with superficial venous incompetence.

Methods

DUS volume flow and distal SGP refilling times (T50 and T90) were evaluated in 152 patients (164 Limbs) with superficial incompetence. Clinical severity and quality of life were evaluated with C of the CEAP classification, venous clinical severity score (VCSS), Aberdeen varicose vein questionnaire (AVVQ), and EuroQol 5D-3L.

Results

Higher DUS volume flow was associated with higher C in CEAP scores. Volume flow was also related to T50 and T90. Shorter T50 and T90 were associated with higher C in CEAP and VCSS. T50 was also associated with EQ-5DVAS. Reflux extension to the foot wase associated with shorter T50 and T90 and higher DUS volume flow.

Conclusions

DUS volume flow and SGP refilling times are related with clinical severity and provide quantitative information regarding venous function in patients with superficial incompetence.

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.

Interventions for great saphenous vein incompetence

BACKGROUND

Great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence, causing varicose veins and venous insufficiency, makes up the majority of lower-limb superficial venous diseases. Treatment options for GSV incompetence include surgery (also known as high ligation and stripping), laser and radiofrequency ablation, and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy. Newer treatments include cyanoacrylate glue, mechanochemical ablation, and endovenous steam ablation. These techniques avoid the need for a general anaesthetic, and may result in fewer complications and improved quality of life (QoL). These treatments should be compared to inform decisions on treatment for varicosities in the GSV. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), endovenous steam ablation (EVSA), ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), cyanoacrylate glue, mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) and high ligation and stripping (HL/S) for the treatment of varicosities of the great saphenous vein (GSV).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 2 November 2020. We undertook reference checking to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) treating participants for varicosities of the GSV using EVLA, RFA, EVSA, UGFS, cyanoacrylate glue, MOCA or HL/S. Key outcomes of interest are technical success, recurrence, complications and QoL.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, applied Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 11 new RCTs for this update. Therefore, we included 24 RCTs with 5135 participants. Duration of follow-up ranged from five weeks to eight years. Five comparisons included single trials. For comparisons with more than one trial, we could only pool data for 'technical success' and 'recurrence' due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and time points reported. All trials had some risk of bias concerns. Here we report the clinically most relevant comparisons. EVLA versus RFA Technical success was comparable up to five years (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.38; 5 studies, 780 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); over five years, there was no evidence of a difference (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.41; 1 study, 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported recurrence, showing no clear difference at three years (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.99; 291 participants; low-certainty evidence), but a benefit for RFA may be seen at five years (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.52 to 5.06; 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). EVLA versus UGFS Technical success may be better in EVLA participants up to five years (OR 6.13, 95% CI 0.98 to 38.27; 3 studies, 588 participants; low-certainty evidence), and over five years (OR 6.47, 95% CI 2.60 to 16.10; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in recurrence up to three years and at five years (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.36; 2 studies, 443 participants; and OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.87; 2 studies, 418 participants; very low-certainty evidence, respectively). EVLA versus HL/S Technical success may be better in EVLA participants up to five years (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.23; 6 studies, 1051 participants; low-certainty evidence). No clear difference in technical success was seen at five years and beyond (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.50; 5 studies, 874 participants; low-certainty evidence). Recurrence was comparable within three years and at 5 years (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.29; 7 studies, 1459 participants; and OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.76; 7 studies, 1267 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). RFA versus MOCA There was no clear difference in technical success (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.06 to 54.15; 3 studies, 435 participants; low-certainty evidence), or recurrence (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.81; 3 studies, 389 participants; low-certainty evidence). Long-term data are not available. RFA versus HL/S No clear difference in technical success was detected up to five years (OR 5.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 50.81; 2 studies, 318 participants; low-certainty evidence); over five years, there was no evidence of a difference (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.69; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence). No clear difference in recurrence was detected up to three years (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.51; 4 studies, 546 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but a possible long-term benefit for RFA was seen (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.75; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence). UGFS versus HL/S Meta-analysis showed a possible benefit for HL/S compared with UGFS in technical success up to five years (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.94; 4 studies, 954 participants; low-certainty evidence), and over five years (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.30; 3 studies, 525 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No clear difference was detected in recurrence up to three years (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.77; 3 studies, 822 participants; low-certainty evidence), and after five years (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.71; 3 studies, 639 participants; low-certainty evidence). Complications were generally low for all interventions, but due to different definitions and time points, we were unable to draw conclusions (very-low certainty evidence). Similarly, most studies evaluated QoL but used different questionnaires at variable time points. Rates of QoL improvement were comparable between interventions at follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our conclusions are limited due to the relatively small number of studies for each comparison and differences in outcome definitions and time points reported. Technical success was comparable between most modalities. EVLA may offer improved technical success compared to UGFS or HL/S. HL/S may have improved technical success compared to UGFS. No evidence of a difference was detected in recurrence, except for a possible long-term benefit for RFA compared to EVLA or HL/S. Studies which provide more evidence on the breadth of treatments are needed. Future trials should seek to standardise clinical terminology of outcome measures and the time points at which they are measured.

Interventions for great saphenous vein reflux: network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

A variety of endovascular and open surgical interventions exist to treat great saphenous vein reflux. However, comparisons of treatment outcomes have been inconsistent.

METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs was performed to compare rates of incomplete stripping or non-occlusion of the great saphenous vein with or without reflux (anatomical failure) at early, mid- and long-term follow-up; and secondary outcomes (reintervention and clinical recurrence) among intervention groups. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) method was used to estimate the probability of the intervention with the lowest anatomical failure rates.

RESULTS

Some 72 RCTs were included. Comparisons of endothermal techniques with open surgery were mostly not significantly different, except for endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), which had higher long-term anatomical failure rates (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.87, 95 per cent c.i. 1.14 to 3.07). Mechanochemical ablation had higher anatomical failure rates than radiofrequency ablation (RFA) (pooled RR 2.77, 1.38 to 5.53), and cyanoacrylate closure (CAC) had a RR 0.56 (0.34 to 0.93) times lower than either RFA or EVLA at the early term. Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy had a higher risk of anatomical failure and reintervention than open surgery, with the lowest SUCRA value, and CAC was ranked first, third and first for best intervention for anatomical failure at early, mid and long term respectively. However, clinical recurrence rates were not significantly different between all comparisons.

CONCLUSION

Mechanochemical ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy performed poorly, with higher anatomical failure rates in the long term. The other treatment modalities had similar rates of anatomical failure in the short and mid term.

Global guidelines trends and controversies in lower limb venous and lymphatic disease: Narrative literature revision and experts' opinions following the vWINter international meeting in Phlebology, Lymphology & Aesthetics, 23-25 January 2019

Guidelines are fundamental in addressing everyday clinical indications and in reporting the current evidence-based data of related scientific investigations. At the same time, a spatial and temporal issue can limit their value. Indeed, variability in the recommendations can be found both among the same nation different scientific societies and among different nations/continents. On the other side, Garcia already published in 2014 data showing how, after three years in average, one out of five recommendations gets outdated (Martinez Garcia LM, Sanabria AJ, Garcia Alvarez E, et al. The validity of recommendations from clinical guidelines: a survival analysis. CMAJ 2014;186(16):1211–1219). The present document reports a narrative literature revision on the major international recommendations in lower limb venous and lymphatic disease management, focusing on the different countries’ guidelines, trends and controversies from all the continents, while identifying new evidence-based data potentially influencing future guidelines. World renowned experts’ opinions are also provided. The document has been written following the recorded round tables scientific discussions held at the vWINter international meeting (22–26 January 2019; Cortina d’Ampezzo, Italy) and the pre- and post-meeting literature search performed by the leading experts.