Clinical outcome of short-term compression after sclerotherapy for telangiectatic varicose veins

Clinical Guidelines on Compression Therapy in Venous Diseases

BACKGROUND

In recent years, compression therapy has attracted gradually increasing clinical attention in lower extremity venous diseases. However, basic concepts and clear nomenclature, standard treatment methods, and consistent product standards for pressure equipment are lacking. Therefore, developing clinical guidelines for compression therapy is essential to improving the treatment of venous diseases.

METHODS

Our panel generated strong (Grade I), moderate (Grade IIa and IIb), and weak (Grade III) recommendations based on high quality (Class A), moderate quality (Class B), and low quality (Class C) evidence, using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) grading system.

RESULTS

The panels made 30 recommendations from current evidence, focusing on seven fields of lower extremity venous disease (venous thromboembolism, post-thrombotic syndrome, chronic venous insufficiency, varicose veins, hemangioma and vascular malformations, lymphedema, and venous ulcers) and 18 topics.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the 30 recommendations made across the 18 topics, 7 were strong (Grade I) and 17 were based on high quality (Class A) evidence, highlighting the need for further research of the use of compression therapy for .

Brazilian guidelines on chronic venous disease of the Brazilian Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery

The Brazilian Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery has set up a committee to provide new evidence-based recommendations for patient care associated with chronic venous insufficiency. Topics were divided in five groups: 1. Classification, 2. Diagnosis, 3. Conservative or non-invasive treatment, 4. Invasive treatment and 5. Treatment of small vessels. This last series is closely related to the activities of Brazilian angiologists and vascular surgeons, who are heavily involved in the treatment of small superficial veins. These guidelines are intended to assist in clinical decision-making for attending physicians and health managers. The decision to follow a guideline recommendation should be made by the responsible physician on a case-by-case basis taking into account the patient's specific condition, as well as local resources, regulations, laws, and clinical practice recommendations.

Daily Duration of Compression Treatment in Chronic Venous Disease Patients: A Systematic Review

Background: There are no data on the daily regimen of compression therapy in patients with chronic venous disease. This systematic review aimed to establish the optimal daily duration of compression treatment. Methods: A systematic search of CENTRAL and MEDLINE was performed to identify RCTs, non-RCTs, reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and guidelines evaluating the use of compression regimens in the treatment of varicose veins. Results: Thirty-two RCTs, three non-RCTs, four observational studies, and two crossover trials reporting the duration and regimes of compression treatment fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The daily duration of compression was reported in patients after invasive treatment, for venous ulcer treatment, in patients with venous symptoms. The quality of the studies varied. We could not conduct a meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity of the research data and their quality. Twenty-three studies reported results of compression usage after invasive procedures. Eight studies reported daily duration regimens in patients with venous ulcers. Nine studies reported the impact of compression on venous symptoms and/or edema or limb volume change. One study was conducted to assess if compression improves QoL in venous patients. While there was a clear difference found in the daily duration depending on the clinical scenario, no data in support of exact regimens were found. Conclusions: There are no reliable data supporting exact daily regimens of compression treatment in various cohorts of CVD patients.

Skin hyperpigmentation after sclerotherapy with polidocanol: A systematic review

Skin hyperpigmentation after sclerotherapy with polidocanol-containing sclerosants is a common local side effect. Sclerotherapists should be familiar with factors that trigger hyperpigmentation after sclerotherapy with polidocanol-containing sclerosants. A systematic literature review of works reporting hyperpigmentation after sclerotherapy for telangiectasias, reticular veins, side branches and truncal varices with polidocanol-containing sclerosants was performed. Reported incidence rates, follow-up periods and potentially triggering factors were assessed and analysed. The search yielded 1687 results; of these, 27 reports met the inclusion criteria. The incidence of hyperpigmentation seemed to increase with higher concentrations of polidocanol and was more evident after sclerotherapy for epifascial veins than for intrafascial truncal veins when the polidocanol concentration was more than 0.25%. Regarding sclerotherapy for telangiectasias and reticular veins, the incidence of hyperpigmentation ranged between 2% and 25% for polidocanol 0.25% (liquid and foam), between 12.5% and 67.9% for polidocanol 0.5% (liquid and foam) and between 13% and 73% for polidocanol 1% (liquid and foam). Regarding truncal veins, the incidence ranged from 7% to 45.8% for polidocanol 1% (liquid and foam), from 16% to 17% for polidocanol 2% (foam) and from 7.4% to 32.5% for polidocanol 3% (liquid and foam). Regarding the treatment of side branches, the incidence of hyperpigmentation ranged from 5.6% to 53% for both foam and liquid sclerotherapy. Regarding the duration of hyperpigmentation, there are few data describing reticular veins and telangiectasias. Hyperpigmentation persisting for more than 6 months has been reported to have an incidence of up to 7.5%. Hyperpigmentation persisting for more than 1 year after foam polidocanol 1%-3% treatment for truncal veins has an incidence ranging from 8.1% to 17.5%. Other factors such as higher volumes and compression therapy after treatment seem to have a minor influence. Data regarding hyperpigmentation after polidocanol-related sclerotherapy are poor and should be improved by higher-quality research.

Treatment for telangiectasias and reticular veins

BACKGROUND

Telangiectasias (spider veins) and reticular veins on the lower limbs are very common, increase with age, and have been found in 41% of women. The cause is unknown and the patients may be asymptomatic or can report pain, burning or itching. Treatments include sclerotherapy, laser, intense pulsed light, microphlebectomy and thermoablation, but none is established as preferable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of sclerotherapy, laser therapy, intensive pulsed light, thermocoagulation, and microphlebectomy treatments for telangiectasias and reticular veins.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and CINAHL databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 16 March 2021. We undertook additional searches in LILACS and IBECS databases, reference checking, and contacted specialists in the field, manufacturers and study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared treatment methods such as sclerotherapy, laser therapy, intensive pulsed light, thermocoagulation, and microphlebectomy for telangiectasias and reticular veins in the lower limb. We included studies that compared individual treatment methods against placebo, or that compared different sclerosing agents, foam or laser treatment, or that used a combination of treatment methods.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently performed study selection, extracted data, assessed risks of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The outcomes of interest were resolution or improvement (or both) of telangiectasias, adverse events (including hyperpigmentation, matting), pain, recurrence, time to resolution, and quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 3632 participants from 35 RCTs. Studies compared a variety of sclerosing agents, laser treatment and compression. No studies investigated intensive pulsed light, thermocoagulation or microphlebectomy. None of the included studies assessed recurrence or time to resolution. Overall the risk of bias of the included studies was moderate. We downgraded the certainty of evidence to moderate or low because of clinical heterogeneity and imprecision due to the wide confidence intervals (CIs) and few participants for each comparison. Any sclerosing agent versus placebo There was moderate-certainty evidence that sclerosing agents showed more resolution or improvement of telangiectasias compared to placebo (standard mean difference (SMD) 3.08, 95% CI 2.68 to 3.48; 4 studies, 613 participants/procedures), and more frequent adverse events: hyperpigmentation (risk ratio (RR) 11.88, 95% CI 4.54 to 31.09; 3 studies, 528 participants/procedures); matting (RR 4.06, 95% CI 1.28 to 12.84; 3 studies, 528 participants/procedures). There may be more pain experienced in the sclerosing-agents group compared to placebo (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.34; 1 study, 40 participants; low-certainty evidence). Polidocanol versus any sclerosing agent There was no clear difference in resolution or improvement (or both) of telangiectasias (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.14; 7 studies, 852 participants/procedures), hyperpigmentation (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.43; 6 studies, 819 participants/procedures), or matting (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.27; 7 studies, 859 participants/procedures), but there were fewer cases of pain (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.08; 5 studies, 480 participants/procedures) in the polidocanol group. All moderate-certainty evidence. Sodium tetradecyl sulphate (STS) versus any sclerosing agent There was no clear difference in resolution or improvement (or both) of telangiectasias (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.11; 4 studies, 473 participants/procedures). There was more hyperpigmentation (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.64; 4 studies, 478 participants/procedures), matting (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.85; 2 studies, 323 participants/procedures) and probably more pain (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.25; 4 studies, 409 participants/procedures). All moderate-certainty evidence. Foam versus any sclerosing agent There was no clear difference in resolution or improvement (or both) of telangiectasias (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.34; 2 studies, 187 participants/procedures); hyperpigmentation (RR 2.12, 95% CI 0.44 to 10.23; 2 studies, 187 participants/procedures) or pain (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.24; 1 study, 147 participants/procedures). There may be more matting using foam (RR 6.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 35.98; 2 studies, 187 participants/procedures). All low-certainty evidence. Laser versus any sclerosing agent There was no clear difference in resolution or improvement (or both) of telangiectasias (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.07; 5 studies, 593 participants/procedures), or matting (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.19; 2 studies, 162 participants/procedures), and maybe less hyperpigmentation (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; 4 studies, 262 participants/procedures) in the laser group. All moderate-certainty evidence. High heterogeneity of the studies reporting on pain prevented pooling, and results were inconsistent (low-certainty evidence). Laser plus sclerotherapy (polidocanol) versus sclerotherapy (polidocanol) Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be more resolution or improvement (or both) of telangiectasias in the combined group (SMD 5.68, 95% CI 5.14 to 6.23; 2 studies, 710 participants), and no clear difference in hyperpigmentation (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.99; 2 studies, 656 participants) or matting (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.28; 2 studies, 656 participants). There may be more pain in the combined group (RR 2.44, 95% CI 1.69 to 3.55; 1 study, 596 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Small numbers of studies and participants in each comparison limited our confidence in the evidence. Sclerosing agents were more effective than placebo for resolution or improvement of telangiectasias but also caused more adverse events (moderate-certainty evidence), and may result in more pain (low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a benefit in resolution or improvement for any sclerosant compared to another or to laser. There may be more resolution or improvement of telangiectasias in the combined laser and polidocanol group compared to polidocanol alone (low-certainty evidence). There may be differences between treatments in adverse events and pain. Compared to other sclerosing agents polidocanol probably causes less pain; STS resulted in more hyperpigmentation, matting and probably pain; foam may cause more matting (low-certainty evidence); laser treatment may result in less hyperpigmentation (moderate-certainty evidence). Further well-designed studies are required to provide evidence for other available treatments and important outcomes (such as recurrence, time to resolution and delayed adverse events); and to improve our confidence in the identified comparisons.