Reducing hyperpigmentation after sclerotherapy: A randomized clinical trial

The 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery, American Venous Forum, and American Vein and Lymphatic Society clinical practice guidelines for the management of varicose veins of the lower extremities. Part II: Endorsed by the Society of Interventional Radiology and the Society for Vascular Medicine

The Society for Vascular Surgery, the American Venous Forum, and the American Vein and Lymphatic Society recently published Part I of the 2022 clinical practice guidelines on varicose veins. Recommendations were based on the latest scientific evidence researched following an independent systematic review and meta-analysis of five critical issues affecting the management of patients with lower extremity varicose veins, using the patients, interventions, comparators, and outcome system to answer critical questions. Part I discussed the role of duplex ultrasound scanning in the evaluation of varicose veins and treatment of superficial truncal reflux. Part II focuses on evidence supporting the prevention and management of varicose vein patients with compression, on treatment with drugs and nutritional supplements, on evaluation and treatment of varicose tributaries, on superficial venous aneurysms, and on the management of complications of varicose veins and their treatment. All guidelines were based on systematic reviews, and they were graded according to the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations, using the GRADE method. All ungraded Consensus Statements were supported by an extensive literature review and the unanimous agreement of an expert, multidisciplinary panel. Ungraded Good Practice Statements are recommendations that are supported only by indirect evidence. The topic, however, is usually noncontroversial and agreed upon by most stakeholders. The Implementation Remarks contain technical information that supports the implementation of specific recommendations. This comprehensive document includes a list of all recommendations (Parts I-II), ungraded consensus statements, implementation remarks, and best practice statements to aid practitioners with appropriate, up-to-date management of patients with lower extremity varicose veins.

Fluoroscopy-guided foam sclerotherapy for varicose veins in the legs: A retrospective cohort analysis with long-term follow-up

OBJECTIVE

To examine the long-term effectiveness of fluoroscopy-guided foam sclerotherapy for varicose veins in the legs.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients who underwent fluoroscopy-guided foam sclerotherapy for varicose veins in the legs at the authors' center during a period from August 1, 2011, to May 31, 2016. The last follow-up was conducted by a telephone/WeChat interactive interview in May 2022. Recurrence was defined as the presence of varicose veins regardless of symptoms.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 94 patients (58.3 ± 7.8 years of age; 43 men; 119 legs). The median Clinical-Etiology-Anatomy-Pathophysiology (CEAP) clinical class was 3.0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 3.0, 4.0). C5 and C6 accounted for 5.0% (6/119) of the legs. The average total amount of the foam sclerosant used during the procedure was 35 ± 12 mL (range: 10-75 mL). No patients developed stroke, deep vein thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism after the treatment. At the last follow-up, the median CEAP clinical class reduction was 3.0. All 119 legs except for class 5 achieved the CEAP clinical class reduction by at least one grade. The median venous clinical severity score was 2.0 (IQR: 1.0, 5.0) at the last follow-up vs 7.0 (IQR: 5.0, 8.0) at the baseline (P < .001). The recurrence rate was 30.9% (29/94) in the overall analysis, 26.6% (25/94) for the great saphenous vein and 4.3% (4/94) for the small saphenous vein (P < .001). Five patients received subsequent surgical treatment, and the remaining patients opted to receive conservative treatments. Among the two C5 legs at the baseline, ulcer recurred in one leg at 3 months after the treatment and healed after conservative treatments. In the four C6 legs at the baseline, ulcer healed within a month in all patients. The rate of hyperpigmentation was 11.8% (14/119).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term outcomes in patients undergoing fluoroscopy-guided foam sclerotherapy are satisfying, with minimal short-term safety concerns.

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.

Sulodexide in the Treatment of Patients with Early Stages of COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) may induce several vascular endothelial-dependent systemic complications, and sulodexide has pleiotropic actions on the vascular endothelium, which may prove beneficial. We aimed to assess the effect of sulodexide when used within 3 days of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical onset. We conducted a randomized placebo-controlled outpatient trial. To be included, patients must have been at high risk for severe clinical progression. Participants received sulodexide (oral 1,000 LRU/d) or placebo for 21 days. The primary endpoint was the need for hospital care. Also assessed were patients' need for supplemental oxygen as well as D-dimer and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, thromboembolic events, major bleeding, and mortality. A total of 243 patients were included in the per-protocol analysis from June 5 to August 30, 2020. Of these, 124 received sulodexide and 119 received a placebo. Only 17.7% of the patients in the sulodexide group required hospitalization, compared with 29.4% in the placebo group (p = 0.03). This benefit persisted in the intention-to-treat analysis (15% in sulodexide group vs. 24% with placebo [p = 0.04]). With sulodexide, fewer patients required supplemental oxygen (30 vs. 42% [p = 0.05]). After 2 weeks, fewer patients had D-dimer levels >500 ng/dL (22 vs. 47% [p < 0.01]), and patients also had lower mean CRP levels (12.5 vs. 17.8 mg/dL [p < 0.01]). There were no between-group differences in thromboembolic events, major bleeding, or mortality. Treatment of COVID-19 patients with sulodexide, when provided within 3 days of clinical onset, improved their clinical outcomes. Although the results should be confirmed, sulodexide could be valuable in an outpatient setting.