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

Comparative effectiveness of non-compounded polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam (Varithena) ablation versus endovenous thermal ablation utilizing a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We compared the effectiveness and safety of polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam ablation vs endovenous thermal ablation with radiofrequency or laser energy for treatment of venous insufficiency caused by lower extremity truncal vein incompetence via network meta-analysis of published comparative evidence.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review following best practices, including a prospective protocol. We screened studies published in English from 2000 to 2023 for randomized and nonrandomized studies reporting direct or indirect comparisons between polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam and endovenous thermal ablation. Thirteen studies met our eligibility criteria for the network meta-analysis. The co-primary effectiveness outcomes were the closure rate ≥3 months after procedure and the average change in the Venous Clinical Severity Score. For the subgroup of venous ulcer patients, the ulcer healing rate was the primary effectiveness outcome. The secondary outcomes included safety and patient-reported outcomes. Network meta-analyses were conducted on outcomes having sufficient data. Categorical outcomes were summarized using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Sensitivity tests and estimates of network inconsistency were used to investigate the robustness of our meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We found that polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam was not significantly different statistically from endovenous thermal ablation for venous closure (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.36-1.18; P = .16). Although not the primary aim of the study, the network meta-analysis also provided evidence to confirm our supposition that polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam was significantly differentiated statistically from physician-compounded foam, with higher odds for vein closure (OR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.58-5.37; P < .01). A sensitivity analysis using the longest available time point for closure in each study, with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up (median, 48 months; range, 12-72 months), showed results similar to those of the main analysis. No association was found between the risk of deep vein thrombosis and the treatment received. The available data were insufficient for a network meta-analysis of Venous Clinical Severity Score improvement and ulcer healing rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam was not significantly different statistically from endovenous thermal ablation for venous closure and deep vein thrombosis risk for chronic venous insufficiency treatment, based on a network meta-analysis of published evidence. Polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam was significantly differentiated statistically from physician-compounded foam, with higher odds of vein closure. A sensitivity analysis found venous closure findings were robust at follow-up intervals of 12 months or greater and for up to 6 years. New evidence meeting the inclusion criteria for this review will be incorporated at regular intervals into a living network meta-analysis.

Endovenous laser treatment vs conventional surgery for great saphenous vein varicosities: A propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Varicosis is a common venous condition, which is typically treated surgically. However, selection of the optimal surgical approach can be challenging. Previous studies comparing endovenous laser treatment (EVLT) and conventional surgery were retrospective and observational in nature and the results may therefore have been influenced by selection bias and the presence of other confounding factors. In this study, we used propensity score matching to reduce selection bias when comparing EVLT and conventional surgery for the treatment of varicose great saphenous veins.

AIM

To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of EVLT and conventional surgery in patients with great saphenous vein varicosis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 1063 patients treated for primary varicosis of the great saphenous vein at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University between January 2009 and December 2019. Among them, 56 patients were excluded owing to additional small saphenous varicose vein involvement, 81 owing to recurring varicose veins, 83 owing to complicated varicose veins (CEAP clinical classification C5-C6), and 6 owing to perioperative phlebitis. Finally, 772 patients were enrolled in this study. Standard demographic and clinicopathological data were collected from the medical records of the patients. For propensity score matching, 522 patients (261 who underwent EVLT and 261 who underwent conventional surgery) were randomly matched 1:1 by age, sex, onset time, smoking status, presence of diabetes, family history, stress therapy, C class, and the affected leg.

RESULTS

Of the 772 patients included in the study, 467 underwent EVLT and 305 underwent conventional surgery. There were significant differences in age, onset time, smoking and diabetes status, and family history between the two groups. Following propensity score matching, no significant differences in patients' characteristics remained between the two groups. ELVT was associated with a shorter operation time and hospital stay than conventional surgery, both before and after propensity score matching. There were no differences in complications between the two groups after propensity score matching. Patients who underwent EVLT had a higher recurrence rate during the two-year follow-up period than those who underwent conventional surgery (33.33% vs 21.46%, χ2 = 11.506, P = 0.001), and a greater percentage of patients who underwent EVLT experienced pain one week after the procedure (39.85% vs 19.54%, P = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

EVLT may not always be the best option for the treatment of great saphenous vein varicosis.

The 2022 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 I. Duplex Scanning and Treatment of Superficial Truncal Reflux: Endorsed by the Society for Vascular Medicine and the International Union of Phlebology

The Society for Vascular Surgery, American Venous Forum, and American Vein and Lymphatic Society collaborated to update the 2011 Society for Vascular Surgery/American Venous Forum clinical practice guidelines and provide new evidence-based recommendations on critical issues affecting the care of patients with varicose veins. Each recommendation is based on a recent, independent systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic tests and treatments options for patients with lower extremity varicose veins. Part I of the guidelines includes evidence-based recommendations for the evaluation of patients with CEAP (Clinical Class, Etiology, Anatomy, Pathology) class 2 varicose vein using duplex ultrasound scanning and other diagnostic tests, open surgical treatment (ligation and stripping) vs endovenous ablation techniques, thermal vs nonthermal ablation of the superficial truncal veins, and management of incompetent perforating veins in CEAP class 2 disease. We have also made recommendations on the concomitant vs staged treatment of varicose tributaries using phlebectomy or liquid or foam sclerotherapy (with physician-compounded foam or commercially prepared polidocanol endovenous microfoam) for patients undergoing ablation of incompetent superficial truncal veins.

Efficacy and safety of endovenous microwave ablation versus laser ablation for great saphenous vein varicosis: study protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial

INTRODUCTION

Endovenous microwave ablation (EMA) is a relatively novel thermal ablation treatment for great saphenous vein (GSV) varicosis, and its efficacy and safety are rarely reported. This study aims to explore whether EMA can be comparable to endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), which is a widely used thermal ablation treatment in clinical practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial to compare the efficacy and safety of EMA and EVLA in patients with GSV varicosis. We will recruit 180 patients in 6 centres and randomly assign them into treatment group (EMA group) and control group (EVLA group) in a 1:1 ratio. The patients will return to the hospitals at 7 days, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months, and will be called at 1 month after the treatment for follow-up visits. The primary outcome is the occlusion rate of GSV immediately, at 6 months, and at 12 months after the treatment. The secondary outcomes are Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ) Score, operation time and instrument performance evaluation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol has been approved by the Clinical Trial Ethics Committee of Beijing Hospital (2020BJYYEC-126-02), Peking Union Medical College Hospital (KS2020393), Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital (No.20279-2-02), Beijing Luhe Hospital.Capital Medical University (2020-LHYW-030-01), the First Hospital of Hebei Medical University (No.2020249), and the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University (XJTU1AF2021LSY-12). The trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04726124.

A systematic review supporting the Society for Vascular Surgery, the American Venous Forum, and the American Vein and Lymphatic Society guidelines on the management of varicose veins

BACKGROUND

Several diagnostic tests and treatment options for patients with lower extremity varicose veins have existed for decades. The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize the latest evidence to support the forthcoming updates of the clinical practice guidelines on the management of varicose veins for the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS), the American Venous Forum (AVF) and the American Vein and Lymphatic Society.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases for studies that addressed four clinical questions identified by the AVF and the SVS guideline committee about evaluating and treating patients with varicose veins. Studies were selected and appraised by pairs of independent reviewers. A meta-analysis was conducted when feasible.

RESULTS

We included 73 original studies (45 were randomized controlled trials) and 1 systematic review from 12,915 candidate references. Moderate certainty of evidence supported the usefulness of duplex ultrasound (DUS) examination as the gold standard test for diagnosing saphenous vein incompetence in patients with varicose veins and chronic venous insufficiency (clinical, etiological, anatomic, pathophysiological classification [CEAP] class C2-C6). High ligation and stripping (HL/S) was associated with higher anatomic closure rates at 30 days and 5 years when compared with radiofrequency ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) (moderate certainty), while no significant difference was seen when compared with endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) at 5 years. UGFS was associated with an increased risk of recurrence compared with HL/S. EVLA was associated with lower anatomic closure rates at 30 days than cyanoacrylate closure (CAC) and higher rates at one and 5 years when compared with UGFS. Thermal interventions were associated with lower generic quality of life scores and an increased risk of adverse events when compared with CAC or n-butyl cyanoacrylate (low certainty). Thermal interventions were associated with a lower risk of recurrent incompetence when compared with UGFS and an increased risk of recurrent incompetence than CAC. The evidence for great saphenous vein ablation alone to manage perforator disease was inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

The current systematic review summarizes the evidence to develop and support forthcoming updated SVS/AVF/American Vein and Lymphatic Society clinical practice guideline recommendations. The evidence supports duplex scanning for evaluating patients with varicose veins and confirms that HL/S resulted in similar long-term saphenous vein closure rates as EVLA and in better rates than radiofrequency ablation and UGFS. Thermal interventions were associated with inferior generic quality of life scores than nonthermal interventions, but had a lower risk of recurrent incompetence than UGFS. The recommendations in the guidelines should consider this information as well as other factors such as patients' values and preferences, anatomic considerations of individual patients, and surgical expertise.

Efficacy and safety of Buyang Huanwu decoction in the treatment of varicose veins of the lower extremities: A protocol of randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Varicose veins of the lower extremities are common chronic venous diseases in the clinic. Although Western medicine has various surgical methods to treat varicose veins in the lower extremities, there are still a variety of complications. Some studies have shown that Buyang Huanwu decoction treatment of varicose veins of the lower extremities has a certain effect, and can reduce the occurrence of postoperative complications, but there is no evidence of evidence-based medicine. The research carried out in this scheme is to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of Buyang Huanwu decoction in the treatment of varicose veins in the lower extremities, and to provide reliable evidence for guiding clinical practice.

METHODS

This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial, which studies the effectiveness and safety of Buyang Huanwu decoction in the treatment of varicose veins of the lower extremities. The patients are randomly and evenly divided into treatment group and control group, the former one is given Buyang Huanwu decoction and the latter one is given placebo. The study will last 49 days, including a 7-day washout period, 14-day intervention and 28-day follow-up, focusing on its efficacy and safety indicators. Observation indicators include: TCM syndrome score, Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), Venous Disability Scote (VDS), Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ), Hemorheology Indicators, Adverse Reactions, etc. Data analysis is performed using SPSS 25.0 software.

DISCUSSION

This study will evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Buyang Huanwu decoction and provide clinical evidence for the treatment of varicose veins of the lower extremities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

OSF Registration number: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/WGJXT.