A comparison of the effectiveness of treating those with and without the complications of superficial venous insufficiency

The Effect of Superficial Venous Incompetence Treatment on Combined Segmental Deep Venous Reflux

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the role of treatment of superficial venous reflux (SVR) in patients with combined deep segmental venous reflux as regards clinical symptoms as well as reflux improvement of the deep veins.

METHODS

We reviewed 80 patients, retrospectively selected on the inclusion criteria and having combined SVR and segmental deep venous reflux who underwent SVR ablation. The contralateral limb of 44 patients was used as a control group, asked to wear compression stockings for 3 months during day time with no surgical intervention. Duplex ultrasounds follow-up was performed at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Clinical severity of venous disease was graded from C1 to C6 according to the CEAP (Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology) classification. Duplex ultrasound was done in both supine and standing positions with non-weight-bearing of the examined limb. The venous reflux time, the venous flow volume and the peak venous flow velocity were registered. Removal of SVR was performed using either conventional surgery or radiofrequency ablation. The patient was required to wear compression stockings during the day time for the following weeks.

RESULTS

During the follow-up period, all patients were improved clinically as regards pain, edema, and ulcer healing. All patients included in this study had no signs of residual SVR. Corrected deep venous segment reflux was in 36 (45%). Similar data at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively after SVR removal. The popliteal vein reflux responded less than the femoral vein reflux did.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of the SVR eliminates segmental deep venous reflux in a good percentage of patients regardless of the treatment modality. Also, symptoms improvement and ulcer healing were documented, and hence, more studies are recommended to evaluate this role.

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.

A study protocol for comparing the treatment of varicose tributaries either concomitantly with or separately from endovenous laser ablation of the incompetent saphenous trunk (the FinnTrunk Study). A multicenter parallel-group randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Opinions on the treatment of varicose tributaries in relation to saphenous ablation in varicose disease vary. Moreover, the possible role of the tributaries regarding the recurrence of varicose disease remains unclear. The aim of the FinnTrunk study is to compare two different treatment strategies for varicose disease in a randomized setting. In group one, the initial treatment will entail endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) of the incompetent saphenous trunk without tributary treatment. In group two, the varicose tributaries will be treated with ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) concomitantly with truncal ablation. The primary outcome measure is the need for additional procedures during the follow-up. The secondary outcome measures are the cost of treatment and recurrence of varicose disease.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with symptomatic varicose disease (CEAP clinical class C2-C3) will be screened for the study. Patients who fulfil the study criteria and give their informed consent will be scheduled for the procedure and randomized to either study group. Patients will be followed-up at 3 months, 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years. The post-procedure pain score based on a numeric rating scale (NRS) and also the use of analgesics, as well as possible procedure-related complications will be recorded at 3 months. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) will be recorded at 1 year. Data pertaining to the additional treatment of varicose tributaries, the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ), the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), and the health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) will be collected at each follow-up visit. A duplex ultrasound (DUS) examination will be performed at each visit, and data on varicose tributaries and the need for additional treatment will be recorded.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, ID NCT04774939.

Patient injuries in the treatment of superficial venous insufficiency registered in Finland between 2004 and 2017

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the unintended incidents that led to patient injuries (PIs) in the treatment of superficial venous insufficiency (SVI).

METHODS

PI claims filed with the Finnish Patient Insurance Centre between 2004 and 2017 involving SVI were reviewed. Factors contributing to PI were identified and classified.

RESULTS

Eighteen (13.2%) of 136 compensated PIs in the specialty of vascular surgery were related to SVI. Only 4.7% of 383 SVI claims were compensated. The incidence of PIs was 9.9 per 100 000 patients. Fifteen patients had open surgery (83.3%) and three (16.7%) endovenous treatment. Two (11.1%) patients had necrotising fasciitis, four (22.1%) had deep vein injuries and two (11.1%) had a permanent nerve injury. Two (11.1%) patients had retained endovenous material that required surgical removal.

CONCLUSIONS

PIs were identifiable during all stages of care, perioperative injuries related to open surgery being the most common.

Vein Size and Disease Severity in Chronic Venous Diseases

Given the high prevalence of chronic venous diseases (CVD), defining criteria to screen patients who are in need for intervention is attaining primacy. An important clinical criterion for treating CVD is incompetence of larger veins. We have assessed the association of size of afflicted veins with disease severity in patients with CVD to define an acceptable criterion to identify patients who need intervention. Demographic characteristics and risk factors were recorded from 6350 patients. Based on physical examination and venous duplex ultrasound study, patients were classified into clinical severity, etiology, anatomy, and pathophysiology (CEAP) classes and grouped according to the size of the veins which had varicosities. Patients with reflux in smaller veins (vein size <4 mm diameter) were considered as type I and those with varicosities in truncal veins (>4 mm diameter) as type II. Risk ratio was determined by multivariate regression analysis. About 47.67% of patients in this study were found to have CEAP class 3 disease. Compared with varicose veins of large truncal veins, patients with varicosities in smaller superficial veins had 2.85-fold ( p  < 0.01) more risk of edema and 5.71-fold ( p  < 0.01) higher prevalence of hyperpigmentation. Varicosities in small superficial veins were associated with higher risk of ulceration (odds ratio 3.93, 95% confidence interval 2.51-6.18) compared with truncal vein reflux. Our study reveals that presence of small varicose veins in patients without truncal saphenous reflux involvement is associated with severe manifestations of venous insufficiency such as edema and skin lesions even in the absence of varicosities in truncal saphenous veins.

Compliance with NICE guidelines when commissioning varicose vein procedures

Background

Varicose veins impair quality of life and can lead to chronic leg ulcers. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines (CG168) set out evidence-based standards for patient management. In England, Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) fund NHS care within their locality. The objective of this study was to evaluate CCGs' commissioning policies and compare them with CG168.

Methods

Searches were made for the published policies of all 206 English CCGs. They were reviewed for compliance with NICE guidelines and the associated quality standard. Areas of disagreement were analysed for themes.

Results

Some 203 CCGs (98·5 per cent) had a published policy and 190 (93·6 per cent) of these were published after publication of CG168. Only 73 of the policies (36·0 per cent) were compliant with CG168. Treatment was restricted on the basis of clinical disease severity in 119 CCGs (58·6 per cent); 29 (14·3 per cent) stipulated delay of treatment using a 'trial' of conservative treatment; 22 (10·8 per cent) used lifestyle-related factors such as BMI and smoking status to ration treatment. Treatment was commissioned for uncomplicated symptomatic varicose veins in 87 CCGs (42·9 per cent), but some applied additional rationing mechanisms; 109 CCGs (53·7 per cent) would treat oedema, 183 (90·1 per cent) would treat skin and soft tissue damage, 202 (99·5 per cent) healed ulceration, and all would allow active ulcers to be treated.

Discussion

The majority of CCGs in England have commissioning policies that contradict NICE guidelines. Rationing strategies include disease severity, delay and patient lifestyle-related factors, creating unwarranted geographical variation for varicose vein treatment, disregarding the NHS Constitution for England, and perhaps leading to an increase in costly treatment of chronic complications in the long term.

Truncal varicose vein diameter and patient-reported outcome measures

Background

Varicose veins and chronic venous disease are common, and some funding bodies ration treatment based on a minimum diameter of the incompetent truncal vein. This study assessed the effect of maximum vein diameter on clinical status and patient symptoms.

Methods

A prospective observational cohort study of patients presenting with symptomatic varicose veins to a tertiary referral public hospital vascular clinic between January 2011 and July 2012. Patients underwent standardized assessment with venous duplex ultrasonography, and completed questionnaires assessing quality of life (QoL) and symptoms (Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire, EuroQol Five Domain QoL assessment and EuroQol visual analogue scale). Clinical scores (Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) and Clinical Etiologic Anatomic Pathophysiologic (CEAP) class) were also calculated. Regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship between QoL, symptoms and vein diameter.

Results

Some 330 patients were assessed before surgery. The median maximum vein diameter was 7·0 (i.q.r. 5·3–9·2) mm overall, 7·9 (6·0–9·8) mm for great saphenous vein and 6·0 (5·2–8·9) mm for small saphenous vein. In linear regression analysis, vein diameter was shown to have a significant association with VCSS (P = 0·041). For every 1-mm increase in vein diameter, there was a 2·75-fold increase in risk of being in CEAP class C4 compared with C2. No other QoL or symptom measures were related to vein diameter.

Conclusion

Incompetent truncal vein diameter was associated with increasing VCSS, but not a variety of other varicose vein disease-specific and generic patient-reported outcome measures.

Endovenous ablation therapy (laser or radiofrequency) or foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgical repair for short saphenous varicose veins

BACKGROUND

Short (or small) saphenous vein (SSV) varices occur as a result of an incompetent sapheno-popliteal junction, where the SSV joins the popliteal vein, resulting in reflux in the SSV; they account for about 15% of varicose veins. Untreated varicose veins may sometimes lead to ulceration of the leg, which is difficult to manage. Traditionally, treatment was restricted to surgery or conservative management. Since the 1990s, however, a number of minimally invasive techniques have been developed; these do not normally require a general anaesthetic, are day-case procedures with a quicker return to normal activities and avoid the risk of wound infection which may occur following surgery. Nerve injury remains a risk with thermal ablation, but in cases where it does occur, the injury tends to be transient.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) versus conventional surgery in the treatment of SSV varices.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register (last searched 17 March 2016) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 2). We searched clinical trials databases for details of ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EVLA, endovenous RFA or UGFS with conventional surgery in the treatment of SSV varices for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently reviewed, assessed and selected trials that met the inclusion criteria; any disagreements were resolved by discussion. We extracted data and used the Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. When the data permitted, we performed either fixed-effect meta-analyses with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or random-effects meta-analyses where there was moderate to significant heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three RCTs, all of which compared EVLA with surgery; one also compared UGFS with surgery. There were no trials comparing RFA with surgery. The EVLA versus surgery comparison included 311 participants: 185 received EVLA and 126 received surgery. In the UGFS comparison, each treatment group contained 21 people. For several outcomes in the EVLA comparison, only a single study provided relevant data; as a result, the current review is limited in its ability to demonstrate meaningful results for some planned outcomes. The quality of evidence according to GRADE was moderate to low for the outcome measures in the EVLA versus surgery comparison, but low for the UGFS versus surgery comparison. Reasons for downgrading in the EVLA versus surgery comparison were risk of bias (for some outcomes, the outcome assessors were not blinded; and in one study the EVLA-surgery allocation of 2:1 did not appear to be prespecified); imprecision (data were only available from a single small study and the CIs were relatively wide); indirectness (one trial reported results at six months rather than one year and was inadequately powered for SSV varices-only analysis). Reasons for downgrading in the UGFS versus surgery comparison were imprecision (only one trial offered UGFS and several participants were missing from the analysis) and a limitation in design (the study was inadequately powered for SSV participants alone).For the EVLA versus surgery comparison, recanalisation or persistence of reflux at six weeks occurred less frequently in the EVLA group than in the surgery group (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22; I² = 51%; 289 participants, 3 studies, moderate-quality evidence). Recurrence of reflux at one year was also less frequent in the EVLA group than in the surgery group (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.77; I² = 0%; 119 participants, 2 studies, low-quality evidence). For the outcome clinical evidence of recurrence (i.e. presence of new visible varicose veins) at one year, there was no difference between the two treatment groups (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.75; 99 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence). Four participants each in the EVLA and surgery groups required reintervention due to technical failure (99 participants, 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). There was no difference between the two treatment groups for disease-specific quality of life (QoL) (Aberdeen Varicose Veins Questionnaire) either at six weeks (mean difference (MD) 0.15, 95% CI -1.65 to 1.95; I² = 0%; 265 participants, 2 studies, moderate-quality evidence), or at one year (MD -1.08, 95% CI -3.39 to 1.23; 99 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence). Main complications reported at six weeks were sural nerve injury, wound infection and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (one DVT case in each treatment group; EVLA: 1/161, 0.6%; surgery 1/104, 1%; 265 participants, 2 studies, moderate-quality evidence).For the UGFS versus surgery comparison, there were insufficient data to detect clear differences between the two treatment groups for the two outcomes recanalisation or persistence of reflux at six weeks (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.10; 33 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence), and recurrence of reflux at one year (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.29 to 4.92; 31 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence). No other outcomes could be reported for this comparison because the study data were not stratified according to saphenous vein.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate- to low-quality evidence exists to suggest that recanalisation or persistence of reflux at six weeks and recurrence of reflux at one year are less frequent when EVLA is performed, compared with conventional surgery. For the UGFS versus conventional surgery comparison, the quality of evidence is assessed to be low; consequently, the effectiveness of UGFS compared with conventional surgery in the treatment of SSV varices is uncertain. Further RCTs for all comparisons are required with longer follow-up (at least five years). In addition, measurement of outcomes such as recurrence of reflux, time taken to return to work, duration of procedure, pain, etc., and choice of time points during follow-up should be standardised such that future trials evaluating newer technologies can be compared efficiently.

Factors impacting on patient perception of procedural success and satisfaction following treatment for varicose veins

Background

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been collected from patients undergoing varicose vein treatments in the National Health Service since 2009. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to examine PROMs for varicose vein interventions, characterizing factors that might predict patient-reported perception of procedural success and satisfaction.

Methods

Centrally compiled PROMs data for varicose vein procedures carried out from 2009 to 2011 were obtained from the Hospital Episode Statistics data warehouse for England. As data were not distributed normally, non-parametric statistical tests were employed.

Results

Data for 35 039 patient episodes (62·8 per cent women) were available for analysis. Some 23·4 per cent of patients reported a degree of anxiety or depression before treatment; a formal diagnosis of depression was present in 7·8 per cent. Quality of life, measured by generic EQ-5D-3L™ index and the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ) improved after intervention by 11·7 per cent (0·77 to 0·86) and 40·1 per cent (18·95 to 11·36) respectively. No significant improvement was found in EQ-5D™ visual analogue scale scores. There was a significant improvement in self-perceived anxiety or depression after the intervention (P &lt; 0·001, McNemar–Bowker test). Both preoperative and postoperative depression or anxiety had a statistically significant relationship with self-reported success and satisfaction (both P &lt; 0·001, χ2 test).

Conclusion

This analysis of PROMs is evidence that treatment of varicose veins improves quality of life, and anxiety or depression. Preoperative and postoperative anxiety or depression scores impact on patient-perceived success and satisfaction rates.