Sapheno-femoral Valves

Treatment of chronic venous disorder: A comprehensive review

Chronic venous disorder (CVD) is highly prevalent vascular disorder affecting up to 45% of the general population, with clinical manifestations ranging from teleangiectasias to venous leg ulcers (VLUs). We examined the currently available data in order to provide an updated, comprehensive review on treatment options of CVD. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, Scopus, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials, and OpenGrey databases for relevant articles in English published until November 2020. Compression treatment is the mainstay of conservative treatment. Pharmacological treatment can provide significant symptomatic relief and hence it should be considered as part of conservative treatment. Transcutaneous Lacer treatment (TCL) is a safe and effective alternative option to sclerotherapy for treatment of C1 stage. High ligation and stripping (HL/S), ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA) systems and non thermal non tumescent ablation (NTNT) systems are safe and efficacious first-line options for treatment of saphenous insufficiency. Interventional treatment of co-existing incompetent perforator veins (IPVs) is not supported by contemporary evidence. Regarding deep venous insufficiency (DVI), treatment of symptomatic femoroiliocaval occlusive venous disease refractory to conservative treatment with percutaneous transluminal venoplasty stenting has produced encouraging results.

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.

Pathogenesis of primary varicose veins

BACKGROUND

Valvular incompetence and reflux are common features of primary varicose veins, and have long been thought to be their cause. Recent evidence, however, suggests that changes in the vein wall may precede valvular dysfunction.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using PubMed and Ovid using the keywords 'varicose vein wall changes', 'pathogenesis', 'aetiology' and 'valvular dysfunction'. Articles discussing the pathophysiology of complications of varicose veins, such as ulceration, recurrence, thrombophlebitis and lipodermatosclerosis, were excluded.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Positive family history, age, sex and pregnancy are important risk factors for varicose vein formation. Areas of intimal hyperplasia and smooth muscle cell proliferation are often noted in varicose veins, although regions of atrophy are also present. The total elastin content in varicose as opposed to non-varicose veins is reduced; changes in overall collagen content are uncertain. Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), including MMP-1, MMP-2, MMP-3, MMP-7 and MMP-9, and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase (TIMP) 1 and TIMP-3 are upregulated in varicose veins. Activation of the endothelium stimulates the recruitment of leucocytes and the release of growth factors, leading to smooth muscle cell proliferation and migration. Dysregulated apoptosis has also been demonstrated in varicose veins. An understanding of the pathophysiology of varicose veins is important in the identification of potential therapeutic targets and treatment strategies.

The treatment of varicose veins with external stenting to the saphenofemoral junction

Presented are the experiences with 1,516 external valvular stents (Venocufft and Venocuff II) implanted at the saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) between 1985 and 2000. To assess the applicability of the procedure it was found that the appropriate implantation was performed in 34% of 310 consecutive venous procedures. To assess patient preference between external valvular stenting and simultaneous contralateral stripping, 56 consecutive patients were followed up at 3 months postoperatively. Four percent preferred stripping, 4% had no preference, and 92% preferred Venocuff IItrade mark implantation. Competence at the SFJ with specific duplex ultrasound indicators was 94% at 3 months (n = 100) and 90% at 4.8 years (n = 107). Minimal residual reflux (less than 50 mL/minute with maximum Valsalva) was present in the remainder but did not produce symptoms and very rarely progressed over the mean time of 5 years. The internal diameter (ID) of the long saphenous vein (LSV), 3 cm distal to the SFJ, changed from 7.6 +/- 2.3 mm to 4.9 +/- 1.1 mm (p < 0.001) and at the knee from 6.9 +/- 1.9 mm to 3.7 +/- 1.0 mm (p < 0.001). Patients presenting with underlying deep venous disease began with significantly higher ID, ie, 9.0 +/- 2.1 mm at the upper end of the LSV and 7.1 +/- 2.0 mm at the knee, but postoperatively the IDs reverted to those of postoperative patients with a normal deep venous system. To assess patients with recurrences, 366 limbs had simultaneous stripping and contralateral SFJ repair with the Venocuff II. Of these 33 (9%) had recurrences at 4.9 years, 82% of them on the stripping side, and on the repair side half of the recurrences had a competent SFJ (9%). Limbs with an incompetent lateral or anterior accessory system, with an incompetent SFJ (168), were compared with 11 matched randomized controls where stripping was performed. The recurrence rate was 1.2% versus 36% on the strip side. The follow-up for these cases was 6.4 years. Pregnancy (n = 14) produces a high recurrence rate, but stripping and valve repairs were not significantly different, ie, despite small numbers, there was a very strong tendency toward higher recurrence rates on the stripped side. The complication rate was small and the cost of the device is low. The method allows a repairable nonablative approach that can be offered in patients where no other surgical treatment can or should be offered. External stenting to the SFJ is the preferred option for early to moderate varicose veins involving the LSV where the clinical and ultrasonic indicators have been fulfilled.