Hemodynamic principles of varicose vein therapy

CHIVA method for the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency

BACKGROUND

Many surgical approaches are available to treat varicose veins secondary to chronic venous insufficiency. One of the least invasive techniques is the ambulatory conservative hemodynamic correction of venous insufficiency method (in French 'cure conservatrice et hémodynamique de l'insuffisance veineuse en ambulatoire' (CHIVA)), an approach based on venous hemodynamics with deliberate preservation of the superficial venous system. This is the second update of the review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of the CHIVA method with alternative therapeutic techniques to treat varicose veins.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries to 19 October 2020. We also searched PUBMED to 19 October 2020 and checked the references of relevant articles to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared CHIVA to other therapeutic techniques to treat varicose veins.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed and selected studies, extracted data, and performed quantitative analysis from the selected papers. A third author solved any disagreements. We assessed the risk of bias in included trials with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), number of people needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB), and the number of people needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We evaluated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The main outcomes of interest were the recurrence of varicose veins and side effects.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update, we identified two new additional studies. In total, we included six RCTs with 1160 participants (62% women) and collected from them eight comparisons. Three RCTs compared CHIVA with vein stripping. One RCT compared CHIVA with compression dressings in people with venous ulcers. The new studies included three comparisons, one compared CHIVA with vein stripping and radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and one compared CHIVA with vein stripping and endovenous laser therapy. We judged the certainty of the evidence for our outcomes as low to very low due to inconsistency, imprecision caused by the low number of events and risk of bias. The overall risk of bias across studies was high because neither participants nor personnel were blinded to the interventions. Two studies attempted to blind outcome assessors, but the characteristics of the surgery limited concealment. Five studies reported the outcome clinical recurrence of varicose veins with a follow-up of 18 months to 10 years. CHIVA may make little or no difference to the recurrence of varicose veins in the lower limb compared to stripping (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.20; 5 studies, 966 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether CHIVA reduced recurrence compared to compression dressing (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.96; 1 study, 47 participants; very low-certainty evidence). CHIVA may make little or no difference to clinical recurrence compared to RFA (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.74 to 5.53; 1 study, 146 participants; low-certainty evidence) and endovenous laser (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06; 1 study, 100 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found no clear difference between CHIVA and stripping for the side effects of limb infection (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.10; 3 studies, 746 participants; low-certainty evidence), and superficial vein thrombosis (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.17; 4 studies, 846 participants; low-certainty evidence). CHIVA may reduce slightly nerve injury (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98; NNTH 9, 95% CI 5 to 100; 4 studies, 846 participants; low-certainty evidence) and hematoma compared to stripping (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.97; NNTH 11, 95% CI 5 to 100; 2 studies, 245 participants; low-certainty evidence). For bruising, one study found no differences between groups while another study found reduced rates of bruising in the CHIVA group compared to the stripping group. Compared to RFA, CHIVA may make little or no difference to rates of limb infection, superficial vein thrombosis, nerve injury or hematoma, but may cause more bruising (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.28; NNTH 8, CI 95% 5 to 25; 1 study, 144 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to endovenous laser, CHIVA may make little or no difference to rates of limb infection, superficial vein thrombosis, nerve injury or hematoma. The study comparing CHIVA versus compression did not report side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There may be little or no difference in the recurrence of varicose veins when comparing CHIVA to stripping (low-certainty evidence), but CHIVA may slightly reduce nerve injury and hematoma in the lower limb (low-certainty evidence). Very limited evidence means we are uncertain of any differences in recurrence when comparing CHIVA with compression (very low-certainty evidence). CHIVA may make little or no difference to recurrence compared to RFA (low-certainty evidence), but may result in more bruising (low-certainty evidence). CHIVA may make little or no difference to recurrence and side effects compared to endovenous laser therapy (low-certainty evidence). However, we based these conclusions on a small number of trials with a high risk of bias as the effects of surgery could not be concealed, and the results were imprecise due to the low number of events. New RCTs are needed to confirm these results and to compare CHIVA with approaches other than open surgery.

CHIVA method for the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency

BACKGROUND

Many surgical approaches are available to treat varicose veins secondary to chronic venous insufficiency. One of the least invasive techniques is the ambulatory conservative hemodynamic correction of venous insufficiency method (cure conservatrice et hémodynamique de l'insuffisance veineuse en ambulatoire (CHIVA)), an approach based on venous hemodynamics with deliberate preservation of the superficial venous system. This is an update of the review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of the CHIVA method with alternative therapeutic techniques to treat varicose veins.

SEARCH METHODS

The Trials Search Co-ordinator of the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched the Specialised Register (April 2015), the Cochrane Register of Studies (2015, Issue 3) and clinical trials databases. The review authors searched PubMed (April 2015). There was no language restriction. We contacted study authors to obtain more information when necessary.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the CHIVA method versus any other treatments. Two review authors independently selected and evaluated the studies. One review author extracted data and performed the quantitative analysis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors extracted data from the selected papers. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), the number of people needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB), and the number of people needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

No new studies were identified for this update. We included four RCTs with 796 participants (70.5% women). Three RCTs compared the CHIVA method with vein stripping, and one RCT compared the CHIVA method with compression dressings in people with venous ulcers. We judged the quality of the evidence of the included studies as low to moderate due to imprecision caused by the low number of events and because the studies were open. The overall risk of bias across studies was high because neither participants nor outcome assessors were blinded to the interventions. The primary endpoint, clinical recurrence, pooled between studies over a follow-up of 3 to 10 years, showed more favorable results for the CHIVA method than for vein stripping (721 people; RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.78; I(2) = 0%, NNTB 6; 95% CI 4 to 10) or compression dressings (47 people; RR 0.23; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.96; NNTB 3; 95% CI 2 to 17). Only one study reported data on quality of life (presented graphically) and these results significantly favored the CHIVA method.The vein stripping group had a higher risk of side effects than the CHIVA group; specifically, the RR for bruising was 0.63 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.76; NNTH 4; 95% CI 3 to 6) and the RR for nerve damage was 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.38; I(2) = 0%; NNTH 12; 95% CI 9 to 20). There were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding the incidence of limb infection and superficial vein thrombosis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The CHIVA method reduces recurrence of varicose veins and produces fewer side effects than vein stripping. However, we based these conclusions on a small number of trials with a high risk of bias as the effects of surgery could not be concealed and the results were imprecise due to low number of events. New RCTs are needed to confirm these results and to compare CHIVA with approaches other than open surgery.

CHIVA method for the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency

BACKGROUND

Many surgical approaches are available to treat varicose veins secondary to chronic venous insufficiency. One of the least invasive techniques is the ambulatory conservative hemodynamic correction of venous insufficiency method (cure conservatrice et hémodynamique de l'insuffisance veineuse en ambulatoire (CHIVA)), an approach based on venous hemodynamics with deliberate preservation of the superficial venous system.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of the CHIVA method with alternative therapeutic techniques to treat varicose veins.

SEARCH METHODS

The Trials Search Co-ordinator of the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched the Specialised Register (November 2012), CENTRAL (2012, Issue 10) and clinical trials databases. The review authors searched PubMed and EMBASE (December 2012). There was no language restriction. We contacted study authors to obtain more information when necessary.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the CHIVA method versus any other treatments. Two review authors independently selected and evaluated the studies. One review author extracted data and performed the quantitative analysis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors extracted data from the selected papers. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), the number of people needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB), and the number of people needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs with 796 participants (70.5% women) from the 434 publications identified by the search strategy. Three RCTs compared the CHIVA method with vein stripping, and one RCT compared the CHIVA method with compression dressings in people with venous ulcers. We judged the methodological quality of the included studies as low to moderate. The overall risk of bias across studies was high because neither participants nor outcome assessors were blinded to the interventions. The primary endpoint, clinical recurrence, pooled between studies over a follow-up of 3 to 10 years, showed more favorable results for the CHIVA method than for vein stripping (721 people; RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.78; I(2) = 0%, NNTB 6; 95% CI 4 to 10) or compression dressings (47 people; RR 0.23; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.96; NNTB 3; 95% CI 2 to 17). Only one study reported data on quality of life and these results presented graphically significantly favored the CHIVA method.The vein stripping group had a higher risk of side effects than the CHIVA group; specifically, the RR for bruising was 0.63 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.76; NNTH 4; 95% CI 3 to 6) and the RR for nerve damage was 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.38; I(2) = 0%; NNTH 12; 95% CI 9 to 20). There were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding the incidence of limb infection and superficial vein thrombosis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The CHIVA method reduces recurrence of varicose veins and produces fewer side effects than vein stripping. However, we based these conclusions on a small number of trials with a high risk of bias as the effects of surgery could not be concealed. New RCTs are needed to confirm these results and to compare CHIVA with approaches other than open surgery.

Effectiveness of endovenous laser treatment in eliminating superficial venous reflux

Objective

To describe a protocol for endovenous laser treatment that is highly effective, has no significant complications, and is well accepted by patients. This is the first published report that designates complete absence of the treated vein as the definition of a successful endovenous laser treatment.

Methods

A retrospective review of 516 endovenous laser treatments performed by a single physician in private medical practice over a 69-month period. Follow-up ranged from 3 to 65 months. All treatments were performed utilizing 810 nm laser energy (Diomed, Inc.). Periodic duplex ultrasound examinations were performed until the treated vein was absent. Surveys were done to assess post treatment pain and to evaluate the effect of treatment on quality of life.

Results

The described protocol for endovenous laser treatment has successfully eliminated 98.1% of 516 treated veins with a single laser treatment. Additionally, in the last 386 treated veins when increased energy levels were utilized, the success rate was 99.7%. There were no significant complications. Patient satisfaction with the procedure is extremely high.

Conclusions

Endovenous laser treatment is a highly effective procedure for eliminating superficial venous reflux in varicose veins selected for treatment when sufficient 810 nm (Diomed, Inc.) laser energy is utilized.

Haemodynamic Strategy for Treatment of Diastolic Anterograde Giacomini Varicose Veins

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnosis and outcome of a haemodynamic strategy for the treatment of primary varicose veins associated with anterograde diastolic flow (ADF) in the Giacomini vein (GV).

METHODS

ADF in the GV, with the escape point located at the saphenopopliteal junction, was demonstrated in 15 patients (15 limbs) by duplex ultrasound. No other escape points were seen in this group. ADF was defined as the flow present in the relaxing phase after isometric contraction of the lower limb, measured in the standing position. Duplex and clinical follow-up was performed prospectively at 1 week, at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months and once per year thereafter, between 1998 and 2001. Surgery consisted of flush division of the GV from the small saphenous vein (SSV) and division of the incompetent collateral veins from the GV.

RESULTS

GV diameter showed an average reduction from 6 to 4 mm 33 months after surgery. Fourteen patients (93%) showed no symptoms or varicose veins. GV reconnection and recurrent ADF was demonstrated in two patients (13%).

CONCLUSIONS

ADF is a rare condition associated with primary varicose veins. ADF occurs when there is a closed venovenous shunt with recirculation in the muscular diastole. This implies that, although a part of the circuit is ascendant, the re-entry point must be located downstream to the escape point. Accurate duplex assessment is required to distinguish this atypical haemodynamic condition from an abnormal systolic circuit bypassing a deep vein obstruction. Interruption of the GV above its junction with the SSV abolished ADF with an acceptable rate of recurrences.

Durability of reflux-elimination by a minimal invasive CHIVA procedure on patients with varicose veins. A 3-year prospective case study

OBJECTIVES

to assess the outcome of a conservative and haemodynamic method for insufficient veins on an ambulatory basis (French acronym, "CHIVA") with preservation of the greater saphenous vein (GSV) for treatment of primary varicose veins.

METHODS

duplex incompetence of the sapheno-femoral junction (SFJ) and the GSV trunk, with the re-entry perforating point located on a GSV tributary was demonstrated in 58 patients with varices (58 limbs). The re-entry point was defined as the perforator, whose compression of the superficial vein above its opening eliminates reflux in the GSV. Duplex scanning was performed preoperatively and at 7 days, and patients were followed prospectively at 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after CHIVA. Operation consisted in flush ligation and division from the GSV of the tributary containing the re-entry perforating vein (no additional high ligation is included). If reflux returned, SFJ interruption was performed in a second surgical procedure.

RESULTS

the GSV diameter showed an average reduction from 6.6 to 3.9 mm 36 months after surgery. Reflux in the GSV system was demonstrated in all but five (8%) patients. Of the 53 patients with recurrent reflux, 46 underwent SFJ interruption.

CONCLUSIONS

elimination of reflux in the GSV after the interruption of insufficient collaterals is only temporary.