Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Two Methods for Endovenous Laser Ablation of Incompetent Perforator Veins in Thigh and Great Saphenous Vein Without Evidence of Saphenofemoral Reflux

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.

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.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the management of incompetent perforators in patients with chronic venous insufficiency

OBJECTIVE

Incompetent perforator veins (IPVs) contribute to venous pathology and are surgically treated based on hemodynamic measurement, size, and Clinical, Etiological, Anatomical, and Pathophysiological (CEAP) classification. The objective of this study was to systematically review and synthesize current literature regarding surgical management of IPVs, including open ligation, subfascial endoscopic perforator surgery (SEPS), endovascular laser ablation (EVLA), ultrasound guided sclerotherapy (USGS), and radiofrequency ablation (RFA).

METHODS

English-language literature published prior to November 2021 was reviewed from the PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases for primary literature reporting safety and efficacy outcomes in the surgical treatment of incompetent perforating veins. Study quality and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for comparative studies and a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-comparative studies. A random effects model was used to pool effect sizes for efficacy outcomes of wound healing and freedom from wound recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 81 studies were included for qualitative synthesis representing 7010 patients with a mean age of 54.7 years. Overall evidence quality was low to intermediate, with moderate to high risk of bias in comparative studies. There was an 11.3% complication rate across interventions, with no reported incidences of stroke or air embolism. With regards to efficacy, pooled estimates for short-term (up to 1-year) wound healing were 99.9% for USGS (95% CI 0.81 - 1), 72.2% for ligation (95% CI 0.04, 0.94) and 96.0% for SEPS (95% CI 0.79 -0.99). For short-term freedom from wound recurrence, the pooled estimate for SEPS is 91.0% (95% CI 0.3 - 0.99).

CONCLUSION

Current evidence regarding treatment of incompetent perforator veins is limited due to low adherence to reporting standards in observational studies and lack of randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment in comparative studies. Additional comparative studies are needed to guide clinical decision-making regarding invasive treatment options for incompetent perforator veins.

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.

Endovenous laser ablation of insufficient perforating veins: Energy is key to success

Objective

To evaluate the feasibility and anatomical success of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) of incompetent perforating veins (IPV).

Methods

All 135 consecutive patients with IPV treated with ELVA (intention-to-treat) from January 2008 to December 2013 were included. Up to the end of 2011, an 810-nm laserset (14 W) was used, and afterwards, a 1470-nm laserset (6 W) was introduced. Duplex ultrasound was performed at 6 weeks’ follow-up to assess anatomical success.

Results

Overall anatomical success at 6 weeks’ follow-up was 56%. Anatomical success was 63% after treatment with 810 nm and 45% with 1470 nm ( p = 0.035). This difference in the success rate seems associated with the significantly higher amount of energy delivered in the 810 nm cohort (560 J) versus 1470 nm (186 J). Regardless of the type of laser, anatomical success was significantly higher after treatment with more than 400 J (66%) compared with 0–200 J (40%, p = 0.009) and 200–400 J (43%, p = 0.029). Complications were limited to two cases of transient paresthesia.

Conclusions

EVLA of IPVs is safe and feasible. The amount of energy is highly important in achieving anatomical success.

Guidelines of the First International Consensus Conference on Endovenous Thermal Ablation for Varicose Vein Disease--ETAV Consensus Meeting 2012

AIM

Endovenous thermal ablation (ETA) procedures are catheter-directed, ultrasound (US)-guided thermal methods for treatment in varicose veins disease. Radiofrequency, laser or steam energy thermally denatures vein wall collagen, leading first to vein wall inflammation, then fibrosis and finally to occlusion. The aim of this guideline is to give evidence-based recommendations for ETA procedures.

METHODS

These guidelines were drafted during a consensus meeting of a group of experts in the field of ETA in June 2012 (Hvar, Croatia) under the auspices of the International Union of Phlebology (IUP). These guidelines review the present state of knowledge as reflected in peer-reviewed published medical literature. The recommendations of these guidelines are graded according to the American College of Chest Physicians Task Force recommendations on Grading Strength of Recommendations and Quality of Evidence in Clinical Guidelines.

RESULTS

Recommendations on the use of ETA procedures were made based on the quality of evidence for efficacy, safety, tolerability, cosmetic outcome, patient satisfaction/preference and, where appropriate, on the experts' opinion. Health economics were not considered, since differences in national health systems and pricing make it difficult to form general conclusions that are relevant at an international level.