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.

The role of cost-effectiveness for vascular surgery service provision in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVE

The cost of health care is increasingly becoming an international issue, with many health care systems requiring evaluation of cost when agreeing to fund health care. In the United Kingdom (UK), for example, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence highlights the importance of using cost-effectiveness analyses to facilitate the effective use of resources. This study evaluates the use of cost-effectiveness analyses and the provision of vascular surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review of published literature was performed. UK-based studies assessing cost-effectiveness or cost-utility of superficial venous interventions, abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) were included. All included studies were quality assessed to determine the overall strength of UK economic evidence for each intervention.

RESULTS

Four superficial venous, six AAA, and two CEA studies met the inclusion criteria. After quality assessment, the UK evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of superficial venous intervention was graded strong. The economic evidence for asymptomatic and symptomatic CEA was graded limited and insufficient, respectively, owing to a paucity of UK literature in this field. There was strong UK economic evidence affirming that endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is unlikely to be a cost-effective alternative to open repair.

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong economic evidence for symptomatic superficial venous intervention. However, funding for varicose vein treatments remains controversial. Future economic analyses are required for symptomatic and asymptomatic CEA to better advise national policy. Despite strong economic evidence, current UK guidance is for EVAR over open repair in the elective setting, with the majority of elective AAA repairs being EVAR.