Comparative efficacy and life quality effects of surgical stripping, radiofrequency ablation, and cyanoacrylate embolization in patients undergoing treatment for great saphenous vein insufficiency

A state-of-the-art review of quality-of-life assessment in venous disease

OBJECTIVE

Chronic venous disease is a common condition and has a significant impact on patients' health status. Validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess health status are needed to measure health status. This state-of-the-art review summarizes the current validation evidence for disease-specific PROMs for chronic venous disease and provides a framework for their use in the clinical setting.

METHODS

A literature search in OVID Embase and Medline was conducted to identify relevant English-language studies of chronic venous disease that used disease-specific PROMs between January 1, 1993, and June 30, 2022. Abstracts and titles from identified studies were screened by four investigators, and full-text articles were subsequently screened for eligibility. Data on validation of disease-specific PROMs was abstracted from each included article. Classical test theory was used as a framework to examine a priori defined validation criteria for content validity, reliability (construct validity, internal reliability, and test-retest reliability), responsiveness, and expansion of the validation evidence base (use in randomized controlled trials and comparative effectiveness research, cultural or linguistic translations, predictive validity, or establishing the minimal clinically important difference threshold, defined as smallest amount an outcome or measure is perceived as a meaningful change to patients). The PROMs were categorized into three groups based on the manifestations of disease of the population for which they were developed. The overall validity of each PROM was assessed across three stages of validation including content validity (phase 1); construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness (phase 2); and expansion of the validation evidence base (phase 3).

RESULTS

Of 2338 unique studies screened, 112 studies (4.8%) met inclusion criteria. The eight disease-specific PROMs identified were categorized into three groups: (1) overall chronic venous disease (C1 to C6); (2) C1 to C4 disease; and (3) C5 to C6 disease. Assessed by group, the Chronic Venous Insufficiency Questionnaire met criteria for validation at all three phases for patients with C1 to C4 disease, and the Charing Cross Venous Ulcer Questionnaire met criteria for validation at all three phases for patients with C5 to C6 disease. There were no PROMs that met all criteria for validation for use in overall chronic venous disease (C1 to C6).

CONCLUSIONS

Of the eight PROMs assessed in this review, only two met prespecified criteria at each phase for validation. The Chronic Venous Insufficiency Questionnaire and Charing Cross Venous Ulcer Questionnaire should be considered for use in patients with chronic venous disease without venous ulcers and with venous ulcers, respectively.

A network meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of thermal and nonthermal endovenous ablation treatments

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the mid-term efficacy and safety of thermal and nonthermal endovenous ablation for the treatment of lower limb superficial venous insufficiency.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) statement and a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary end points were great saphenous vein (GSV) closure and venous clinical severity score (VCSS) improvement. A meta-regression using GSV diameter as a covariate was undertaken for the two primary end points.

RESULTS

We included 14 studies and 4177 patients, with a mean follow-up of 25.7 months. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA; odds ratio [OR], 3.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.82-10.53), cyanoacrylate ablation (CAC; OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.35-8.37), and endovenous laser ablation (EVLA; OR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.23-7.38) displayed increased odds for GSV closure compared with mechanochemical ablation (MOCA). MOCA inferiority compared with RFA (mean difference [MD], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.20), EVLA (MD, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.61-1.24), and CAC (MD, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.65-1.15) was also depicted regarding VCSS improvement. EVLA resulted in an increased risk of postoperative paresthesia compared with MOCA (risk ratio [RR], 9.61; 95% CI, 2.32-62.29), CAC (RR, 7.90; 95% CI, 2.44-38.16), and RFA (RR, 6.96; 95% CI, 2.31-28.04). Although the overall analysis identified nonstatistically significant differences for Aberdeen varicose vein questionnaire score improvement, thrombophlebitis, ecchymosis, and pain, further investigation revealed an increase pain profile for EVLA at 1470 nm compared with RFA (MD, 3.22; 95% CI, 0.93-5.47) and CAC (MD, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.05-4.97). A sensitivity analysis displayed a persistent underperformance of MOCA compared with RFA (OR, 4.33; 95% CI, 1.15-55.54) for GSV closure and both RFA (MD, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.22-1.77) and CAC (MD, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.08-1.65) regarding VCCS improvement. Although no regression model reached statistical significance, the GSV closure regression model revealed a trend for considerably decreased efficacy for both CAC and MOCA with larger GSV diameters compared with RFA and EVLA.

CONCLUSIONS

Although our analysis has produced skepticism regarding the efficacy of MOCA in the mid-term period for VCSS improvement and GSV closure rates, CAC showed equivalent results compared with both RFA and EVLA. Additionally, CAC displayed a decreased risk of postprocedural paresthesia and pigmentation and induration compared with EVLA. Also, both RFA and CAC had an improved pain profile compared with EVLA 1470 nm. The potential underperformance of nonthermal, nontumescent ablation modalities in ablating large GSVs necessitates further research.

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.

Second-generation treatment of varicose veins: endovenous thermal ablation by laser or radiofrequency ablation

Background: Endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA) is the second-generation treatment of varicose veins in the lower extremities. It has overcome the shortcomings of the first-generation treatment of high ligation and stripping. Further, it is the basis for the development of the third-generation treatment with endovenous glue ablation. It is currently recommended as the first-line treatment for varicose veins accompanied by great saphenous vein incompetence.Current Concepts: EVTA involves obliterating the varicosed veins by applying thermal energy to blood or vein wall. It can be performed by laser or radiofrequency ablation methods, under local anesthesia. The treatment results are excellent and show lesser pain and faster recovery compared to the first-generation treatment. However, complications include endovenous heat-induced thrombosis, deep vein thrombosis, ecchymosis, and phlebitis.Discussion and Conclusion: To enhance the therapeutic effect and reduce the complications of EVTA, sufficient tumescent anesthesia, a controlled number of firing in radiofrequency ablation, and use of the novel highwavelength laser and a radial catheter tip in endovenous laser ablation are recommended. In addition, proficiency in other generations of varicose vein treatments could help in various situations.

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.

Management of Lower Extremity Pain from Chronic Venous Insufficiency: A Comprehensive Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic venous insufficiency is found to some extent in a large proportion of the world's population, especially in the elderly and obese. Despite its prevalence, little research has been pursued into this pathology when compared to similarly common conditions. Pain is often the presenting symptom of chronic venous insufficiency and has significant deleterious effects on quality of life. This manuscript will describe the development of pain in chronic venous insufficiency, and will also review both traditional methods of pain management and novel advances in both medical and surgical therapy for this disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Pain in chronic venous insufficiency is a common complication which remains poorly correlated in recent studies with the clinically observable extent of disease. Although lifestyle modification remains the foundation of treatment for pain associated with chronic venous sufficiency, compression devices and various pharmacologic agents have emerged as safe and effective treatments for pain in these patients. In patients for whom these measures are insufficient, recently developed minimally invasive vascular surgical techniques have been shown to reduce postsurgical complications and recovery time, although additional research is necessary to characterize long-term outcomes of these procedures. This review discusses the latest findings concerning the pathophysiology of pain in chronic venous insufficiency, conservative and medical management, and surgical strategies for pain relief, including minimally invasive treatment strategies.