Randomised clinical trial, observational study and assessment of cost-effectiveness of the treatment of varicose veins (REACTIV trial)

A Retrospective Study of Outcomes in a Rural Pediatric Population Treated for Venous Insufficiency

BACKGROUND

Endovascular radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and Endovascular Laser Ablation (EVLA) are minimally invasive methods to safely treat symptomatic varicose veins in pediatric patients. This research aimed to review the management of pediatric patients with venous insufficiency, evaluate the outcome, and determine the efficacy, convenience, and safety of ablation procedures in an outpatient setting.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all patients seen at six locations from 2013 to 2024 was completed. Statistical analysis was done using QuickCalcs by GraphPad.

RESULTS

Subjects identified were 34 adolescents with an average age at onset of symptoms of 16.7 years. Ultrasound evaluation was performed on 30 patients (88 %), and among them, 16 met the criteria for treatment. Of those, 13 patients (81 %) received the recommended intervention. RFA or EVLA was done for eight limbs, sclerotherapy for three limbs, and phlebectomy for one limb. No major complications were noted. Females were more likely to have disease in both legs than males (P = 0.04). Male patients were more likely to receive treatments regarding their diagnosis (p < 0.05). Of the 6 patients undergoing EVLA or VNUS, all 8 limbs (100 %) demonstrated total occlusion. There were no DVTs, pulmonary emboli (PEs), or any major complications noted post procedures in this population. No relationship was identified between; sex and vein size; obesity and disease severity or vein size; age and disease severity, vein size, or reflux time.

CONCLUSION

Out-patient ablation procedures (RFA or EVLA) proved to be a safe and effective method for the treatment of venous insufficiency in pediatric patients. Female pediatric patients with venous insufficiency symptoms should have a careful evaluation of both extremities for venous disease. Further research with larger cohorts is warranted.

TYPE OF STUDY

Retrospective Chart Review Study.

EVIDENCE

Level 3.

Ten-year outcomes of a randomized clinical trial of endothermal ablation versus conventional surgery for great saphenous varicose veins

BACKGROUND

Surgical ligation and stripping (surgery) and endothermal ablation are both effective treatments for varicose veins, improving quality of life (QoL) up to 5 years. Few data are available on long-term outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes 10 years after interventions in an RCT. Previously this RCT demonstrated that endothermal ablation is associated with superior postprocedural QoL, more rapid recovery, and lower rates of early clinical recurrence. This analysis reports outcomes at 10 years.

METHODS

Patients with symptomatic varicose veins owing to unilateral great saphenous vein reflux were randomized to either surgery or endovenous laser ablation (EVLA). Outcomes at 10 years included clinical recurrence and QoL.

RESULTS

Data were obtained for 206 of 280 patients (73.6%) at 10 years. Both groups retained significant QoL improvement compared with pretreatment levels (Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ), Short Form 36 (SF-36®), and EQ-5D™; P < 0.001). Clinical disease progression from baseline was observed in only 10.7% of patients. The clinical recurrence rate was lower in the EVLA group (37 versus 59%; P = 0.005). The number needed to treat with EVLA to avoid one clinical recurrence within 10 years was five. This was associated with significantly higher (better) generic QoL scores with EVLA in several SF-36® domains, including bodily pain (median 84 (i.q.r. 51-100) versus 62 (41-84); P = 0.009) and general health (77 (62-87) versus 67 (52-82); P = 0.017). AVVQ scores in the EVLA group were also lower (better) (3.1 (0-7.7) versus 6.3 (0.7-13.3); P = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

Both surgery and endothermal ablation are effective treatments for varicose veins at 10 years, with durable improvement in QoL and a very low rate of disease progression. However, endothermal ablation was associated with superior clinical and QoL outcomes. Registration number: NCT00759434 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Prevalence, clinical presentation, and risk factors of chronic venous disease in Cameroon: A general population-based study

INTRODUCTION

Chronic venous disease is a global public health problem, with high morbidity and economic distress. There is scarcity of data on this disease in sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS

We conducted the first population-based study over a period of 20 months from 1st February 2020 to 30th September 2021 in the 10 regions of Cameroon. A stratify sampling method was chose to select study site. Socio-demographic data, personal and family history, anthropometric parameters, clinical signs, illustrative images, CEAP (Clinical-Etiological-Anatomical-Pathophysiological) classification revised in 2004, VCSS (venous Clinical Severity Score) and risk factor assessment score were used to construct the survey form. Chi-squared test and Fischer exact test were used to compare the prevalence of chronic venous disease across different potential risk factors (sex, age category, previous history of deep vein thrombosis, hypertension, diabetes, smoking status, obesity). Simple and multiple logistic regression models were used to obtain crude and adjusted odds ratio for risk factors associated with chronic venous insufficiency. Statistical analyses were done with R version 4.2 for Linux and the threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 6578 participants were included in the study, with a mean age of 41.09 ± 16.02 years with female predominance (54.3%). The prevalence of chronic venous disease was 21.8% (95% CI: 20.8-22.9) and the prevalence of chronic venous insufficiency (C3-C6) was 7.02% (n = 462). Night cramps (43.2%), oedema (21.7%), lower limbs pain (20.4%) mostly worsens by walking and heavy legs (16.2%) were more common symptoms. The mean total venous clinical severity score was 0.69 ± 1.76 and this score had a significant positive correlation with C classification (p < .001). In the multivariate analysis, the following factors were independently associated with CVD: Male gender (aOR: 1.27; 95%CI: 1.04-1.56; p = .021), retired people (aOR: 46.9; 95% CI: 12.6-174.5; p < .001), hypertension (aOR: 289.5; 95%CI: 169.69-493.1; p < .001), diabetes (aOR: 2.19; 95% CI: 1.21-3.96; p = .009), obesity (aOR: 10.22; 95%CI: 7.67-13.62; p < .001). Smoking appears as a protective factor (aOR: 0.18; 95%CI: 0.10-0.30; p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Chronic venous disease is frequent in Cameroon and main traditional cardiovascular risk factors are associated to this condition. Systematic screening of the CVD in these specific groups could reduce the burden of the disease and its economic impact.

Variations and inconsistencies in venous ablation coverage policies between single-state and multistate carriers in the United States

BACKGROUND

Vein ablation is a common and effective treatment for patients with chronic venous insufficiency. The overuse of vein ablation despite the existence of evidence-based guidelines has resulted in insurance companies developing restrictive policies for coverage that create barriers to appropriate care. This study compares the insurance coverage by single-state carriers (SSCs) and multistate carriers (MSCs), highlighting the variations and inconsistencies in the various policies.

METHODS

The American Venous Forum Venous Policy Navigator was reviewed for the various policies available in the United States. The policies were divided into SSCs and MSCs. The characteristics of the policies, including the anatomic and hemodynamic criteria for specific veins, duration of conservative treatment, disease severity, symptoms, and types of procedures covered, were compared between the two groups. SAS, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc) was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 122 policies were analyzed and divided between SSCs (n = 85; 69.7%) and MSCs (n = 37; 30.3%). A significant variation was found in the size requirement for great saphenous vein ablation. Although 48% of the policies did not specify a size criterion, the remaining policies indicated a minimal size, ranging from 3 to 5.5 mm. However, no significant differences were found between SSCs and MSCs. Similar findings were encountered for the small and anterior accessory saphenous veins. MSCs were more likely to define a saphenous reflux time >500 ms compared with SSCs (81.1% vs 58.8%; P = .04). A significant difference was found between the SSCs and MSCs in the criteria for perforator ablation in terms of size and reflux time. MSCs were significantly more likely to provide coverage for mechanochemical ablation than were SSCs (24.3% vs 8.2%; P = .03). SSCs were more likely to require ≥12 weeks of compression stocking therapy than were MSCs (76.5% vs 48.7%; P = .01). No significant differences were found in the clinical indications between the two groups; however, MSCs were more likely to mention major hemorrhage than were SSCs.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study highlight the variations in policies for venous ablation, in particular, the striking inconsistencies in size criteria. MSCs were more likely to cover mechanochemical ablation and require a shorter duration of conservative therapy before intervention compared with SSCs. Evidence-based guidance is needed to develop more coherent policies for venous ablation coverage.

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.

A randomized clinical trial of isolated ambulatory phlebectomy versus saphenous thermal ablation with concomitant phlebectomy (SAPTAP Trial)

BACKGROUND

Current treatment of patients with saphenous trunk and tributary incompetence consists of truncal ablation with concomitant, delayed or no treatment of the tributary. However, reflux of the saphenous trunk may be reversible after treatment of the incompetent tributary. The aim of this study was to determine whether single ambulatory phlebectomy with or without delayed endovenous truncal ablation (SAP) is non-inferior to thermal endovenous ablation with concomitant phlebectomy (TAP), and whether SAP is a cost-effective alternative to TAP.

METHODS

A multicentre, non-inferiority RCT was conducted in patients with an incompetent great saphenous vein or anterior accessory saphenous vein with one or more incompetent tributaries. Participants were randomized to receive SAP or TAP. After 9 months, additional truncal treatment was considered for SAP patients with remaining symptoms. The primary outcome was VEnous INsufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study Quality of Life/Symptoms (VEINES-QOL/Sym score) after 12 months. Secondary outcomes were, among others, cost-effectiveness, perceived improvement of symptoms, and anatomical success.

RESULTS

Some 464 patients received the allocated treatment (SAP 227, TAP 237). VEINES-QOL scores were 52.7 (95 per cent c.i. 51.9 to 53.9) for SAP and 53.8 (53.3 to 55.1) for TAP; VEINES-Sym scores were 53.5 (52.6 to 54.4) and 54.2 (54.0 to 55.6) respectively. Fifty-eight patients (25.6 per cent) in the SAP group received additional truncal ablation. Treatment with SAP was less costly than treatment with TAP.

CONCLUSION

One year after treatment, participants who underwent SAP had non-inferior health-related quality of life compared with those who had TAP. Treatment with SAP was a cost-effective alternative to TAP at 12 months.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR 4821 (www.trialregister.nl).

Provision of NICE-recommended varicose vein treatment in the NHS

BACKGROUND

Standardization of access to treatment and compliance with clinical guidelines are important to ensure the delivery of high-quality care to people with varicose veins. In the National Health Service (NHS) in England, commissioning of care for people with varicose veins is performed by Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and clinical guidelines have been developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE CG168). The Evidence-Based Intervention (EBI) programme was introduced in the NHS with the aim of improving care quality and supporting implementation of NICE CG168. The aim of this study was to assess access to varicose vein treatments in the NHS and the impact of EBI.

METHODS

CCG policies for the delivery of varicose vein treatments in the NHS in England were obtained from 2017 (before EBI introduction) and 2019 (after EBI introduction) and categorized by two independent reviewers into levels of compliance with NICE CG168. Hospital Episode Statistics data were compared with the NICE commissioning model predictions. A quality-adjusted life-year was valued at £20 000 (Euro 23 000 15 November 2022).

RESULTS

Despite the introduction of the EBI programme, CCG compliance with NICE CG168 fell from 34.0 per cent (64 of 191) to 29.0 per cent (55 of 191). Some 33.0 per cent of CCG policies (63 of 191) became less compliant and only 7.3 per cent (14 of 191) changed to become fully compliant. Overall, 66.5 per cent of CCGs (127 of 191) provided less than the recommended intervention rate before EBI and this increased to 73.3 per cent (140 of191) after EBI. The overall proportion of patients estimated to require treatment annually who received treatment fell from 44.0 to 37.0 per cent. The associated estimated loss in net health benefit was between £164 and 174 million (Euro 188 million and 199 million 15 November 2022) over 3 years. A compliant policy was associated with a higher intervention rate; however, commissioning policy was associated with only 16.8 per cent of the variation in intervention rate (R2 = 0.168, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Many local varicose vein commissioning policies in the NHS are not compliant with NICE CG168. More than half of patients who should be offered varicose vein treatment are not receiving it, and there is widespread geographical variation. The EBI programme has not been associated with any improvement in commissioning or access to varicose vein treatment.

Ambulatory outpatient venous surgery service: An examination of patient satisfaction and experiences

Background

This study aimed to ascertain patients’ experience of the out-patient venous service being provided,; identify the level of patient satisfaction with the service and identify areas for further improvement and development.

Method

A prospective descriptive quantitative study. A questionnaire was distributed to all patients who used the service between June 2017 and March 2018. A total of 195 questionnaires was distributed with 162 valid questionnaires returned; response rate of 83%.

Results

This study found high satisfaction levels with endovenous ablation procedures, with concomitant phlebectomy, in the ambulatory outpatient setting and patient experiences of the service are overwhelmingly positive.

Conclusion

Study findings support the management of ambulatory outpatient varicose vein endovenous ablation procedures as a feasible alternative to day surgery theatre settings and is the blueprint for future management of varicose vein surgery in Ireland.

Current Best Practice in the Management of Varicose Veins

This article outlines the current best practice in the management of varicose veins. “Varicose veins” traditionally means bulging veins, usually seen on the legs, when standing. It is now a general term used to describe these bulging veins, and also underlying incompetent veins that reflux and cause the surface varicose veins. Importantly, “varicose veins” is often used for superficial venous reflux even in the absence of visible bulging veins. These can be simply called “hidden varicose veins”. Varicose veins usually deteriorate, progressing to discomfort, swollen ankles, skin damage, leg ulcers, superficial venous thrombosis and venous bleeds. Patients with varicose veins and symptoms or signs have a significant advantage in having treatment over conservative treatment with compression stockings or venotropic drugs. Small varicose veins or telangiectasia without symptoms or signs can be treated for cosmetic reasons. However, most have underlying venous reflux from saphenous, perforator or local “feeding veins” and so investigation with venous duplex should be mandatory before treatment. Best practice for investigating leg varicose veins is venous duplex ultrasound in the erect position, performed by a specialist trained in ultrasonography optimally not the doctor who performs the treatment. Pelvic vein reflux is best investigated with transvaginal duplex ultrasound (TVS), performed using the Holdstock-Harrison protocol. In men or women unable to have TVS, venography or cross-sectional imaging is needed. Best practice for treating truncal vein incompetence is endovenous thermal ablation. Increasing evidence suggests that significant incompetent perforating veins should be found and treated by thermal ablation using the transluminal occlusion of perforator (TRLOP) approach, and that incompetent pelvic veins refluxing into symptomatic varicose veins in the genital region or leg should be treated by coil embolisation. Bulging varicosities should be treated by phlebectomy at the time of truncal vein ablation. Monitoring and reporting outcomes is essential for doctors and patients; hence, participation in a venous registry should probably be mandatory.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

Varicose vein (VV) treatments have changed significantly in recent years leading to potential disparities in service provision. The aim of this study was to examine the trends in VV treatment in England and to identify disparities in the provision of day-case and inpatient treatments related to deprivation, ethnicity, and other demographic, and geographical factors.

Method

A population-based study using linked hospital episode statistics for England categorized VV procedures and compared population rates and procedure characteristics by ethnicity, deprivation quintile, and geographical area.

Results

A total of 311 936 people had 389 592 VV procedures between 2006/07 and 2017/18, with a further 63 276 procedures between 2018/19 and 2020/21. Procedure rates have reduced in all but the oldest age groups, whereas endovenous procedures have risen to more than 60 per cent of the total in recent years. In younger age groups there was a 20–30 per cent reduction in procedure rates for the least-deprived compared with the most-deprived quintiles. Non-white ethnicity was associated with lower procedure rates. Large regional and local differences were identified in standardized rates of VV procedures. In the most recent 5-year interval, the North-East region had a three-fold higher rate than the South-East region with evidence of greater variation between commissioners in overall rates, the proportion of endovenous procedures, and policies regarding bilateral treatments.

Conclusions

There are substantial geographical variations in the provision of treatment for VVs, which are not explained by demographic differences. These have persisted, despite the publication of guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and many commissioners, and providers would seem to implement policies that are contrary to this guidance. Lower rates of procedures in less-deprived areas may reflect treatments carried out in private practice, which are not included in these data.

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.

Comprehensive review of statistical methods for analysing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) used as primary outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published by the UK's Health Technology Assessment (HTA) journal (1997-2020)

OBJECTIVES

To identify how frequently patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used as primary and/or secondary outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and to summarise what statistical methods are used for the analysis of PROs.

DESIGN

Comprehensive review.

SETTING

RCTs funded and published by the United Kingdom's (UK) National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme.

DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY

HTA reports of RCTs published between January 1997 and December 2020 were reviewed.

DATA EXTRACTION

Information relating to PRO use and analysis methods was extracted.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The frequency of using PROs as primary and/or secondary outcomes; statistical methods that were used for the analysis of PROs as primary outcomes.

RESULTS

In this review, 37.6% (114/303) of trials used PROs as primary outcomes, and 82.8% (251/303) of trials used PROs as secondary outcomes from 303 NIHR HTA reports of RCTs. In the 114 RCTs where the PRO was the primary outcome, the most used PRO was the Short-Form 36 (8/114); the most popular methods for multivariable analysis were linear mixed model (45/114), linear regression (29/114) and analysis of covariance (13/114); logistic regression was applied for binary and ordinal outcomes in 14/114 trials; and the repeated measures analysis was used in 39/114 trials.

CONCLUSION

The majority of trials used PROs as primary and/or secondary outcomes. Conventional methods such as linear regression are widely used, despite the potential violation of their assumptions. In recent years, there is an increasing trend of using complex models (eg, with mixed effects). Statistical methods developed to address these violations when analysing PROs, such as beta-binomial regression, are not routinely used in practice. Future research will focus on evaluating available statistical methods for the analysis of PROs.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Endovenous Laser Ablation Versus Mechanochemical Ablation With ClariVein in the Management of Superficial Venous Incompetence (LAMA Trial)

OBJECTIVE

This RCT compares the clinical, technical and quality of life outcomes after EVLA and MOCA.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Thermal ablation is the current mainstay treatment for SVI. Newer nonthermal methods of treatment have been developed which do not require the use of tumescent anesthesia. The potential advantages of these newer methods should be tested in RCTs to ascertain their role in the future treatments of SVI.

METHODS

This single-center RCT enrolled patients with symptomatic, unilateral, single-axis SVI. Eligible patients were equally randomized to either EVLA or MOCA, both with concomitant phlebectomy when necessary. The joint primary outcomes were intraprocedural axial ablation pain scores and anatomical occlusion at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included postprocedural pain, venous clinical severity score (VCSS), quality of life (Aberdeen varicose veins questionnaire and EuroQol 5-domain utility index), patient satisfaction and complication rates.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty patients were randomized equally between the 2 interventions. Both groups reported low intraprocedural pain scores; on a 100 mm visual analog scale, pain during axial EVLA was 22 (9-44) compared to 15 (9-29) during MOCA; P = 0.210. At 1 year, duplex derived anatomical occlusion rates after EVLA were 63/69 (91%) compared to 53/69 (77%) in the MOCA group; P = 0.020. Both groups experienced significant improvement in VCSS and AVVQ after treatment, without a significant difference between groups. Median VCSS improved from 6 (5-8) to 0 (0-1) at one year; P < 0.001. Median AVVQ improved from 13.8 (10.0-17.7) to 2.0 (0.0-4.9); P < 0.001. One patient in the MOCA group experienced DVT.

CONCLUSIONS

Both EVLA and MOCA were highly efficacious in treating SVI; patients improved significantly in terms of disease severity, symptoms, and QoL. Both resulted in low procedural pain with a short recovery time. Axial occlusion rates were higher after EVLA. Long term follow-up is warranted to assess the effect of recanalization on the rate of clinical recurrence.

Great saphenous vein sparing versus stripping in Trendelenburg operation for primary varicose veins: a prospective study

&lt;b&gt;Objective:&lt;/b&gt; The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of the great saphenous vein (GSV) sparing versus stripping during Trendelenburg operation for varicose veins. &lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Methods:&lt;/b&gt; This was a prospective randomized study of primary varicose vein patients who underwent Trendelenburg operation. Data of patients operated on over a period of 16 months was collected, including: below knee GSV diameter by Duplex Ultrasound and revised venous clinical severity score (rVCSS), calculated preoperatively and postoperatively at 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt;, 4&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt;, and 8&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; week. &lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Results:&lt;/b&gt; A total of 36 patients undergoing Trendelenburg operation were included in the study. Nineteen patients underwent GSV sparing while 17 underwent stripping of GSV till just below the knee after juxtafemoral flush ligation of the great saphenous vein. There was a significant decrease in the below-knee GSV diameter (19% after 2 months) and rVCSS (60.8%) in the sparing group. The stripping group also showed an almost similar decrease in below-knee GSV diameter (19.6% after 2 months) and rVCSS (66.3%). However, no significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of change in GSV diameter (P = 0.467) and rVCSS (P = 0.781). &lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/b&gt; Trendelenburg procedure with sparing of GSV can be done routinely for operative management of varicose veins, where surgery is needed.

Outcomes of Saphenous Vein Intervention in the Management of Superficial Venous Incompetence: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the most effective modality of intervention to treat saphenous vein insufficiency.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Endovenous therapies have instigated a paradigm shift in the management of superficial venous incompetence (SVI). When compared with open surgery, endovenous interventions (foam sclerotherapy (FS), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), mechanochemical ablation (MOCA), and cyanoacrylate glue (CAE) closure) potentially offer reduced morbidity with similar procedural efficacy.

METHODS

A systematic review and series of network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were performed assessing risks of procedural failure (within 6-weeks) and recurrence (6-weeks to 5-years), defined by ultrasound, between the different SVI modalities. Treatment comparisons addressing risks of common adverse events, Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) and pain were also performed.

RESULTS

A systematic search identified 51 articles, describing 36 RCTs, incorporating 7,576 limbs. Outcome data on ten modalities of intervention were analyzed up to five-year follow-up. CAE resulted in the lowest risk of procedural failure within six-weeks. Foam sclerotherapy had the highest risk of recurrence while high ligation with stripping (HLS) and CHIVA were ranked best to reduce long-term recurrence. No intervention increased risks of venous thromboembolism and there was minimal difference in morbidity between treatments. All interventions improved VCSS (Range -1.02 to -4.95), however RFA demonstrated the greatest improvement, followed by EVLA and HLS between two to five-years. EVLA was associated with the highest risk of pain, while MOCA offered the least.

CONCLUSION

While CAE offered the lowest risk of initial procedural failure, HLS resulted in lower rates of long-term recurrence without considerably increasing morbidity when compared with other endovenous options.

What is the optimal treatment technique for great saphenous vein diameter of ≥10 mm? Comparison of five different approaches

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of five different treatment approaches in patients with a great saphenous vein (GSV) diameter of ≥10 mm.

METHODS

A total of 697 extremities of 671 patients who were diagnosed with a GSV diameter of ≥10 mm underwent conventional surgery or endovenous therapy for symptomatic varicose veins between January 2012 and January 2017 were included in this retrospective study. All extremities included in the study were divided into five groups as follows: high ligation + stripping (HLS), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), cyanoacrylate closure (CAC), endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) procedures at 980 nm and 1,470 nm wavelengths.

RESULTS

Among all groups, despite lower recurrence rates in HLS group than the other groups, there was no significant difference at 6 months and 1 year among the HLS, EVLA at 1,470 nm wavelength, and RFA groups. The recurrence rates of EVLA at 980 nm wavelength and CAC groups were found higher than other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, our study results show that although HLS seems to be an effective method for the treatment of a GSV diameter of ≥10 mm with a low recurrence rate, it does not statistically significantly differ from EVLA at 1,470 nm wavelength and RFA. Therefore, we believe that EVLA at 1,470 nm wavelength and RFA can be preferred over HLS with low pain scores in this patient population.

Private payers' varicose vein policies are inaccurate, disparate, and not evidence based, which mandates a proposal for a reasonable and responsible policy for the treatment of venous disease

Varicose veins afflict more than one in five Americans, and although varicose veins may be an asymptomatic cosmetic concern in some, many others experience symptoms of pain, aching, heaviness, itching, and swelling. More advanced venous disease can result from untreated venous insufficiency. The complications of chronic venous disease, including bleeding, thrombosis, and ulceration, are seen in up to 2 million Americans annually. Numerous reports have documented venous disease adversely affects quality of life and that treatment of venous disease can improve quality of life. It has previously been documented that private insurers, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services subcontractors for that matter, have disparate policies that in many instances are self-serving, contain mistakes, use outdated evidence, and disregard evidence-based guidelines. The two leading venous medical societies, the American Venous Forum and the American Venous and Lymphatic Society, have come together to review the varicose vein coverage policies of seven major U.S. private medical insurance carriers whose policies cover more than 150 million Americans. The authors reviewed the policies for venous disease and, if significant gaps or inconsistencies are found, we hope to point them out, and, finally, to propose a thoughtful and reasonable policy based on the best available evidence.

The 2020 appropriate use criteria for chronic lower extremity venous disease of the American Venous Forum, the Society for Vascular Surgery, the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, and the Society of Interventional Radiology

BACKGROUND

Stimulated by published reports of potentially inappropriate application of venous procedures, the American Venous Forum and its Ethics Task Force in collaboration with multiple other professional societies including the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS), American Vein and Lymphatic Society (AVLS), and the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) developed the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for chronic lower extremity venous disease to provide clarity to the application of venous procedures, duplex ultrasound imaging, timing, and reimbursements.

METHODS

The AUC were developed using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, a validated method of developing appropriateness criteria in health care. By conducting a modified Delphi exercise and incorporating best available evidence and expert opinion, AUC were developed and scored.

RESULTS

There were 119 scenarios rated on a scale of 1 to 9 by an expert panel, with 1 being never appropriate and 9 being appropriate. The majority of scenarios consisted of symptomatic indications were deemed appropriate for venous intervention. For scenarios with anatomically short segments of reflux and/or no symptoms, the indications were rated less appropriate. For the indication of edema, a wide dispersion of ratings was observed especially for short segments of saphenous reflux or stenting for iliac/ inferior vena cava disease, noting that there are multifactorial causes of edema, some of which could coexist with venous disease and possibly impact effectiveness of treatment. Several scenarios were considered never appropriate, including treatment of saphenous veins with no reflux, iliac vein or inferior vena cava stenting for iliac vein compression as an incidental finding by imaging with minimal or no symptoms or signs, and incentivizing sonographers to find reflux.

CONCLUSIONS

The AUC statements are intended to serve as a guide to patient care, particularly in areas where high-quality evidence is lacking to aid clinicians in making day-to-day decisions for common venous interventions. This may also prove useful when applied on a population level, such as practice patterns, and not necessarily to dictate decision making for individual cases. As a product of a collaborative effort, it is hoped that this could be utilized by physicians and multiple stakeholders committed toward improving patient care and to identify and stimulate future research priorities.

Network meta-analysis to compare VenaSeal with other superficial venous therapies for chronic venous insufficiency

OBJECTIVE

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared different interventions for chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) management, but mixed comparison of these interventions is lacking. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to compare VenaSeal closure system (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn) with endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), mechanochemical ablation, sclerotherapy, and surgery for management of CVI to achieve anatomic success (complete closure of treated vein within 6 months after intervention) as the primary outcome and health-related quality of life (HRQoL; EuroQol-5 Dimension, Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire), Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), pain scores, and adverse events as secondary outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of journal databases was undertaken, and RCTs between January 1996 and September 2018 comparing different treatment options were included. Risk of bias and quality of publications were assessed using the Cochrane bias tool; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used for study selection and reporting. Twenty RCTs comprising 4570 patients were analyzed. Data for anatomic success, VCSS, HRQoL, pain score, and adverse events were extracted and analyzed using mixed treatment comparison in a network meta-analysis. A Bayesian fixed or random effects model was selected for analysis. Rank probability graphs were generated for various treatments and corresponding ranks obtained to estimate their probability of being best. Relative treatment effects were calculated in terms of log odds ratios for anatomic success and adverse events. Mean difference was calculated for VCSS, HRQoL, and pain score.

RESULTS

For the primary outcome measure (anatomic success), VenaSeal system had the highest probability of being ranked first (P = .980); RFA was ranked second (P = .365), EVLA third (P = .397), surgery fourth (P = .290), mechanochemical ablation fifth (P = .695), and sclerotherapy sixth (P = .982). For secondary outcome measures, VenaSeal system ranked third for VCSS (P = .332), fifth for EuroQol-5 Dimension (P = .420), and third for Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (P = .300). Although, VenaSeal system was slightly inferior to some of the other interventions for HRQoL, the 95% credible interval of log odds ratio indicated insufficient evidence for any concrete conclusion to be drawn. VenaSeal system ranked first in reduction of postoperative pain score from baseline (P = .690) and was lowest in occurrence of adverse events (P = .650). Odds of occurrence of adverse events was 3.3 times in the sclerotherapy arm, 2.7 times in the EVLA arm, 1.6 times with surgery, and 1.1 times with RFA vs VenaSeal system arm.

CONCLUSIONS

VenaSeal system is a promising therapeutic option for anatomic success at 6 months, with fewer occurrences of adverse events (wound and groin infection, pulmonary embolism) in CVI patients compared with other interventions in this study. Additional economic analysis including cost-effectiveness analysis would provide interesting perspectives on real-world insights to patients, payers, and providers.

Long-term efficacy of different procedures for treatment of varicose veins: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Various procedures for the treatment of varicose veins have been shown to have long-term effectiveness, but research has yet to identify the most effective procedure. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term efficacy of different procedures based on Bayesian network meta-analysis and to rank therapeutic options for clinical decision-making.

METHODS

Globally recognized databases, namely, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central, were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Quantitative pooled estimation of successful treatment rate (STR) and recurrence rate (RR) was performed to assess the long-term efficacy of each procedure with more than a 1-year follow-up. The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities of the P values regarding STR and RR were calculated to rank various procedures. Grades of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria were utilized for the recommendation of evidence from pairwise direct comparisons.

RESULTS

A total of 39 RCTs encompassing a total of 6917 limbs were eligible and provided relative raw data. After quantitative analysis, the CHIVA procedure was determined to have the best long-term efficacy, as it had the highest STR (SUCRA, 0.37). Additionally, the results revealed that CHIVA possessed the highest probability of achieving the lowest long-term RR (SUCRA, 0.61). Moreover, the sensitivity analysis with inconsistency approach clarified the reliability of the main results, and the evidence of most direct comparisons was ranked as high or moderate.

CONCLUSION

CHIVA seemed to have superior clinical benefits on long-term efficacy for treating varicose veins. However, the conclusion still needs additional trials for supporting evidence.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of five procedures for great saphenous vein reflux in a Norwegian healthcare setting or societal setting

Objective

The aim of this work was to estimate cost-effectiveness of five common procedures for varicose vein surgery (high ligation and stripping, radiofrequency ablation, endovenous laser ablation, steam vein sclerosis and cyanoacrylate glue) in a Norwegian setting from both a societal and a healthcare payer perspective.

Design

Cost-effectiveness analysis using decision tree modelling.

Methods

A structured literature search was conducted to estimate the clinical effectiveness and the rate of complications in the five methods. Data on costs and health-related quality of life associated with varicose vein disease were also collected. With the aid of an expert panel, a structured decision tree was developed. A 1-year perspective was modelled, and a variety of common complications were included. Monte Carlo simulation was used for probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

The laser ablation strategy was the most cost-effective option from a societal perspective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €8448 compared to a no-treatment alternative, and had a 42% probability of being cost-effective using the Norwegian willingness-to-pay threshold of €59,880. From a healthcare payer perspective, however, the steam vein sclerosis strategy was the most cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €4072 compared to a no-treatment alternative, and this strategy had a 50% probability of being cost-effective.

Conclusion

Results from this study did depend upon the perspective chosen for analyses. Although recent endovenous surgical procedures (including laser ablation and steam vein sclerosis) provide clinically effective treatment for advanced, symptomatic varicose vein disease, availability of high-level data is currently limiting the cost-effectiveness analyses.

Compliance with NICE guidelines when commissioning varicose vein procedures

Background

Varicose veins impair quality of life and can lead to chronic leg ulcers. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines (CG168) set out evidence-based standards for patient management. In England, Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) fund NHS care within their locality. The objective of this study was to evaluate CCGs' commissioning policies and compare them with CG168.

Methods

Searches were made for the published policies of all 206 English CCGs. They were reviewed for compliance with NICE guidelines and the associated quality standard. Areas of disagreement were analysed for themes.

Results

Some 203 CCGs (98·5 per cent) had a published policy and 190 (93·6 per cent) of these were published after publication of CG168. Only 73 of the policies (36·0 per cent) were compliant with CG168. Treatment was restricted on the basis of clinical disease severity in 119 CCGs (58·6 per cent); 29 (14·3 per cent) stipulated delay of treatment using a 'trial' of conservative treatment; 22 (10·8 per cent) used lifestyle-related factors such as BMI and smoking status to ration treatment. Treatment was commissioned for uncomplicated symptomatic varicose veins in 87 CCGs (42·9 per cent), but some applied additional rationing mechanisms; 109 CCGs (53·7 per cent) would treat oedema, 183 (90·1 per cent) would treat skin and soft tissue damage, 202 (99·5 per cent) healed ulceration, and all would allow active ulcers to be treated.

Discussion

The majority of CCGs in England have commissioning policies that contradict NICE guidelines. Rationing strategies include disease severity, delay and patient lifestyle-related factors, creating unwarranted geographical variation for varicose vein treatment, disregarding the NHS Constitution for England, and perhaps leading to an increase in costly treatment of chronic complications in the long term.

Age is not a barrier to good outcomes after varicose vein procedures

BACKGROUND

The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) Varicose Vein Registry (VVR) represents a patient-centered database launched in January 2015. Previous work describing overall trends and outcomes of varicose vein procedures across the United States demonstrates a benefit from these procedures. The existing gaps in evidence to support current and future Medicare coverage of varicose vein procedures necessitate further description of clinical outcomes in patients ≥65 years old compared with the population <65 years old.

METHODS

This study analyzed prospectively captured anatomic, procedural, and outcome data for all patients in a national cohort of all VQI VVR-participating centers. The VQI VVR database was queried for all patients undergoing varicose vein procedures between January 2015 and July 2016. Preprocedural and postprocedural Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology (CEAP) classification, Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were compared between patients <65 years and ≥65 years old. Univariate descriptive statistics of demographic and procedural data were performed. Student t-tests were then performed on change in CEAP classification, VCSS score, and PROs (heaviness, achiness, throbbing, swelling, itching, appearance, and impact on work) for each group.

RESULTS

There were 4841 varicose vein procedures performed from January 2015 to May 2016. There were 3441 procedures performed in 2691 patients (3631 limbs) in the group <65 years old and 1400 procedures performed in 1068 patients (1467 limbs) in the group ≥65 years old. Truncal veins alone were the most common veins treated in both groups. The majority of patients were white and female in both groups. Most of the demographic characteristics were clinically similar (although statistically different) in both groups with the exception of a higher body mass index in the group <65 years old and a history of bilateral varicose vein treatment, and anticoagulation was more common among patients ≥65 years old. Patients in both groups experienced statistically significant improvement in VCSS, PROs, and CEAP class. There was no difference in overall complications between age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

All patients demonstrated an associated improvement in both clinical outcomes (CEAP class, VCSS) and PROs. There was no significant difference in the improvement in CEAP class and VCSS between patients younger and older than 65 years, although the younger population reported greater improvement in PROs. Given these findings, patients older than 65 years appear to benefit from varicose vein procedures and should not be denied interventions on their varicose veins and venous insufficiency on the basis of their age only.

Surveying the Cost-Effectiveness of the 20 Procedures with the Largest Public Health Services Waiting Lists in Ireland: Implications for Ireland's Cost-Effectiveness Threshold

OBJECTIVES

To survey the cost effectiveness of procedures with the largest waiting lists in the Irish public health system to inform a reconsideration of Ireland's current cost-effectiveness threshold of €45,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

METHODS

Waiting list data for inpatient and day case procedures in the Irish public health system were obtained from the National Treatment Purchase Fund. The 20 interventions with the largest number of individuals waiting for inpatient and day case care were identified. The academic literature was searched to obtain cost-effectiveness estimates from Ireland and other high-income countries. Cost-effectiveness estimates from foreign studies were adjusted for differences in currency, purchasing power parity, and inflation.

RESULTS

Of the top 20 waiting list procedures, 17 had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) lower than €45,000/QALY, 14 fell below €20,000/QALY, and 10 fell below €10,000/QALY. Only one procedure had an ICER higher than the current threshold. Two procedures had ICERs reported for different patient and indication groups that lay on either side of the threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Some cost-effective interventions that have large waiting lists may indicate resource misallocation and the threshold may be too high. An evidence-informed revision of the threshold may require a reduction to ensure it is consistent with its theoretical basis in the opportunity cost of other interventions foregone. A limitation of this study was the difficulty in matching specific procedures from waiting lists with ICER estimates from the literature. Nevertheless, our study represents a useful demonstration of a novel concept of using waiting list data to inform cost-effectiveness thresholds.

The evidence supporting treatment of reflux and obstruction in chronic venous disease

On July 20, 2016, a Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee panel convened to assess the evidence supporting treatment of chronic venous disease. Several societies addressed the questions posed to the panel. A multidisciplinary coalition, representing nine societies of venous specialists, reviewed the literature and presented a consensus opinion regarding the panel questions. The purpose of this paper is to present our coalition's consensus review of the literature and recommendations for chronic venous disease.

Report of the Society for Vascular Surgery and the American Venous Forum on the July 20, 2016 meeting of the Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee panel on lower extremity chronic venous disease

On July 20, 2016, a Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee panel assessed the benefits and risks of currently used lower extremity chronic venous disease (CVD) treatments and their effects on health outcome of the American adult population. The main purpose of the meeting was to advise the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on coverage determination for interventions used for treatment of CVD. A systematic review of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality was presented, followed by lectures of invited experts and a public hearing of representatives of professional societies and the industry. After discussing critical issues, the panel voted for key questions. This report summarizes the presented evidence to support recommendations of the Society for Vascular Surgery/American Venous Forum coalition and the presentations on selected discussion topics. These included important venous disease evidence gaps that have not been sufficiently addressed, venous disease treatment disparities and how they may affect the health outcomes of Medicare beneficiaries, and mechanisms that might be supported by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to improve the evidence base to optimize the care of patients with lower extremity CVD.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular and surgical revascularization for patients with chronic lower extremity venous insufficiency and varicose veins

BACKGROUND

Chronic lower extremity venous disease (LECVD) is twice as prevalent as coronary heart disease, and invasive therapies to treat LECVD accounted for an estimated $290 million in Medicare expenditures in 2015. Despite increasing use of these invasive therapies, their comparative effectiveness is unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of treatments for patients (symptomatic and asymptomatic) with lower extremity varicosities and/or lower extremity chronic venous insufficiency/incompetence/reflux. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant English-language studies published from January 2000 to July 2016. We included comparative randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with >20 patients and observational studies with >500 patients. Short-, intermediate-, and long-term outcomes of placebo, mechanical compression therapy, and invasive therapies (surgical and endovascular) were included. Quality ratings and evidence grading was performed. Random-effects models were used to compute summary estimates of effects.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 57 studies representing 105,878 enrolled patients, including 53 RCTs comprised of 10,034 patients. Among the RCTs, 16 were good quality, 28 were fair quality, and 9 were poor quality. Allocation concealment, double blinding, and reporting bias were inadequately addressed in 25 of 53 (47%), 46 of 53 (87%), and 15 of 53 (28.3%), respectively. Heterogeneity in therapies, populations, and/or outcomes prohibited meta-analysis of comparisons between different endovascular therapies and between endovascular intervention and placebo/compression. Meta-analysis evaluating venous stripping plus ligation (high ligation/stripping) compared with radiofrequency ablation revealed no difference in short-term bleeding (odds ratio [OR]=0.30, 95% CI -0.16 to 5.38, P=.43) or reflux recurrence at 1-2 years (OR=0.76, 95% CI 0.37-1.55, P=.44). Meta-analysis evaluating high ligation/stripping versus endovascular laser ablation revealed no difference in long-term symptom score (OR 0.02, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.23, P=.84) or quality of life at 2 years (OR 0.06, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.25, P=.50).

CONCLUSIONS

The paucity of high-quality comparative effectiveness and safety data in LECVD is concerning given the overall rise in endovascular procedures. More high-quality studies are needed to determine comparative effectiveness and guide policy and practice.

Vector and Doppler Ultrasound Velocities Evaluated in a Flow Phantom and the Femoropopliteal Vein

Ultrasound is used for evaluating the veins of the lower extremities. Operator and angle dependency limit spectral Doppler ultrasound (SDUS). The aim of the study was to compare peak velocity measurements in a flow phantom and the femoropopliteal vein of 20 volunteers with the angle-independent vector velocity technique vector flow imaging (VFI) and SDUS. In the flow phantom, VFI underestimated velocity (p = 0.01), with a lower accuracy of 5.5% (p = 0.01) and with no difference in precision, that is, error factor, compared with SDUS (VFI: 1.02 vs. SDUS: 1.02, p = 0.58). In vivo, VFI estimated lower velocities (femoral: p = 0.001; popliteal: p = 0.001) with no difference in precision compared with SDUS (femoral: VFI 1.09 vs. SDUS 1.14, p = 0.37; popliteal: VFI 1.13 vs. SDUS 1.06, p = 0.09). In conclusion, the precise VFI technique can be used to characterize venous hemodynamics of the lower extremities despite its underestimation of velocities.

Systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures in patients with varicose veins

Background

Varicose veins can affect quality of life. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a direct report from the patient about the impact of the disease without interpretation from clinicians or anyone else. The aim of this study was to examine the quality of the psychometric evidence for PROMs used in patients with varicose veins.

Methods

A systematic review was undertaken to identify studies that reported the psychometric properties of generic and disease-specific PROMs in patients with varicose veins. Literature searches were conducted in databases including MEDLINE, up to July 2016. The psychometric criteria used to assess these studies were adapted from published recommendations in accordance with US Food and Drug Administration guidance.

Results

Nine studies were included which reported on aspects of the development and/or validation of one generic (36-Item Short Form Health Survey, SF-36®) and three disease-specific (Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire, AVVQ; Varicose Veins Symptoms Questionnaire, VVSymQ®; Specific Quality-of-life and Outcome Response – Venous, SQOR-V) PROMs. The evidence from included studies provided data to support the construct validity, test–retest reliability and responsiveness of the AVVQ. However, its content validity, including weighting of the AVVQ questions, was biased and based on the opinion of clinicians, and the instrument had poor acceptability. VVSymQ® displayed good responsiveness and acceptability rates. SF-36® was considered to have satisfactory responsiveness and internal consistency.

Conclusion

There is a scarcity of psychometric evidence for PROMs used in patients with varicose veins. These data suggest that AVVQ and SF-36® are the most rigorously evaluated PROMs in patients with varicose veins.

The effectiveness of various interventions versus standard stripping in patients with varicose veins in terms of quality of life

Purpose Lower limb varicose veins have a significant effect upon the quality of life and a considerable socioeconomic impact despite their relatively benign nature. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of various therapeutic strategies among patients with varicose veins to surgical ligation and vein stripping on the basis of quality of life. Methods PubMed/Medline and Scopus databases were systemically searched from 1 January 2000 until 23 December 2015 for studies reporting outcome on the quality of life of different treatment techniques for varicose veins. We used Cohen's d to make the outcomes of the reported scales comparable. Heterogeneity was calculated with the use of the Q statistic and the I². Results A total of 1047 participants were randomized across all analyzed trials. The number of participants in a single trial ranged from 30 to 308. The majority of participants in any trial were C2 on the CEAP scores. Overall, the quality of evidence was low. For the meta-analysis performed at 12 months postintervention (seven studies, n = 1047 patients) and after random effects meta-analyses due to high heterogeneity, no differences are observed between intervention and surgical ligation and vein stripping. The pooled estimate is -0.001 and the 95% confidence interval is -0.069 to 0.067 with a p = 0.98. In the case of the 24 months, postintervention analysis (six studies, n = 840 patients) the inference is almost identical. The effect of various interventional modes of treatment compared to surgical ligation and vein stripping is negligible in terms of clinical outcomes and quality of life so that surgical ligation and vein stripping versus the other interventional procedures were equally effective approaches to treat great saphenous vein incompetence in terms of quality of life measurements. Conclusion The procedures were at least equally efficient in treating patients with varicose vein disease in terms of quality of life assessment tools at 12 and 24 months compared to surgical ligation and vein stripping.

The classic saphenofemoral junction and its anatomical variations

Background The intraoperative anatomy of the saphenofemoral junction can vary from the 'textbook' description of six independent proximal tributaries: three medial - superficial external pudendal, deep external pudendal and the posteromedial thigh branch - and three lateral - superficial epigastric, superficial circumflex iliac and the anterolateral thigh branch. Varicose veins can recur following inadequate initial open surgery with failure to identify, ligate and divide these tributaries. An appreciation of common anatomical variations could minimise recurrence rates following surgery. This study aimed to identify common anatomical variations within our patient cohort. Methods This prospective observational study documented diagrammatically the anatomy of saphenofemoral junction in a consecutive series of 172 patients undergoing unilateral, primary saphenofemoral junction ligation for symptomatic superficial venous insufficiency. Diagrams recorded the number of tributaries and their relationship to the saphenofemoral junction, the existence of bifid systems and the relationship of the external pudendal artery to the saphenofemoral junction. Results In sum, 110 women and 62 men with a mean age of 47.2 (IQR 21-77) years were studied. The median number of saphenofemoral junction tributaries was 4 (IQR 0-7). In 74 cases (43.0%), at least one tributary drained directly into the common femoral vein (IQR 0-4), commonly the deep external pudendal (91.9%). The anterolateral thigh branch was identified in 62 cases (35.8%) and the posteromedial thigh branch in 93 cases (53.8%). The external pudendal artery was identified in 150 cases (87.2%) and was superficial to the great saphenous vein in 36 cases (20.9%). Conclusions Significant variations exist in the saphenofemoral junction anatomy. Familiarity with anatomical saphenofemoral junction variations is imperative to ensure operative success and reduce recurrence. Thorough dissection of the common femoral vein is necessary not only to ensure all proximal tributaries are identified and ligated but also as a safety mechanism in preventing avulsion trauma of direct common femoral vein tributaries.

What is effective care for varicose veins?

Varicose veins affect one-quarter to one-third of Western adult populations and consume an increasing amount of health care resources. Much of this increased utilization has been driven by the advent of minimally invasive technology including endovenous thermal ablation, foam sclerotherapy, and more recently mechanicochemical and cyanoacrylate glue ablation. This has largely been driven by patient and physician preferences in the absence of robust evidence that one therapy is truly superior to another. This partially arises from misunderstandings about appropriate outcomes measures and what truly constitutes effective treatment of varicose veins. Technical outcomes, such as saphenous closure rates, have frequently been used as surrogates for effective treatment but are poorly correlated with symptom improvement, quality of life, and risk of recurrence. Although there does appear to be a trend towards higher recurrence with ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy, the data are occasionally conflicting and there does not appear to be substantial differences between the various modalities. Similarly, there do not appear to be major differences in late quality of life measures between these treatment options. As long-term differences in recurrence and quality of life are small, overall cost effectiveness is driven primarily by initial treatment costs and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy is the most cost-effective strategy in many models. However, there continues to be substantial uncertainty surrounding cost estimates and other factors of importance to the patient may ultimately drive treatment decisions. The benefits of some adjuncts to the treatment of axial superficial reflux, such as the concurrent versus staged management of tributary varicosities, remain ill-defined while that of others, such as routine post-procedural ultrasound surveillance and compression, need critical re-evaluation.

Endovenous ablation therapy (laser or radiofrequency) or foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgical repair for short saphenous varicose veins

BACKGROUND

Short (or small) saphenous vein (SSV) varices occur as a result of an incompetent sapheno-popliteal junction, where the SSV joins the popliteal vein, resulting in reflux in the SSV; they account for about 15% of varicose veins. Untreated varicose veins may sometimes lead to ulceration of the leg, which is difficult to manage. Traditionally, treatment was restricted to surgery or conservative management. Since the 1990s, however, a number of minimally invasive techniques have been developed; these do not normally require a general anaesthetic, are day-case procedures with a quicker return to normal activities and avoid the risk of wound infection which may occur following surgery. Nerve injury remains a risk with thermal ablation, but in cases where it does occur, the injury tends to be transient.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) versus conventional surgery in the treatment of SSV varices.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register (last searched 17 March 2016) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 2). We searched clinical trials databases for details of ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EVLA, endovenous RFA or UGFS with conventional surgery in the treatment of SSV varices for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently reviewed, assessed and selected trials that met the inclusion criteria; any disagreements were resolved by discussion. We extracted data and used the Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. When the data permitted, we performed either fixed-effect meta-analyses with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or random-effects meta-analyses where there was moderate to significant heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three RCTs, all of which compared EVLA with surgery; one also compared UGFS with surgery. There were no trials comparing RFA with surgery. The EVLA versus surgery comparison included 311 participants: 185 received EVLA and 126 received surgery. In the UGFS comparison, each treatment group contained 21 people. For several outcomes in the EVLA comparison, only a single study provided relevant data; as a result, the current review is limited in its ability to demonstrate meaningful results for some planned outcomes. The quality of evidence according to GRADE was moderate to low for the outcome measures in the EVLA versus surgery comparison, but low for the UGFS versus surgery comparison. Reasons for downgrading in the EVLA versus surgery comparison were risk of bias (for some outcomes, the outcome assessors were not blinded; and in one study the EVLA-surgery allocation of 2:1 did not appear to be prespecified); imprecision (data were only available from a single small study and the CIs were relatively wide); indirectness (one trial reported results at six months rather than one year and was inadequately powered for SSV varices-only analysis). Reasons for downgrading in the UGFS versus surgery comparison were imprecision (only one trial offered UGFS and several participants were missing from the analysis) and a limitation in design (the study was inadequately powered for SSV participants alone).For the EVLA versus surgery comparison, recanalisation or persistence of reflux at six weeks occurred less frequently in the EVLA group than in the surgery group (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22; I² = 51%; 289 participants, 3 studies, moderate-quality evidence). Recurrence of reflux at one year was also less frequent in the EVLA group than in the surgery group (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.77; I² = 0%; 119 participants, 2 studies, low-quality evidence). For the outcome clinical evidence of recurrence (i.e. presence of new visible varicose veins) at one year, there was no difference between the two treatment groups (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.75; 99 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence). Four participants each in the EVLA and surgery groups required reintervention due to technical failure (99 participants, 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). There was no difference between the two treatment groups for disease-specific quality of life (QoL) (Aberdeen Varicose Veins Questionnaire) either at six weeks (mean difference (MD) 0.15, 95% CI -1.65 to 1.95; I² = 0%; 265 participants, 2 studies, moderate-quality evidence), or at one year (MD -1.08, 95% CI -3.39 to 1.23; 99 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence). Main complications reported at six weeks were sural nerve injury, wound infection and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (one DVT case in each treatment group; EVLA: 1/161, 0.6%; surgery 1/104, 1%; 265 participants, 2 studies, moderate-quality evidence).For the UGFS versus surgery comparison, there were insufficient data to detect clear differences between the two treatment groups for the two outcomes recanalisation or persistence of reflux at six weeks (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.10; 33 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence), and recurrence of reflux at one year (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.29 to 4.92; 31 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence). No other outcomes could be reported for this comparison because the study data were not stratified according to saphenous vein.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate- to low-quality evidence exists to suggest that recanalisation or persistence of reflux at six weeks and recurrence of reflux at one year are less frequent when EVLA is performed, compared with conventional surgery. For the UGFS versus conventional surgery comparison, the quality of evidence is assessed to be low; consequently, the effectiveness of UGFS compared with conventional surgery in the treatment of SSV varices is uncertain. Further RCTs for all comparisons are required with longer follow-up (at least five years). In addition, measurement of outcomes such as recurrence of reflux, time taken to return to work, duration of procedure, pain, etc., and choice of time points during follow-up should be standardised such that future trials evaluating newer technologies can be compared efficiently.

Is there a continuing role for traditional surgery?

Despite recent NICE guidance there remains a definite role for surgery in the management of varicose veins. A lot of the available evidence that has driven the transformation of care towards endovenous treatments is of good quality yet published by enthusiasts. No endovenous studies have reported long term results as far out from intervention as the open studies, yet in the meta-analysis from Murad et al, the authors suggested from their results that when surgery was compared with all endoluminal ablation therapies, surgery was associated with a non-significant reduction in the risk of varicose vein recurrence (RR0.63; 95%CI 0.37--1.07). Much of the longer-term data on recurrence following open surgery for primary varicose veins dates back well over 15 years ago. This is prior to the inclusion of routine duplex assessment and sub-specialty designation. The recent Cochrane review (13 randomised controlled studies, 3081 patients). The overall conclusion was that UGFS, EVLT and RFA were at least as effective as surgery in the treatment of the LSV. This meta-analysis did not include the CLASS (Comparison of LAser, Surgery and foam Sclerotherapy as a treatment for varicose veins) trial in which measures of clinical success were similar among the groups. Only 48% of the patients screened were eligible for the CLASS study and of these, only 24% of the eligible patients agreed to take part in the study. Similarly in the study by Carradice out of a total of 772 patients assessed for suitability, 442 did not meet the inclusion criteria. There is no doubt that endovenous surgery will increasingly become first line treatment for patients with symptomatic superficial venous reflux specifically in patients with SSV reflux. However, given the device related limitations with endothermal techniques specifically with regard to adverse anatomical features allied to the poorer results of UGFS within the treatment of LSV reflux, there is without doubt still a role for more traditional open surgical techniques that can be delivered with good short and long term outcomes and still being delivered in a cost effective manner.

Endovenous laser ablation versus mechanochemical ablation with ClariVein(®) in the management of superficial venous insufficiency (LAMA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Endovenous thermal techniques, such as endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), are the recommended treatment for truncal varicose veins. However, a disadvantage of thermal techniques is that it requires the administration of tumescent anaesthesia, which can be uncomfortable. Non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques, such as mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) have potential benefits. MOCA combines physical damage to endothelium using a rotating wire, with the infusion of a liquid sclerosant. Preliminary experiences with MOCA showed good results and less post-procedural pain.

Methods/Design

The Laser Ablation versus Mechanochemical Ablation (LAMA) trial is a single-centre randomised controlled trial in which 140 patients will be randomly allocated to EVLA or MOCA. All patients with primary truncal superficial venous insufficiency (SVI) who meet the eligibility criteria will be invited to participate in this trial. The primary outcomes are intra-procedural pain and technical efficacy at 1 year, defined as complete occlusion of target vein segment and assessed using duplex ultrasound. Secondary outcomes are post-procedural pain, analgesia use, procedure time, clinical severity, generic and disease-specific quality of life, bruising, complications, satisfaction, cosmesis, time taken to return to daily activities and/or work, and cost-effectiveness analysis following EVLA or MOCA. Both groups will be evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis.

Discussion

The aim of the LAMA trial is to establish whether MOCA is superior to the current first-line treatment, EVLA. The two main hypotheses are that MOCA may cause less initial pain and disability allowing a more acceptable treatment with an enhanced recovery. The second hypothesis is that this may come at a cost of decreased efficacy, which may lead to increased recurrence and affect longer term quality of life, increasing the requirement for secondary procedures.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02627846, registered 8 December 2015

EudraCT number: 2015-000730-30

REC ref: 15/YH/0207

R&D ref: R1788

Pathogenesis of Varicose Veins and Implications for Clinical Management

Varicose veins (VVs) classically result from venous hypertension owing to incompetence of the major communications between the superficial and deep veins of the lower extremity. In a significant number of patients, there is no demonstrable truncal saphenous reflux and varicosities are the result of isolated perforating and nonsaphenous vein incompetence. The clinical and histologic features of VVs are the result of disruption of the normal architectural structure of the venous wall as a consequence of remodeling of the extracellular matrix (ECM) in response to increased venous distention and altered hemodynamic shear stress. Although a number of genes, growth factors, proteases, and their inhibitors known to modulate the ECM have been implicated in the pathogenesis of VVs, their etiology remains unknown. The complex variations in venous anatomy in patients with VVs require detailed vein mapping to determine the source and drainage locations of reflux if the rates of residual and recurrent varicosities are to be reduced. The distinct pathogenic mechanisms involved in the development of VVs have important implications for the management of VVs that include a wide spectrum of treatment modalities ranging from reassurance, alternative medicines, conservative management or compression therapy, and surgical or endovascular therapy.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of foam sclerotherapy, endovenous laser ablation and surgery for varicose veins: results from the Comparison of LAser, Surgery and foam Sclerotherapy (CLASS) randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Foam sclerotherapy (foam) and endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) have emerged as alternative treatments to surgery for patients with varicose veins, but uncertainty exists regarding their effectiveness in the medium to longer term.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of foam, EVLA and surgery for the treatment of varicose veins.

DESIGN

A parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) without blinding, and economic modelling evaluation.

SETTING

Eleven UK specialist vascular centres.

PARTICIPANTS

Seven hundred and ninety-eight patients with primary varicose veins (foam, n = 292; surgery, n = 294; EVLA, n = 212).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomised between all three treatment options (eight centres) or between foam and surgery (three centres).

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Disease-specific [Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ)] and generic [European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Short Form questionnaire-36 items (SF-36) physical and mental component scores] quality of life (QoL) at 6 months. Cost-effectiveness as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Quality of life at 6 weeks; residual varicose veins; Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS); complication rates; return to normal activity; truncal vein ablation rates; and costs.

RESULTS

The results appear generalisable in that participants' baseline characteristics (apart from a lower-than-expected proportion of females) and post-treatment improvement in outcomes were comparable with those in other RCTs. The health gain achieved in the AVVQ with foam was significantly lower than with surgery at 6 months [effect size -1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.97 to -0.50; p = 0.006], but was similar to that achieved with EVLA. The health gain in SF-36 mental component score for foam was worse than that for EVLA (effect size 1.54, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.06; p = 0.048) but similar to that for surgery. There were no differences in EQ-5D or SF-36 component scores in the surgery versus foam or surgery versus EVLA comparisons at 6 months. The trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis showed that, at 6 months, foam had the highest probability of being considered cost-effective at a ceiling willingness-to-pay ratio of £20,000 per QALY. EVLA was found to cost £26,107 per QALY gained versus foam, and was less costly and generated slightly more QALYs than surgery. Markov modelling using trial costs and the limited recurrence data available suggested that, at 5 years, EVLA had the highest probability (≈ 79%) of being cost-effective at conventional thresholds, followed by foam (≈ 17%) and surgery (≈ 5%). With regard to secondary outcomes, health gains at 6 weeks (p < 0.005) were greater for EVLA than for foam (EQ-5D, p = 0.004). There were fewer procedural complications in the EVLA group (1%) than after foam (7%) and surgery (8%) (p < 0.001). Participants returned to a wide range of behaviours more quickly following foam or EVLA than following surgery (p < 0.05). There were no differences in VCSS between the three treatments. Truncal ablation rates were higher for surgery (p < 0.001) and EVLA (p < 0.001) than for foam, and were similar for surgery and EVLA.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerations of both the 6-month clinical outcomes and the estimated 5-year cost-effectiveness suggest that EVLA should be considered as the treatment of choice for suitable patients.

FUTURE WORK

Five-year trial results are currently being evaluated to compare the cost-effectiveness of foam, surgery and EVLA, and to determine the recurrence rates following each treatment. This trial has highlighted the need for long-term outcome data from RCTs on QoL, recurrence rates and costs for foam sclerotherapy and other endovenous techniques compared against each other and against surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51995477.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-effectiveness of endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein in patients with uncomplicated primary varicosis

BACKGROUND

Although widely applied, the cost-effectiveness of endovenous laser ablation (EVLT) for varicose veins has not been established.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed on the evaluation of EVLT for the treatment of uncomplicated varicose veins by using published data from randomizd clinical trials regarding the costs and the quality of life. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained at 6 months following treatment was calculated. Sensitivity analysis was carried out to investigate the uncertainty associated with the results of our analysis.

RESULTS

Over the time horizon of 1-6 months, it was found that the incremental cost of EVLT compared with conventional surgery was €466.66 and the incremental effect was -0.007 QALY at 1 month, -0.0075 QALY at 3 months and 0.0 QALY at 6 months. This shows that the strategy "EVLT" was dominated by the strategy "HL/S" at any time point for the base cases analyses. The results of various alternative economic evaluations indicated that EVLT may be a potentially cost effective (i.e. incremental cost effectiveness ratio of between €12158.67 and €514721.67 per QALY, respectively) treatment option compared to conventional surgical treatment for varicose veins with a certainty between 54.9 and 98.8 %.

CONCLUSION

For patients with uncomplicated varicose veins and evidence of saphenofemoral reflux, surgical treatment for varicose veins offers a robust health benefit for relatively less costs compared to EVLT.