-
Journal of Vascular Surgery. Venous and... Mar 2023The Society for Vascular Surgery, American Venous Forum, and American Vein and Lymphatic Society collaborated to update the 2011 Society for Vascular Surgery/American... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
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...
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.
Topics: Humans; United States; Venous Insufficiency; Treatment Outcome; Saphenous Vein; Varicose Veins; Sclerotherapy; Vascular Surgical Procedures; Lower Extremity; Cardiology
PubMed: 36326210
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2022.09.004 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery. Venous and... Jan 2024The Society for Vascular Surgery, the American Venous Forum, and the American Vein and Lymphatic Society recently published Part I of the 2022 clinical practice... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
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.
Topics: Humans; United States; Venous Insufficiency; Radiology, Interventional; Sclerotherapy; Saphenous Vein; Treatment Outcome; Varicose Veins; Vascular Surgical Procedures; Lower Extremity; Cardiology
PubMed: 37652254
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2023.08.011 -
Seminars in Ultrasound, CT, and MR Feb 2021Pelvic congestion syndrome (PCS) is often an underdiagnosed cause of chronic pelvic pain in female patients with radiology detection of gonadal vein dilatation and... (Review)
Review
Pelvic congestion syndrome (PCS) is often an underdiagnosed cause of chronic pelvic pain in female patients with radiology detection of gonadal vein dilatation and parauterine varices. It may occur either alone or in combination with vulvar varicosities and/or lower extremity venous insufficiency. Although transcatheter venography represent the gold standard for PCS diagnosis, it is performed after inconclusive noninvasive imaging such as Doppler Ultrasound, CT scan, and MRI. Once diagnosis has been confirmed, management of PCS include medical, surgical, and endovascular therapy. Medical and surgical treatments have been shown to be less effective than transcatheter pelvic vein embolization. This latter has been proven to be a safe, effective, and durable therapy for the treatment of PCS. Numerous studies have shown their results in PCS endovascular treatment, but neither of them has been subjected to an adequate randomized controlled trial. A well-designed randomized controlled trial is urgently needed to assess transcatheter embolization clinical success.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Diagnostic Imaging; Female; Humans; Pelvic Pain; Pelvis; Syndrome; Varicose Veins; Vascular Diseases
PubMed: 33541587
DOI: 10.1053/j.sult.2020.07.001 -
Journal of the American Nutrition... Jul 2022The purpose of this article was to review the different preventive measures and treatments for varicose veins disease. Varicose veins are tortuous, enlarged veins that... (Review)
Review
The purpose of this article was to review the different preventive measures and treatments for varicose veins disease. Varicose veins are tortuous, enlarged veins that are usually found in the lower extremities damages blood vessels leading to its painful swelling cause's blood clots, affecting people over increasing prevalence with age and affects the proficiency, productivity, and life quality of a person. Prolonged standing and obesity are the major reason for varicose vein disease. The mechanisms, prevention, risk factors, complications, and treatment of varicose veins are explained in this review. Various types of treatments such as endovascular, surgical, and herbal treatments improve quality of life and reduce the secondary complications of varicose veins. Besides these methods of treatments, varicose vein disease can be prevented by doing regular yoga/exercise and consumption of several fruits and vegetables such as Grapes, blackberries, avocados, ginger, and rosemary. Typically, varicose veins can be a benign process with several problems that can influence the life quality of an individual that can lead to potentially life-threatening complications. However, there are numerous surgical, endovascular, and chemical treatments that improve quality of life and decrease secondary complications of varicose veins. Patients with varicose veins should take an antioxidant medicament from the flavonoid groups to reduce the arterial blood pressure value, risk of atherosclerosis development, prevent thrombotic incidents.Key teaching pointsChronic venous disease is a pathological state of vein circulatory systems of the lower limbsProlonged standing and obesity are the major reason for varicose vein diseaseEndovascular, surgical, and herbal treatments improve quality of life and reduce the secondary complications of varicose veinsVenoactive drugs such as flavonoids, saponins, and others have a therapeutic effect on chronic venous disordersPhlebotropic drugs are semi-synthetic substances widely used in different states of chronic venous insufficiencyFood rich in phytoconstituents are more effective in varicose veins.
Topics: Humans; Varicose Veins
PubMed: 34242131
DOI: 10.1080/07315724.2021.1909510 -
Annals of Medicine Dec 2022Pelvic venous disorders (PeVD) also known as Pelvic Congestion Syndrome (PCS) affect a great number of women worldwide and often remain undiagnosed. Gynecological... (Review)
Review
Pelvic venous disorders (PeVD) also known as Pelvic Congestion Syndrome (PCS) affect a great number of women worldwide and often remain undiagnosed. Gynecological symptoms caused by vascular background demand a holistic approach for appropriate diagnosis. This is a relevant cause of chronic pelvic pain and atypical varicose veins. The diagnosis is based on imaging studies and their correlation with clinical presentation. Although the aetiology of PCS still remains unclear, it may result from a combination of factors including genetic predisposition, anatomical abnormalities, hormonal factors, damage to the vein wall, valve dysfunction, reverse blood flow, hypertension and dilatation. The following paper describes an in-depth overview of anatomy, pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of PCS. In recent years, minimally invasive interventions have become the method of first choice for the treatment of this condition. The efficacy of a percutaneous approach is high and it is rarely associated with serious complications.Key MessagesPelvic venous disorders demand a holistic approach for appropriate diagnosis.This article takes an in-depth look at existing therapies of Pelvic Congestion Syndrome and pathophysiology of this condition.Embolisation is an effective and safe treatment option.
Topics: Embolization, Therapeutic; Female; Humans; Pelvic Pain; Pelvis; Varicose Veins
PubMed: 34935563
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2021.2014556 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery. Venous and... May 2020The CEAP (Clinical-Etiology-Anatomy-Pathophysiology) classification is an internationally accepted standard for describing patients with chronic venous disorders and it...
The CEAP (Clinical-Etiology-Anatomy-Pathophysiology) classification is an internationally accepted standard for describing patients with chronic venous disorders and it has been used for reporting clinical research findings in scientific journals. Developed in 1993, updated in 1996, and revised in 2004, CEAP is a classification system based on clinical manifestations of chronic venous disorders, on current understanding of the etiology, the involved anatomy, and the underlying venous pathology. As the evidence related to these aspects of venous disorders, and specifically of chronic venous diseases (CVD, C2-C6) continue to develop, the CEAP classification needs periodic analysis and revisions. In May of 2017, the American Venous Forum created a CEAP Task Force and charged it to critically analyze the current classification system and recommend revisions, where needed. Guided by four basic principles (preservation of the reproducibility of CEAP, compatibility with prior versions, evidence-based, and practical for clinical use), the Task Force has adopted the revised Delphi process and made several changes. These changes include adding Corona phlebectatica as the C4c clinical subclass, introducing the modifier "r" for recurrent varicose veins and recurrent venous ulcers, and replacing numeric descriptions of the venous segments by their common abbreviations. This report describes all these revisions and the rationale for making these changes.
Topics: Chronic Disease; Consensus; Delphi Technique; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Postthrombotic Syndrome; Predictive Value of Tests; Prognosis; Severity of Illness Index; Terminology as Topic; Varicose Veins; Veins; Venous Insufficiency
PubMed: 32113854
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2019.12.075 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Varicose veins are enlarged and tortuous veins, affecting up to one-third of the world's population. They can be a cause of chronic venous insufficiency, which is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Varicose veins are enlarged and tortuous veins, affecting up to one-third of the world's population. They can be a cause of chronic venous insufficiency, which is characterised by oedema, pigmentation, eczema, lipodermatosclerosis, atrophie blanche, and healed or active venous ulcers. Injection sclerotherapy (liquid or foam) is widely used for treatment of varicose veins aiming to transform the varicose veins into a fibrous cord. However, there is limited evidence regarding its effectiveness and safety, especially in patients with more severe disease. This is the second update of the review first published in 2002.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of injection sclerotherapy for the treatment of varicose veins.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, and LILACS databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries, on 20 July 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (including cluster-randomised trials and first phase cross-over studies) that used injection sclerotherapy for the treatment of varicose veins.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed, selected and extracted data. Disagreements were cross-checked by a third review author. We used Cochrane's Risk of bias tool to assess the risk of bias. The outcomes of interest were cosmetic appearance, complications, residual varicose veins, quality of life (QoL), persistence of symptoms, and recurrent varicose veins. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the worst-case-scenario for dichotomous data imputation for intention-to-treat analyses. For continuous outcomes, we used the 'last-observation-carried-forward' for data imputation if there was balanced loss to follow-up. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 new RCTs for this update, bringing the total to 28 studies involving 4278 participants. The studies differed in their design, and in which sclerotherapy method, agent or concentration was used. None of the included RCTs compared sclerotherapy to no intervention or to any pharmacological therapy. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded for risk of bias, low number of studies providing information for each outcome, low number of participants, clinical differences between the study participants, and wide CIs. Sclerotherapy versus placebo Foam sclerotherapy may improve cosmetic appearance as measured by IPR-V (independent photography review - visible varicose veins scores) compared to placebo (polidocanol 1%: mean difference (MD) -0.76, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.60; 2 studies, 223 participants; very low-certainty evidence); however, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) rates may be slightly increased in this intervention group (RR 5.10, 95% CI 1.30 to 20.01; 3 studies, 302 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Residual varicose vein rates may be decreased following polidocanol 1% compared to placebo (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.29; 2 studies, 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Following polidocanol 1% use, there may be a possible improvement in QoL as assessed using the VEINES-QOL/Sym questionnaire (MD 12.41, 95% CI 9.56 to 15.26; 3 studies, 299 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and possible improvement in varicose vein symptoms as assessed using the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) (MD -3.25, 95% CI -3.90 to -2.60; 2 studies, 223 participants; low-certainty evidence). Recurrent varicose veins were not reported for this comparison. Foam sclerotherapy versus foam sclerotherapy with different concentrations Three individual RCTs reported no evidence of a difference in cosmetic appearance after comparing different concentrations of the intervention; data could not be pooled for two of the three studies (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.47; 1 study, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there was no clear difference in rates of thromboembolic complications when comparing one foam concentration with another (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.41 to 5.33; 3 studies, 371 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Three RCTs investigating higher concentrations of polidocanol foam indicated the rate of residual varicose veins may be slightly decreased in the polidocanol 3% foam group compared to 1% (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.04; 3 studies, 371 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No clear improvement in QoL was detected. Two RCTs reported improved VCSS scores with increasing concentrations of foam. Persistence of symptoms were not reported for this comparison. There was no clear difference in recurrent varicose vein rates (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.32; 1 study, 148 participants; low-certainty evidence). Foam sclerotherapy versus liquid sclerotherapy One RCT reported on cosmetic appearance with no evidence of a difference between foam or liquid sclerotherapy (patient satisfaction scale MD 0.2, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.67; 1 study, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the RCTs investigated thromboembolic complications, QoL or persistence of symptoms. Six studies individually showed there may be a benefit to polidocanol 3% foam over liquid sclerotherapy in reducing residual varicose vein rate; pooling data from two studies showed a RR of 0.51, with 95% CI 0.41 to 0.65; 203 participants; very low-certainty evidence. One study reported no clear difference in recurrent varicose vein rates when comparing sodium tetradecyl sulphate (STS) foam or liquid (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.42; 1 study, 286 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sclerotherapy versus sclerotherapy with different substances Four RCTs compared sclerotherapy versus sclerotherapy with any other substance. We were unable to combine the data due to heterogeneity or assess the certainty of the evidence due to insufficient data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a very low to low-certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, sclerotherapy is an effective and safe treatment for varicose veins concerning cosmetic appearance, residual varicose veins, QoL, and persistence of symptoms. Rates of DVT may be slightly increased and there were no data concerning recurrent varicose veins. There was limited or no evidence for one concentration of foam compared to another; foam compared to liquid sclerotherapy; foam compared to any other substance; or one technique compared to another. There is a need for high-quality trials using standardised sclerosant doses, with clearly defined core outcome sets, and measurement time points to increase the certainty of the evidence.
Topics: Humans; Sclerotherapy; Varicose Ulcer; Varicose Veins; Veins; Venous Insufficiency
PubMed: 34883526
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001732.pub3 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery. Venous and... Sep 2022Several diagnostic tests and treatment options for patients with lower extremity varicose veins have existed for decades. The purpose of this systematic review was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
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.
Topics: Cyanoacrylates; Endovascular Procedures; Humans; Laser Therapy; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Quality of Life; Saphenous Vein; Sclerotherapy; Treatment Outcome; United States; Varicose Veins; Venous Insufficiency
PubMed: 34450355
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2021.08.011 -
Portuguese Journal of Cardiac Thoracic... Apr 2023
Topics: Humans; Varicose Veins; Saphenous Vein
PubMed: 37029938
DOI: 10.48729/pjctvs.334 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery. Venous and... May 2021As the importance of pelvic venous disorders (PeVD) has been increasingly recognized, progress in the field has been limited by the lack of a valid and reliable...
The Symptoms-Varices-Pathophysiology classification of pelvic venous disorders: A report of the American Vein & Lymphatic Society International Working Group on Pelvic Venous Disorders.
As the importance of pelvic venous disorders (PeVD) has been increasingly recognized, progress in the field has been limited by the lack of a valid and reliable classification instrument. Misleading historical nomenclature, such as the May-Thurner, pelvic congestion, and nutcracker syndromes, often fails to recognize the interrelationship of many pelvic symptoms and their underlying pathophysiology. Based on a perceived need, the American Vein and Lymphatic Society convened an international, multidisciplinary panel charged with the development of a discriminative classification instrument for PeVD. This instrument, the Symptoms-Varices-Pathophysiology ("SVP") classification for PeVD, includes three domains-Symptoms (S), Varices (V), and Pathophysiology (P), with the pathophysiology domain encompassing the Anatomic (A), Hemodynamic (H), and Etiologic (E) features of the patient's disease. An individual patient's classification is designated as SVP. For patients with pelvic origin lower extremity signs or symptoms, the SVP instrument is complementary to and should be used in conjunction with the Clinical-Etiologic-Anatomic-Physiologic (CEAP) classification. The SVP instrument accurately defines the diverse patient populations with PeVD, an important step in improving clinical decision making, developing disease-specific outcome measures and identifying homogenous patient populations for clinical trials.
Topics: Decision Support Techniques; Evidence-Based Medicine; Hemodynamics; Humans; May-Thurner Syndrome; Pelvis; Phlebography; Predictive Value of Tests; Renal Nutcracker Syndrome; Terminology as Topic; Varicose Veins; Veins; Venous Insufficiency
PubMed: 33529720
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2020.12.084