-
Journal of the American College of... Jan 2022The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention...
2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.
AIM
The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.
STRUCTURE
Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.
Topics: American Heart Association; Cardiology; Coronary Artery Disease; Humans; Myocardial Revascularization; United States
PubMed: 34895950
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.09.006 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery Aug 2018The optimal strategy for revascularization in infrainguinal chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) remains debatable. Comparative trials are scarce, and daily... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The optimal strategy for revascularization in infrainguinal chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) remains debatable. Comparative trials are scarce, and daily decisions are often made using anecdotal or low-quality evidence.
METHODS
We searched multiple databases through May 7, 2017, for prospective studies with at least 1-year follow-up that evaluated patient-relevant outcomes of infrainguinal revascularization procedures in adults with CLTI. Independent pairs of reviewers selected articles and extracted data. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool outcomes across studies.
RESULTS
We included 44 studies that enrolled 8602 patients. Periprocedural outcomes (mortality, amputation, major adverse cardiac events) were similar across treatment modalities. Overall, patients with infrapopliteal disease had higher patency rates of great saphenous vein graft at 1 and 2 years (primary: 87%, 78%; secondary: 94%, 87%, respectively) compared with all other interventions. Prosthetic bypass outcomes were notably inferior to vein bypass in terms of amputation and patency outcomes, especially for below knee targets at 2 years and beyond. Drug-eluting stents demonstrated improved patency over bare-metal stents in infrapopliteal arteries (primary patency: 73% vs 50% at 1 year), and was at least comparable to balloon angioplasty (66% primary patency). Survival, major amputation, and amputation-free survival at 2 years were broadly similar between endovascular interventions and vein bypass, with prosthetic bypass having higher rates of limb loss. Overall, the included studies were at moderate to high risk of bias and the quality of evidence was low.
CONCLUSIONS
There are major limitations in the current state of evidence guiding treatment decisions in CLTI, particularly for severe anatomic patterns of disease treated via endovascular means. Periprocedural (30-day) mortality, amputation, and major adverse cardiac events are broadly similar across modalities. Patency rates are highest for saphenous vein bypass, whereas both patency and limb salvage are markedly inferior for prosthetic grafting to below the knee targets. Among endovascular interventions, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and drug-eluting stents appear comparable for focal infrapopliteal disease, although no studies included long segment tibial lesions. Heterogeneity in patient risk, severity of limb threat, and anatomy treated renders direct comparison of outcomes from the current literature challenging. Future studies should incorporate both limb severity and anatomic staging to best guide clinical decision making in CLTI.
Topics: Amputation, Surgical; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Chronic Disease; Clinical Decision-Making; Drug-Eluting Stents; Endovascular Procedures; Evidence-Based Medicine; Graft Occlusion, Vascular; Humans; Ischemia; Limb Salvage; Patient Selection; Peripheral Arterial Disease; Risk Factors; Saphenous Vein; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29804736
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.01.066 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021Great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence, causing varicose veins and venous insufficiency, makes up the majority of lower-limb superficial venous diseases. Treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence, causing varicose veins and venous insufficiency, makes up the majority of lower-limb superficial venous diseases. Treatment options for GSV incompetence include surgery (also known as high ligation and stripping), laser and radiofrequency ablation, and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy. Newer treatments include cyanoacrylate glue, mechanochemical ablation, and endovenous steam ablation. These techniques avoid the need for a general anaesthetic, and may result in fewer complications and improved quality of life (QoL). These treatments should be compared to inform decisions on treatment for varicosities in the GSV. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), endovenous steam ablation (EVSA), ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), cyanoacrylate glue, mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) and high ligation and stripping (HL/S) for the treatment of varicosities of the great saphenous vein (GSV).
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 2 November 2020. We undertook reference checking to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) treating participants for varicosities of the GSV using EVLA, RFA, EVSA, UGFS, cyanoacrylate glue, MOCA or HL/S. Key outcomes of interest are technical success, recurrence, complications and QoL.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials, applied Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 11 new RCTs for this update. Therefore, we included 24 RCTs with 5135 participants. Duration of follow-up ranged from five weeks to eight years. Five comparisons included single trials. For comparisons with more than one trial, we could only pool data for 'technical success' and 'recurrence' due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and time points reported. All trials had some risk of bias concerns. Here we report the clinically most relevant comparisons. EVLA versus RFA Technical success was comparable up to five years (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.38; 5 studies, 780 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); over five years, there was no evidence of a difference (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.41; 1 study, 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported recurrence, showing no clear difference at three years (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.99; 291 participants; low-certainty evidence), but a benefit for RFA may be seen at five years (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.52 to 5.06; 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). EVLA versus UGFS Technical success may be better in EVLA participants up to five years (OR 6.13, 95% CI 0.98 to 38.27; 3 studies, 588 participants; low-certainty evidence), and over five years (OR 6.47, 95% CI 2.60 to 16.10; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in recurrence up to three years and at five years (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.36; 2 studies, 443 participants; and OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.87; 2 studies, 418 participants; very low-certainty evidence, respectively). EVLA versus HL/S Technical success may be better in EVLA participants up to five years (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.23; 6 studies, 1051 participants; low-certainty evidence). No clear difference in technical success was seen at five years and beyond (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.50; 5 studies, 874 participants; low-certainty evidence). Recurrence was comparable within three years and at 5 years (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.29; 7 studies, 1459 participants; and OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.76; 7 studies, 1267 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). RFA versus MOCA There was no clear difference in technical success (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.06 to 54.15; 3 studies, 435 participants; low-certainty evidence), or recurrence (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.81; 3 studies, 389 participants; low-certainty evidence). Long-term data are not available. RFA versus HL/S No clear difference in technical success was detected up to five years (OR 5.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 50.81; 2 studies, 318 participants; low-certainty evidence); over five years, there was no evidence of a difference (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.69; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence). No clear difference in recurrence was detected up to three years (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.51; 4 studies, 546 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but a possible long-term benefit for RFA was seen (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.75; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence). UGFS versus HL/S Meta-analysis showed a possible benefit for HL/S compared with UGFS in technical success up to five years (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.94; 4 studies, 954 participants; low-certainty evidence), and over five years (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.30; 3 studies, 525 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No clear difference was detected in recurrence up to three years (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.77; 3 studies, 822 participants; low-certainty evidence), and after five years (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.71; 3 studies, 639 participants; low-certainty evidence). Complications were generally low for all interventions, but due to different definitions and time points, we were unable to draw conclusions (very-low certainty evidence). Similarly, most studies evaluated QoL but used different questionnaires at variable time points. Rates of QoL improvement were comparable between interventions at follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our conclusions are limited due to the relatively small number of studies for each comparison and differences in outcome definitions and time points reported. Technical success was comparable between most modalities. EVLA may offer improved technical success compared to UGFS or HL/S. HL/S may have improved technical success compared to UGFS. No evidence of a difference was detected in recurrence, except for a possible long-term benefit for RFA compared to EVLA or HL/S. Studies which provide more evidence on the breadth of treatments are needed. Future trials should seek to standardise clinical terminology of outcome measures and the time points at which they are measured.
Topics: Catheter Ablation; Female; Humans; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Saphenous Vein; Sclerotherapy; Varicose Veins; Venous Insufficiency
PubMed: 34378180
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005624.pub4 -
Phlebology Apr 2018Objective Medical compression stockings are a standard, non-invasive treatment option for all venous and lymphatic diseases. The aim of this consensus document is to... (Review)
Review
Objective Medical compression stockings are a standard, non-invasive treatment option for all venous and lymphatic diseases. The aim of this consensus document is to provide up-to-date recommendations and evidence grading on the indications for treatment, based on evidence accumulated during the past decade, under the auspices of the International Compression Club. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted and, using PRISMA guidelines, 51 relevant publications were selected for an evidence-based analysis of an initial 2407 unrefined results. Key search terms included: 'acute', CEAP', 'chronic', 'compression stockings', 'compression therapy', 'lymph', 'lymphatic disease', 'vein' and 'venous disease'. Evidence extracted from the publications was graded initially by the panel members individually and then refined at the consensus meeting. Results Based on the current evidence, 25 recommendations for chronic and acute venous disorders were made. Of these, 24 recommendations were graded as: Grade 1A (n = 4), 1B (n = 13), 1C (n = 2), 2B (n = 4) and 2C (n = 1). The panel members found moderately robust evidence for medical compression stockings in patients with venous symptoms and prevention and treatment of venous oedema. Robust evidence was found for prevention and treatment of venous leg ulcers. Recommendations for stocking-use after great saphenous vein interventions were limited to the first post-interventional week. No randomised clinical trials are available that document a prophylactic effect of medical compression stockings on the progression of chronic venous disease (CVD). In acute deep vein thrombosis, immediate compression is recommended to reduce pain and swelling. Despite conflicting results from a recent study to prevent post-thrombotic syndrome, medical compression stockings are still recommended. In thromboprophylaxis, the role of stockings in addition to anticoagulation is limited. For the maintenance phase of lymphoedema management, compression stockings are the most important intervention. Conclusion The beneficial value of applying compression stockings in the treatment of venous and lymphatic disease is supported by this document, with 19/25 recommendations rated as Grade 1 evidence. For recommendations rated with Grade 2 level of evidence, further studies are needed.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Consensus; Humans; Lymphatic Diseases; Postthrombotic Syndrome; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Stockings, Compression
PubMed: 28549402
DOI: 10.1177/0268355516689631 -
JAMA Aug 2022The role of ticagrelor with or without aspirin after coronary artery bypass graft surgery remains unclear. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The role of ticagrelor with or without aspirin after coronary artery bypass graft surgery remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the risks of vein graft failure and bleeding associated with ticagrelor dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) or ticagrelor monotherapy vs aspirin among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to June 1, 2022, without language restriction.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of ticagrelor DAPT or ticagrelor monotherapy vs aspirin on saphenous vein graft failure.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Individual patient data provided by each trial were synthesized into a combined data set for independent analysis. Multilevel logistic regression models were used.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary analysis assessed the incidence of saphenous vein graft failure per graft (primary outcome) in RCTs comparing ticagrelor DAPT with aspirin. Secondary outcomes were saphenous vein graft failure per patient and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events. A supplementary analysis included RCTs comparing ticagrelor monotherapy with aspirin.
RESULTS
A total of 4 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, involving 1316 patients and 1668 saphenous vein grafts. Of the 871 patients in the primary analysis, 435 received ticagrelor DAPT (median age, 67 years [IQR, 60-72 years]; 65 women [14.9%]; 370 men [85.1%]) and 436 received aspirin (median age, 66 years [IQR, 61-73 years]; 63 women [14.5%]; 373 men [85.5%]). Ticagrelor DAPT was associated with a significantly lower incidence of saphenous vein graft failure (11.2%) per graft than was aspirin (20%; difference, -8.7% [95% CI, -13.5% to -3.9%]; OR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.74]; P < .001) and was associated with a significantly lower incidence of saphenous vein graft failure per patient (13.2% vs 23.0%, difference, -9.7% [95% CI, -14.9% to -4.4%]; OR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.74]; P < .001). Ticagrelor DAPT (22.1%) was associated with a significantly higher incidence of BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events than was aspirin (8.7%; difference, 13.3% [95% CI, 8.6% to 18.0%]; OR, 2.98 [95% CI, 1.99 to 4.47]; P < .001), but not BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding events (1.8% vs 1.8%, difference, 0% [95% CI, -1.8% to 1.8%]; OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.37 to 2.69]; P = .99). Compared with aspirin, ticagrelor monotherapy was not significantly associated with saphenous vein graft failure (19.3% vs 21.7%, difference, -2.6% [95% CI, -9.1% to 3.9%]; OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.58 to 1.27]; P = .44) or BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events (8.9% vs 7.3%, difference, 1.7% [95% CI, -2.8% to 6.1%]; OR, 1.25 [95% CI, 0.69 to 2.29]; P = .46).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery, adding ticagrelor to aspirin was associated with a significantly decreased risk of vein graft failure. However, this was accompanied by a significantly increased risk of clinically important bleeding.
Topics: Aged; Aspirin; Coronary Artery Bypass; Female; Graft Occlusion, Vascular; Hemorrhage; Humans; Male; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Saphenous Vein; Ticagrelor; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35943473
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2022.11966 -
Journal of Cardiac Surgery Dec 2022Saphenous vein grafts (SVG) are the most commonly used conduits in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Graft failure is observed in up to 50% of SVG at 10 years... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Saphenous vein grafts (SVG) are the most commonly used conduits in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Graft failure is observed in up to 50% of SVG at 10 years after surgery. Whether a difference in SVG patency rates exists between men and women remains unclear.
METHODS
We performed a study-level meta-analysis to evaluate sex-related differences in follow-up patency rates of SVG after CABG. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies on CABG that reported follow-up SVG patency rates in men and women. The primary outcome was SVG patency rates by sex at follow-up.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies totaling 8235 patients and 14,781 SVG grafts were included. There was no significant difference in follow-up SVG patency rates between men and women (incidence rate ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.90-1.03, p = .24), with mean angiographic follow-up of 33.5 months (standard deviation 29.2). Leave-one-out and cumulative analysis were consistent with the main analysis. We concluded that follow-up SVG patency rate is similar between men and women undergoing CABG.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Vascular Patency; Saphenous Vein; Sex Characteristics; Coronary Angiography; Coronary Artery Bypass; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36378892
DOI: 10.1111/jocs.17195 -
European Journal of Vascular and... Sep 2018A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine the incidence of thrombotic events following great saphenous vein (GSV) endovenous thermal ablation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine the incidence of thrombotic events following great saphenous vein (GSV) endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA).
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase and conference abstracts were searched. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials and case series that included at least 100 patients who underwent GSV EVTA (laser ablation or radiofrequency ablation [RFA]) with duplex ultrasound (DUS) within 30 days. The systematic review focused on the complications of endovenous heat induced thrombosis (EHIT), deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE). The primary outcome for the meta-analysis was deep venous thrombotic events which were defined as DVT or EHIT Type 2, 3, or 4. Secondary outcomes for the meta-analysis were EHIT Type 2, 3, or 4, DVT and PE. Subgroup analyses were performed for both the RFA and EVLA groups. Pooled proportions were calculated using random effects modelling.
RESULTS
Fifty-two studies (16,398 patients) were included. Thrombotic complications occurred infrequently. Deep venous thrombotic events occurred in 1.7% of cases (95% CI 0.9-2.7%) (25 studies; 10,012 patients; 274 events). EHIT Type 2, 3, or 4 occurred in 1.4% of cases (95% CI 0.8-2.3%) (26 studies; 10,225 patients; 249 events). DVT occurred in 0.3% of cases (95% CI = 0.2%-0.5%) (49 studies; 15,676 patients; 48 events). PE occurred in 0.1% of cases (95% CI = 0.1-0.2%) (29 studies; 8223 patients; 3 events). Similar results were found when the RFA and EVLA groups were analysed separately.
CONCLUSION
Thrombotic events occur infrequently following GSV EVTA. Given the large numbers of procedures worldwide and the potential for serious consequences, further research is needed on the burden of these complications and their management.
Topics: Adult; Catheter Ablation; Endovascular Procedures; Female; Hot Temperature; Humans; Incidence; Laser Therapy; Male; Middle Aged; Risk Factors; Saphenous Vein; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonography, Doppler, Duplex; Varicose Veins; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 29895399
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2018.05.008 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery. Venous and... Nov 2017Endothermal treatment of the great saphenous vein (GSV) has become the first-line treatment for superficial venous reflux. Nonthermal ablation has potential benefits for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Endothermal treatment of the great saphenous vein (GSV) has become the first-line treatment for superficial venous reflux. Nonthermal ablation has potential benefits for acceptability by patients and decreased risk of nerve injury. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of mechanochemical endovenous ablation (MOCA) and cyanoacrylate vein ablation (CAVA) for GSV incompetence.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane databases were searched for papers published between January 1966 and December 2016. Eligible articles were prospective studies that included patients treated for GSV incompetence and described the primary outcome. Exclusion criteria were full text not available, case reports, retrospective studies, small series (n < 10), reviews, abstracts, animal studies, studies of small saphenous vein incompetence, and recurrent GSV incompetence. Primary outcome was anatomic success. Secondary outcomes were initial technical success, Venous Clinical Severity Score, Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire score, and complications.
RESULTS
Fifteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Pooled anatomic success for MOCA and CAVA was 94.7% and 94.8% at 6 months and 94.1% and 89.0% at 1 year, respectively. Venous Clinical Severity Score and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire score significantly improved after treatment with MOCA and CAVA.
CONCLUSIONS
These results are promising for these novel techniques that could serve as alternatives for thermal ablation techniques. However, to determine their exact role in clinical practice, high-quality randomized controlled trials comparing these novel modalities with well-established techniques are required.
Topics: Ablation Techniques; Aged; Cyanoacrylates; Endovascular Procedures; Epidemiologic Methods; Female; Humans; Male; Saphenous Vein; Tissue Adhesives; Venous Insufficiency
PubMed: 29037363
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2017.05.022 -
Phlebology Jun 2024The objective of this study is to systemically review the literature on Anterior Saphenous Vein (ASV) reflux treatment and insurance impediments to treatment coverage. (Review)
Review
The anterior saphenous vein. Part 3. Systematic review of the literature and payor coverage policies. Endorsed by the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, the American Venous Forum and the International Union of Phlebology.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to systemically review the literature on Anterior Saphenous Vein (ASV) reflux treatment and insurance impediments to treatment coverage.
METHODS
A literature search was performed using a PRISMA framework. In addition, a cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for ASV treatment was evaluated.
RESULTS
Published evidence and treatment considerations in the literature for ASV treatment are discussed. In 155 of 226 (68.6%) insurance policies reviewed coverage of ASV ablation was allowed while 62/226 (27.4%) did not specify coverage and 9/226 (4.0%) specified ASV treatment was not covered. Of the 155 that provide ASV coverage, 98 (62.2%) provide coverage with criteria such as requiring prior treatment of the great saphenous vein.
CONCLUSIONS
Vein treatment experts should continue to advocate to insurance carriers to update their varicose vein treatment policies to reflect the substantial clinical evidence so that patients with ASV reflux can be appropriately treated.
Topics: Humans; Saphenous Vein; Varicose Veins; Insurance Coverage; Venous Insufficiency; Societies, Medical; United States
PubMed: 38526968
DOI: 10.1177/02683555231223281