Reverse foam sclerotherapy of the great saphenous vein with sapheno-femoral ligation compared to standard and invagination stripping: a prospective clinical series

Effectiveness of Sclerotherapy to Cure Lower Limb Chronic Venous Insufficiency Grades 1-6: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Chronic venous insufficiency is a medical condition that impacts the venous system in the lower limbs. The primary characteristic of this condition is the continual elevation of pressure within the leg veins due to walking, which leads to a range of associated issues, such as discomfort, swelling, alterations in the skin, and the development of ulcers. Sclerotherapy has emerged as a potentially effective treatment for chronic venous insufficiency, involving the injection of a sclerosing agent into the affected veins. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of sclerotherapy in treating chronic venous insufficiency grades 1-6 in the lower limb through a systematic review and meta-analysis. The method for conducting this research is by searching articles with relevant keywords carried out through electronic databases, such as Cochrane Library, Pubmed, and Google Scholar. The researchers conducted a comprehensive search and included randomized controlled trials and clinical trials that assessed outcomes, such as patient satisfaction, clinical resolution, quality of life (QoL), and closure rates. Statistical methods were used to analyze the data. The results of the meta-analysis from 9.670 total samples showed that sclerotherapy is the most effective therapy for reducing clinical severity in lower limb venous insufficiency patients (pooled MD = -0.85, 95% CI (-1.41, -0.29), p < 0.00001, I2 = 99%). Sclerotherapy is the most effective therapy for increasing QoL if we use Venous Insufficiency Epidemiology and Economic Study-Quality of Life (VEINES-QOL) as a tool for measuring the QoL (VEINES-QOL scale types; pooled MD = 10.34, 95% CI (8.78, 11.90), p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%). Additionally, sclerotherapy is a more effective therapy for increasing QoL compared to placebo (pooled MD = -1.64, 95% CI (-2.60, -0.67), p = 0.002, I2 = 90%), deferred ablation (pooled MD = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.40, -0.03), p = 0.02), and ligation therapy (pooled MD = -1.29, 95% CI (-1.62, -0.97), p = 0.00001). It is also the most effective therapy for increasing the closure rate for 12-month duration outcome measures (pooled RR = 0.72, 95% CI (0.55, 0.94), p = 0.001, I2 = 91%). However, high heterogeneity was observed in the meta-analysis results, indicating the need for further research to address this variability. This study contributes to the existing body of knowledge on the treatment options for chronic venous insufficiency and highlights the potential of sclerotherapy as an effective treatment modality.

Interventions for great saphenous vein reflux: network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

A variety of endovascular and open surgical interventions exist to treat great saphenous vein reflux. However, comparisons of treatment outcomes have been inconsistent.

METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs was performed to compare rates of incomplete stripping or non-occlusion of the great saphenous vein with or without reflux (anatomical failure) at early, mid- and long-term follow-up; and secondary outcomes (reintervention and clinical recurrence) among intervention groups. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) method was used to estimate the probability of the intervention with the lowest anatomical failure rates.

RESULTS

Some 72 RCTs were included. Comparisons of endothermal techniques with open surgery were mostly not significantly different, except for endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), which had higher long-term anatomical failure rates (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.87, 95 per cent c.i. 1.14 to 3.07). Mechanochemical ablation had higher anatomical failure rates than radiofrequency ablation (RFA) (pooled RR 2.77, 1.38 to 5.53), and cyanoacrylate closure (CAC) had a RR 0.56 (0.34 to 0.93) times lower than either RFA or EVLA at the early term. Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy had a higher risk of anatomical failure and reintervention than open surgery, with the lowest SUCRA value, and CAC was ranked first, third and first for best intervention for anatomical failure at early, mid and long term respectively. However, clinical recurrence rates were not significantly different between all comparisons.

CONCLUSION

Mechanochemical ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy performed poorly, with higher anatomical failure rates in the long term. The other treatment modalities had similar rates of anatomical failure in the short and mid term.

The use of high venous ligation as an adjunct to endovenous therapy in the management of great saphenous vein incompetence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

In recent years, endovenous intervention has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to open venous surgery. However, endovenous intervention does not formally disconnect the deep and superficial venous systems and it is hypothesized that recurrence may be greater in the absence of high venous ligation. This study aims to compare the efficacy of a hybrid endovenous approach with adjuvant high venous ligation and standard operative intervention in the management of great saphenous incompetence.

Methods

In March 2018, Medline and Embase were systematically searched for relevant randomized controlled trials. All randomized controlled trials comparing a hybrid approach with standard operative intervention were included. Studies were required to include at least one pre-defined outcome. Data were extracted and assessed by two independent reviewers. Pooled risk ratios were calculated using a random effects model. Additional subgroup analyses were performed.

Results

Eight randomized controlled trials including 1244 patients were analysed. Pooled standardized data revealed no difference in overall recurrence (pooled RR = 1.00 [95% CI = 0.57, 1.77]), major operative morbidity (RR = 0.43 [95% CI = 0.06, 2.89]), or re-interventions (RR = 0.94 [95% CI = 0.12, 7.24]) for the hybrid group compared with standard operative intervention alone. Subgroup analysis revealed comparable short-, medium- and long-term recurrence rates between both cohorts. Furthermore, no difference in recurrence was identified when the hybrid approach was compared to open surgery alone (RR = 1.01 [95% CI = 0.63, 1.61]) or endovenous monotherapy (RR = 0.67 [95% CI = 0.04, 12.24]).

Conclusion

The use of a hybrid approach in the management of great saphenous incompetence appears to offer no recurrence, re-intervention or morbidity benefit when compared to standard operative intervention.

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.

Foam sclerotherapy of the great saphenous vein in association with pre-terminal saphenous junction ligation/division as an office-based procedure: 12-Month results

Objective Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) - one of the most frequently recommended methods for treating great saphenous vein incompetence - is easy and inexpensive. However, it achieves a lower occlusion rate compared to endovenous thermal ablation. The application of UGFS to pre-terminal great saphenous vein interruption, eliminating the saphenous stem wash out effect, enhances the short-term occlusion rate. This study explores the results of this technique at 12 months. Method Thirty great saphenous veins (28 patients) with junction incompetence, with calibres >6 mm and >30 cm reflux stem length were submitted to echo-guided pre-terminal great saphenous vein interruption and foam great saphenous vein occlusion. Participants were subjected to a 12-month post-operative review by ultrasound assessment of great saphenous vein occlusion and terminal stump stability. Comparisons were made between pre-operative and 12-month Validation of Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), photopletismography, Aberdeen questionnaire and complications. Results After 12 months, 28/30 great saphenous veins remained occluded (93%). One complete and one partial recanalization did not require retreatment. Four saphenous stumps showed a reflux during Valsalva (one due to recanalization, one limited to the stump, two with reflux in the anterior accessory saphenous vein). VCSS improved from 3.33 ± 1.64 to 0.67 ± 1.21 ( p < 0.05). Aberdeen questionnaire scores decreased from 9.44 ± 6.18 to 2.47 ± 3.77 ( p < 0.05). For photopletismographic examination, the mean venous refilling time (normal value: > 25 s) improved from 17.94 ± 11.97 to 31.4 ± 11.99 ( p < 0.05). Conclusion Applying pre-terminal great saphenous vein interruption to UGFS of the saphenous stem achieved an occlusion rate at one year similar to that of endovenous thermal ablation. The procedure is simple, effective, office based, and may be used as a 10-min prolongation to a phlebectomy.

Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy of great saphenous vein with 2% polidocanol - one-year follow-up results

Introduction

Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) of varicose veins is a useful treatment option. It is a relatively safe method in the case of limited, small varicose veins. In theory, a justified concern could be raised that the injection of an active drug into the large superficial venous vessels may potentially cause life-threatening consequences.

Aim

To assess the safety and efficacy of UGFS using a 2% solution of polidocanol (Aethoxysklerol 2%) in the case of great saphenous vein incompetence.

Material and methods

Fifty-two patients with great saphenous vein incompetence underwent ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy. The efficacy criterion was the elimination of reflux measured ultrasonographically and withdrawal or decrease of complaints: 1 week, and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after the treatment. Complications of sclerotherapy were reported during follow-up.

Results

Decrease or withdrawal of complaints of chronic venous insufficiency was reported in 96% of cases (50 patients). Disappearance or decrease of varicose veins was noted in all patients (100%). During examination after 12 months, full success of ultrasound was achieved in 38 (73%) cases, and 11 (21%) patients presented a partial desired effect according to the consensus from Tegernsee. Persistence of reflux longer than 1 s in the treated great saphenous vein was reported in 3 (6%) cases. Serious complications, such as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, dyspnea, anaphylaxis, or neurological abnormalities, were not recorded.

Conclusions

Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy of incompetent great saphenous vein and varicosities with 2% polidocanol was found to be an effective and safe method of treatment during 1 year of observation. However, longer observation is necessary.

A systematic review of the compression regimes used in randomised clinical trials following endovenous ablation

Objectives

There is insufficient evidence to inform guidelines on the optimal compression strategy following ablation for varicose veins. This study aimed to identify the practice of key opinion leaders performing randomised clinical trials involving endovenous ablation.

Method

A systematic review of MEDLINE/EMBASE/CENTRAL was performed identifying the compression strategies used in randomised clinical trials where at least one comparator arm underwent endovenous ablation.

Results

Thirty-four randomised clinical trials were identified. At least 14 different compression products were used, with at least 6 different pressures in 7 different regimes with durations from 2 to 84 days. There was no evidence of any convergence of practice over time.

Conclusions

A lack of evidence as to the optimal strategy for compression has resulted in a marked variation in clinical practice. There is no suggestion that this variation is becoming less over time indicating that experience is not helping to form a consensus and, therefore, further research is required.

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.

[Efficiency of minimally invasive methods in treatment of varicose veins]

It was analyzed the results of studies comparing an efficiency of minimally invasive methods in treatment of varicose veins of lower extremities. Based on presented data similar efficiency of minimally invasive methods and conventional surgical treatment was proved. The graph reflecting remote results was made.

Endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy versus open surgery for great saphenous vein varices

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive techniques to treat great saphenous varicose veins include ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and endovenous laser therapy (EVLT). Compared with flush saphenofemoral ligation with stripping, also referred to as open surgery or high ligation and stripping (HL/S), proposed benefits include fewer complications, quicker return to work, improved quality of life (QoL) scores, reduced need for general anaesthesia and equivalent recurrence rates. This is an update of a review first published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy have any advantages or disadvantages in comparison with open surgical saphenofemoral ligation and stripping of great saphenous vein varices.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched January 2014) and CENTRAL (2013, Issue 12). Clinical trials databases were also searched for details of ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of UGFS, EVLT, RFA and HL/S were considered for inclusion. Primary outcomes were recurrent varicosities, recanalisation, neovascularisation, technical procedure failure, patient QoL scores and associated complications.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

CN and RB independently reviewed, assessed and selected trials which met the inclusion criteria. CN and RB extracted data and used the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. CN and RB contacted trial authors to clarify details as needed.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update, eight additional studies were included making a total of 13 included studies with a combined total of 3081 randomised patients. Three studies compared UGFS with surgery, eight compared EVLT with surgery and five compared RFA with surgery (two studies had two or more comparisons with surgery). Study quality, evaluated through the six domains of risk of bias, was generally moderate for all included studies, however no study blinded participants, researchers and clinicians or outcome assessors. Also, nearly all included studies had other sources of bias. The overall quality of the evidence was moderate due to the variations in the reporting of results, which limited meaningful meta-analyses for the majority of proposed outcome measures. For the comparison UGFS versus surgery, the findings may have indicated no difference in the rate of recurrences in the surgical group when measured by clinicians, and no difference between the groups for symptomatic recurrence (odds ratio (OR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 3.12; P = 0.06 and OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.49, respectively). Recanalisation and neovascularisation were only evaluated in a single study. Recanalisation at < 4 months had an OR of 0.66 (95% CI 0.20 to 2.12), recanalisation > 4 months an OR of 5.05 (95% CI 1.67 to 15.28) and for neovascularisation an OR of 0.05 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.94). There was no difference in the rate of technical failure between the two groups (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.57). For EVLT versus surgery, there were no differences between the treatment groups for either clinician noted or symptomatic recurrence (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.22; P = 0.22 and OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.62; P = 0.67, respectively). Both early and late recanalisation were no different between the two treatment groups (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.09 to 12.77; P = 0.97 and OR 4.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 22.65; P = 0.10). Neovascularisation and technical failure were both statistically reduced in the laser treatment group (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.22; P < 0.0001 and OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.60; P = 0.0009, respectively). Long-term (five-year) outcomes were evaluated in one study so no association could be derived,but it appeared that EVLT and surgery maintained similar findings. Comparing RFA versus surgery, there were no differences in clinician noted recurrence (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.39; P = 0.47); symptomatic noted recurrence was only evaluated in a single study. There were also no differences between the treatment groups for recanalisation (early or late) (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.01 to 81.18; P = 0.87 and OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.04; P = 0.87, respectively), neovascularisation (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.65; P = 0.17) or technical failure (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.07 to 10.10; P = 0.88).QoL scores, operative complications and pain were not amenable to meta-analysis, however quality of life generally increased similarly in all treatment groups and complications were generally low, especially major complications. Pain reporting varied greatly between the studies but in general pain was similar between the treatment groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently available clinical trial evidence suggests that UGFS, EVLT and RFA are at least as effective as surgery in the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins. Due to large incompatibilities between trials and different time point measurements for outcomes, the evidence is lacking in robustness. Further randomised trials are needed, which should aim to report and analyse results in a congruent manner to facilitate future meta-analysis.

Systematic review, network meta-analysis and exploratory cost-effectiveness model of randomized trials of minimally invasive techniques versus surgery for varicose veins

BACKGROUND

A Health Technology Assessment was conducted to evaluate the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive techniques (foam sclerotherapy (FS), endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA)) for managing varicose veins, in comparison with traditional surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of minimally invasive techniques compared with other treatments, principally surgical stripping, in terms of recurrence of varicose veins, Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), pain and quality of life. Network meta-analysis and exploratory cost-effectiveness modelling were performed.

RESULTS

The literature search conducted in July 2011 identified 1453 unique citations: 31 RCTs (51 papers) satisfied the criteria for effectiveness review. Differences between treatments were negligible in terms of clinical outcomes, so the treatment with the lowest cost appears to be most cost-effective. Total FS costs were estimated to be lowest, and FS was marginally more effective than surgery. However, relative effectiveness was sensitive to the model time horizon. Threshold analysis indicated that EVLA and RFA might be considered cost-effective if their costs were similar to those for surgery. These findings are subject to various uncertainties, including the risk of bias present in the evidence base and variation in reported costs.

CONCLUSION

This assessment of currently available evidence suggests there is little to choose between surgery and the minimally invasive techniques in terms of efficacy or safety, so the relative cost of the treatments becomes one of the deciding factors. High-quality RCT evidence is needed to verify and further inform these findings.

High-Voltage Pulsed Current Electrical Stimulation in Wound Treatment

Significance: A range of studies point to the efficacy of electrical stimulation (ES) in wound treatment, but the methodology of its application has not been determined to date. This article provides a critical review of the results of clinical trials published by researchers using high-voltage pulsed current (HVPC) to treat chronic wounds. In describing the methodology of the trials, the article gives special attention to electric stimulus parameters, the frequency of procedures and total treatment duration. Recent Advances: HVPC is a monophasic pulsed electric current that consists of double-peaked impulses (5-200 μs), at very high peak-current amplitude (2-2.5 A), and high voltage (up to 500 V), at a frequency of 1-125 pulses per second. HVPC can activate "skin battery" and cellular galvanotaxis, and improves blood flow and capillary density. Critical Issues: HVPC efficacy was evaluated in conservatively treated patients with diabetic foot, venous leg and pressure ulcers (PUs), and in some patients with surgically treated venous insufficiency. Future Directions: The efficacy of HVPC as one of several biophysical energies promoting venous leg ulcer (VLU) and PU healing has been confirmed. Additional studies are needed to investigate its effect on the healing of other types of soft tissue defects. Other areas that require more research include the identification of the therapeutic effect of HVPC on infected wounds, the determination of the efficacy of cathodal versus anodal stimulation, and the minimal daily/weekly duration of HVPC required to ensure optimal promotion of wound healing.

Efficacy and safety of endovenous foam sclerotherapy: meta-analysis for treatment of venous disorders

Aim

Endovenous foam sclerotherapy (EFS) is used widely throughout the USA for the treatment of venous disorders. The purpose of the quantitative meta-analysis was to systematically and comprehensively evaluate the literature to provide accurate estimates of safety and efficacy outcomes for this procedure.

Methods

A comprehensive electronic search of published literature in several databases was performed using a wide variety of MESH headings. In addition, meeting abstracts and bibliographies of selected references were reviewed for eligible papers. Two reviewers abstracted selected treatment-related data.

Results

Of 684 identified manuscripts and abstracts reviewed, 104 papers were abstracted and analysed. More than 50% were published between 2004 and 2008. EFS was found to be effective with similar vein occlusion rates to laser therapy, but less effective than surgery. In addition, major adverse effects were rare.

Conclusions

EFS is a safe and effective therapy for the treatment of venous disorders.

Endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgery for great saphenous vein varices

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive techniques to treat great saphenous varicose veins include ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (USGFS), radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and endovenous laser therapy (EVLT). Compared with conventional surgery (high ligation and stripping (HL/S)), proposed benefits include fewer complications, quicker return to work, improved quality of life (QoL) scores, reduced need for general anaesthesia and equivalent recurrence rates.

OBJECTIVES

To review available randomised controlled clinical trials (RCT) data comparing USGFS, RFA, EVLT to HL/S for the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group searched their Specialised Register (July 2010) and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3). In addition the authors performed a search of EMBASE (July 2010). Manufacturers of EVLT, RFA and sclerosant equipment were contacted for trial data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs of EVLT, RFA, USGFS and HL/S were considered for inclusion. Primary outcomes were recurrent varicosities, recanalisation, neovascularisation, technical procedure failure or need for re-intervention, patient quality of life (QoL) scores and associated complications. Secondary outcomes were type of anaesthetic, procedure duration, hospital stay and cost.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

CN, RE, VB, PC, HB and GS independently reviewed, assessed and selected trials which met the inclusion criteria. CN and RE extracted data. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used. CN contacted trial authors to clarify details.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen reports from five studies with a combined total of 450 patients were included. Rates of recanalisation were higher following EVLT compared with HL/S, both early (within four months) (5/149 versus 0/100; odds ratio (OR) 3.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 32.64) and late recanalisation (after four months) (9/118 versus 1/80; OR 2.97 95% CI 0.52 to 16.98), although these results were not statistically significant. Technical failure rates favoured EVLT over HL/S (1/149 versus 6/100; OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.75). Recurrence following RFA showed no difference when compared with surgery. Recanalisation within four months was observed more frequently following RFA compared with HL/S although not statistically significant (4/105 versus 0/88; OR 7.86, 95% CI 0.41 to 151.28); after four months no difference was observed. Neovascularisation was observed more frequently following HL/S compared with RFA, but again this was not statistically significant (3/42 versus 8/51; OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.63). Technical failure was observed less frequently following RFA compared with HL/S although this was not statistically significant (2/106 versus 7/96; OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.01 to 34.25). No randomised clinical trials comparing HL/S versus USGFS met our study inclusion criteria. QoL scores and operative complications were not amenable to meta-analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently available clinical trial evidence suggests RFA and EVLT are at least as effective as surgery in the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins. There are insufficient data to comment on USGFS. Further randomised trials are needed. We should aim to report and analyse results in a congruent manner to facilitate future meta-analysis.

Evaluation of published reports of foam sclerotherapy: what do we know conclusively?

Objectives

The aim was to evaluate the published literature to assess what is conclusively known about optimal technique and outcome for foam sclerotherapy.

Methods

A literature search was performed for randomised controlled trials, meta-analyses and observational studies using appropriate statistical techniques with survival analysis for long-term outcome.

Results

Foam is more effective than liquid for ultrasound-guided sclerotherapy. Both sclerosants commonly used are equally effective for sclerotherapy for small veins. Ultrasound signals appear in the systemic circulation in most patients after foam sclerotherapy but do not appear to be associated with serious complications.

Conclusion

Little else is known about the optimal preparation of foamed sclerosants and the best technique for administering foam for sclerotherapy. Long-term studies are required to determine outcome for various techniques. There is an opportunity for many controlled trials to assess results.