Balneotherapy for chronic venous insufficiency

BACKGROUND

Chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) is a progressive and common disease that affects the superficial and deep venous systems of the lower limbs. CVI is characterised by valvular incompetence, reflux, venous obstruction or a combination of these symptoms, with consequent distal venous hypertension. Clinical manifestations of CVI include oedema, pain, skin changes, ulcerations and dilated skin veins in the lower limbs. It places a large financial burden on health systems. There is a wide variety of treatment options for CVI, ranging from surgery and medication to compression and physiotherapy. Balneotherapy (treatments involving water) may be a relatively cheap and efficient way to deliver physiotherapy to people with CVI. This is an update of a review first published in 2019.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of balneotherapy for the treatment of people with chronic venous insufficiency.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 28 June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing balneotherapy to no treatment or other types of treatment for CVI. We also included studies that used a combination of treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. disease severity, 2. health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and 3.

ADVERSE EFFECTS

Our secondary outcomes were 1. pain, 2. oedema, 3. leg ulcer incidence and 4. skin pigmentation changes. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine randomised controlled trials involving 1126 participants with CVI. Seven studies evaluated balneotherapy versus no treatment, one study evaluated balneotherapy versus a phlebotonic drug (melilotus officinalis), and one study evaluated balneotherapy versus dryland exercises. We downgraded our certainty in the evidence due to a lack of blinding of participants and investigators, participant-reported outcomes and imprecision. Balneotherapy versus no treatment Balneotherapy compared to no treatment probably results in slightly improved disease severity signs and symptoms scores as assessed by the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS; mean difference (MD) -1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.02 to -0.49; 3 studies, 671 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Balneotherapy compared to no treatment may improve HRQoL as assessed by the Chronic Venous Insufficiency Quality of Life Questionnaire 2 (CIVIQ2) at three months, but we are very uncertain about the results (MD -10.46, 95% CI -19.21 to -1.71; 2 studies, 153 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The intervention may improve HRQoL at 12 months (MD -4.48, 95% CI -8.61 to -0.36; 2 studies, 417 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is unclear if the intervention has an effect at six months (MD -2.99, 95% CI -6.53 to 0.56; 2 studies, 436 participants; low-certainty evidence) or nine months (MD -6.40, 95% CI -13.84 to 1.04; 1 study, 59 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Balneotherapy compared with no treatment may have little or no effect on the occurrence of adverse effects. The main adverse effects were thromboembolic events (odds radio (OR) 0.35, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.42; 3 studies, 584 participants; low-certainty evidence), erysipelas (OR 2.58, 95% CI 0.65 to 10.22; 2 studies, 519 participants; low-certainty evidence) and palpitations (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.52; 1 study, 59 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies reported any serious adverse effects. Balneotherapy compared with no treatment may improve pain scores slightly at three months (MD -1.12, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.88; 2 studies, 354 participants; low-certainty evidence); and six months (MD -1.02, 95% CI -1.25 to -0.78; 2 studies, 352 participants; low-certainty evidence). Balneotherapy compared with no treatment may have little or no effect on oedema (measured by leg circumference) at 24 days to three months, but we are very uncertain about the results (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.32 cm, 95% CI -0.70 to 1.34; 3 studies, 369 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Balneotherapy compared with no treatment may have little or no effect on the incidence of leg ulcers at 12 months, but we are very uncertain about the results (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.14; 2 studies, 449 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Balneotherapy compared with no treatment may slightly reduce skin pigmentation changes as measured by the pigmentation index at 12 months (MD -3.60, 95% CI -5.95 to -1.25; 1 study, 59 participants; low-certainty evidence). Balneotherapy versus melilotus officinalis For the comparison balneotherapy versus a phlebotonic drug (melilotus officinalis), there was little or no difference in pain symptoms (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.87; 1 study, 35 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or oedema (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.27; 1 study, 35 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but we are very uncertain about the results. The study reported no other outcomes of interest. Balneotherapy versus dryland exercise For the comparison balneotherapy versus dryland exercise, evidence from one study showed that balneotherapy may improve HRQoL as assessed by the Varicose Vein Symptom Questionnaire (VVSymQ), but we are very uncertain about the results (MD -3.00, 95% CI -3.80 to -2.20; 34 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Balneotherapy compared with dryland exercises may reduce oedema (leg volume) after five sessions of treatment (right leg: MD -840.70, 95% CI -1053.26 to -628.14; left leg: MD -767.50, 95% CI -910.07 to -624.93; 1 study, 34 participants, low-certainty evidence). The study reported no other outcomes of interest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the comparison balneotherapy versus no treatment, we identified moderate-certainty evidence that the intervention improves disease severity signs and symptoms scores slightly, low-certainty evidence that it improves pain and skin pigmentation changes, and very low-certainty evidence that it improves HRQoL. Balneotherapy compared with no treatment made little or no difference to adverse effects, oedema or incidence of leg ulcers. Evidence comparing balneotherapy with other interventions was very limited. To ensure adequate comparison between trials, future trials should standardise measurements of outcomes (e.g. disease severity signs and symptoms score, HRQoL, pain and oedema) and follow-up time points.

Statischer Stiffness-Index von zwei Multikomponenten-Bandagen-Kompressionssystemen: Ergebnisse einer randomisierten kontrollierten Studie an gesunden Probanden

Zweck Vergleich der Leistung von zwei Mehrkomponenten-Kompressionssystemen.

Methoden In dieser randomisierten, kontrollierten Studie wurden beide Beine von 25 gesunden Probanden nach dem Zufallsprinzip entweder mit einem Kompressionssystem der neuen Generation (UrgoK1, eine einzige Binde) oder einem etablierten System (UrgoK2, zwei Binden) als Kontrolle bandagiert. Beide Systeme wurden Tag und Nacht getragen. Arbeits- und Ruhegrenzflächendruck wurden unmittelbar nach dem Anlegen und nach 4 h, 24 h, 48 h und 72 h gemessen und der Static Stiffness Index (SSI) berechnet.

Ergebnisse Nach 4 Stunden wurden mit beiden Systemen ähnlich hohe Arbeitsdrücke und mäßige Ruhedrücke registriert. Im Zeitverlauf folgten die Druckänderungen und des SSI den gleichen Kurven. Nach 48 h wurde ein SSI ≥ 10 mmHg bei 88 % der getesteten und 76 % der Kontrollsysteme erreicht, was die Nichtunterlegenheit des Testsystems bestätigt (p = 0,016). Beide Systeme wiesen gute Halteeigenschaften auf und waren gut verträglich, aber das getestete System wurde von der Mehrheit der Probanden als deutlich angenehmer empfunden und schließlich dem Kontrollsystem vorgezogen.

Schlussfolgerung Das neue Kompressionssystem erreichte ähnliche Leistungen wie die Kontrolle, aber seine bessere Akzeptanz könnte ein Vorteil für die Patientencompliance sein. Diese vielversprechenden Ergebnisse müssen in einer klinischen Studie an Patienten mit Unterschenkelulcera und/oder Ödemen bestätigt werden.

The accuracy and precision of interface pressure measuring devices: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Interface pressure measuring devices are used to assess the pressures exerted by compression. Their performance, however, has not been considered as a contributing factor to reported inconsistences in the application of compression. A systematic review was undertaken to investigate the performance of commercially available devices used to measure interface pressure.

METHODS

Six databases were searched identifying 17 devices, grouped into five sensor categories.

RESULTS

A range of methodologies assessed the devices' accuracy and precision, including method of pressure application, device calibration and type of surface used. No sensor category outperformed the others, however some individual sensors showed higher accuracy and/or precision compared to others. Two major factors influenced the performance of a number of sensors: the amount of applied pressure and the calibration method used.

CONCLUSION

Inconsistences in the application of compression may reflect, in part, issues related to accuracy and precision of the devices used to assess compression.

Balneotherapy for chronic venous insufficiency

BACKGROUND

Chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) is a progressive and common disease that affects the superficial and deep venous systems of the lower limbs. CVI is characterised by valvular incompetence, reflux, venous obstruction, or a combination of these with consequent distal venous hypertension. Clinical manifestations of CVI include oedema, pain, skin changes, ulcerations and dilated skin veins in the lower limbs. It can result in a large financial burden on health systems. There is a wide variety of treatment options or therapies for CVI, ranging from surgery and medication to compression and physiotherapy. Balneotherapy (treatments involving water) is a relatively cheap option and potentially efficient way to deliver physical therapy for people with CVI.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of balneotherapy for the treatment of people with chronic venous insufficiency (CVI).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and CINAHL databases, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the Clinical Trials.gov trials register to August 2018. We searched the LILACS and IBECS databases. We also checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing balneotherapy with no treatment or other types of treatment for CVI. We also included studies that used a combination of treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed studies retrieved by the search strategies. Both review authors independently assessed selected studies for complete analysis. We resolved conflicts through discussion. We attempted to contact trial authors for missing data, obtaining additional information. For binary outcomes (leg ulcer incidence and adverse events), we presented the results using odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous outcomes (disease severity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), pain, oedema, skin pigmentation), we presented the results as a mean difference (MD) with 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven randomised controlled trials with 891 participants (outpatients in secondary care). We found no quasi-randomised controlled trials. Six studies (836 participants) evaluated balneotherapy versus no treatment. One study evaluated balneotherapy versus a phlebotonic drug (melilotus officinalis) (55 participants). There was a lack of blinding of participants and investigators, imprecision and inconsistency, which downgraded the certainty of the evidence.For the balneotherapy versus no treatment comparison, there probably was no improvement in favour of balneotherapy in disease severity signs and symptom score as assessed using the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) (MD -1.66, 95% CI -4.14 to 0.83; 2 studies, 484 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Balneotherapy probably resulted in a moderate improvement in HRQoL as assessed by the Chronic Venous Insufficiency Questionnaire 2 (CVIQ2) at three months (MD -9.38, 95% CI -18.18 to -0.57; 2 studies, 149 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), nine months (MD -10.46, 95% CI -11.81 to -9.11; 1 study; 55 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and 12 months (MD -4.99, 95% CI -9.19 to -0.78; 2 studies, 455 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in HRQoL between balneotherapy and no treatment at six months (MD -1.64, 95% CI -9.18 to 5.89; 2 studies, 445 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Balneotherapy probably slightly improved pain compared with no treatment (MD -1.23, 95% CI -1.33 to -1.13; 1 study; 390 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no clear effect related to oedema between the two groups at 24 days (MD 43.28 mL, 95% CI -102.74 to 189.30; 2 studies, 153 participants; very-low certainty evidence). There probably was no improvement in favour of balneotherapy in the incidence of leg ulcers (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.82 to 3.48; 2 studies, 449 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was probably a reduction in incidence of skin pigmentation changes in favour of balneotherapy at 12 months (pigmentation index: MD -3.59, 95% CI -4.02 to -3.16; 1 study; 59 participants; low-certainty evidence). The main complications reported included erysipelas (OR 2.58, 95% CI 0.65 to 10.22; 2 studies, 519 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), thromboembolic events (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.42; 3 studies, 584 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and palpitations (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.52; 1 study; 59 participants; low-certainty evidence), with no clear evidence of an increase in reported adverse effects with balneotherapy. There were no serious adverse events reported in any of the studies.For the balneotherapy versus a phlebotonic drug (melilotus officinalis) comparison, we observed no clear difference in pain symptoms (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.87; 1 study; 35 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and oedema (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.27; 1 study; 35 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This single study did not report on the other outcomes of interest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified moderate- to low-certainty evidence that suggests that balneotherapy may result in a moderate improvement in pain, quality of life and skin pigmentation changes and has no clear effect on disease severity signs and symptoms score, adverse effects, leg ulcers and oedema when compared with no treatment. For future studies, measurements of outcomes such as disease severity sign and symptom score, quality of life, pain and oedema and choice of time points during follow-up must be standardised for adequate comparison between trials.

Controlling compression bandaging pressure in leg ulcer research trials: A summary of the literature

Compression bandaging remains the ‘gold standard’ intervention for the treatment of venous leg ulcers. Numerous studies have investigated the effect of a large variety of compression bandaging techniques and materials on venous leg ulcer healing. However, the majority of these studies failed to monitor both actual bandage application pressures and the bandaging competency of participating clinicians. A series of literature searches to explore the methods, practices, recommendations and results of monitoring compression bandaging pressures in leg ulcer research trials were undertaken. This included investigating the reliability and validity of sub-bandage pressure monitors and the degree to which compression bandaging achieves the recommended sub-bandage pressure. The literature revealed inconsistencies regarding the monitoring of sub-bandage pressure and in sub-bandage pressures produced by clinicians. This creates difficulties when comparing study outcomes and attempting to develop evidence-based practice recommendations.

Haddenham Star Cotton: improving treatment outcomes in maintaining chronic oedema

The aim of compression therapy is to apply pressure on the skin and underlying structures to counteract the force of gravity, supporting venous and lymphatic function, to prevent or minimise oedema in the affected tissues. Compression therapy to manage lymphoedema is supported by a plethora of research, as it helps to increase the velocity of flow and lymphatic contraction of the lymphatic collecting vessels. This encourages drainage to the route of the limb, which increases fluid drainage from the tissues into the lymphatics. It is becoming more apparent that with an increase in clinical knowledge of how compression therapy works, clinicians are becoming less focused on the level of compression and more concerned with the stiffness of fabrics. This article looks at how adapting compression therapy regimes can improve patient outcomes of treatment and maintenance, while empowering patients to self-manage.

The Static Stiffness Index: an important parameter to characterise compression therapy in vivo

The compression pressure, which corresponds to the dosage of compression therapy, has been widely neglected up to now, not only concerning scientific literature, but also in clinical practice. It is evident that compression pressures in the upright position and during walking are clinically more relevant than just the resting pressure. The Static Stiffness Index (SSI), which is the difference between standing and resting pressure, is a valuable parameter characterising the efficacy of a specific compression product to narrow/occlude the venous lumen. This is a prerequisite for reducing venous reflux and exerting a massaging effect necessary to improve the venous pumping function during movement. This article provides an overview of the recent literature on the SSI, which supports the recommendations of the International Compression Club. In addition, it aims to provide an insight on the importance of the SSI in daily practice, as an educational tool as well as in defining the properties of applied compression therapy in clinical research.

Compression therapy in sport

Sportkompressionsstrümpfe werden zuneh-mend während und auch außerhalb des Sports eingesetzt. Während sich medizinische Kompressionsstrümpfe bei phlebologischen und lymphologischen Erkrankungen längst bewährt haben, ist der Nutzen von Sport-kompressionsstrümpfen für den Sportler nicht zufrieden stellend geklärt. Viele Studien, die sich mit möglichen Auswirkungen der Sportkompressionsstrümpfe auf den Athleten beschäftigen, berücksichtigen die Produkteigenschaften nur unzureichend. Im Gegensatz zu medizinischen Kompressionsstrümpfen besteht hier keine einheitliche Norm. Ferner sind die Studien in der detaillierten Thematik zum Teil nicht vergleichbar. Mal ging es um Ganzkörperkompression, mal nur um die Unterschenkel. Mal lag die Intensität im Regenerationsbereich, mal an der Belastungsgrenze. Zudem erscheint eine Differenzierung des Outcome zwischen untrainiertem Sportler und Leistungssportlern sinnvoll. Es werden zusätzlich mehr verlässliche Messverfahren benötigt, um die bisher dünne Datenlage zu verbessern. Bis dahin ist in vielerlei Hinsicht kein abschließendes Urteil zu dieser Thematik möglich.

Practical limitations of two devices used for the measurement of sub-bandage pressure: implications for clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to examine the accuracy of two hand-held devices commonly used to measure the pressures produced by extensible bandages.

METHOD

The performance of the pneumatic sensors of two devices, the Kikuhime and Picopress instruments was first examined in air in a compression chamber, then subsequently beneath multiple layers of bandages applied to standard cylinders with predetermined levels of tension.

RESULTS

In the compression chamber, both instruments provided readings that were typically within 1 mmHg of the reference value, but on curved formers in free air or beneath bandages the accuracy of both sensors was greatly reduced, influenced both by the curvature of the cylinders and the volume of air contained in the sensor capsule. The Picopress instrument recorded pressures up to 70% higher than predicted, particularly on the smaller cylinders and at the lower end of the pressure range (circa 20mmHg). At 40mmHg measured pressure were around 40% higher than predicted values in some instances. The accuracy of the Kikuhime was greatly influenced by the calibration technique but percentage deviations as high as 150% were recorded in some tests.

CONCLUSION

Pneumatic pressure sensors used to record the pressures developed beneath compression bandages are much less accurate than is commonly believed. Calibration studies using air chambers or water tanks have no relevance to the normal clinical use of these devices. These limitations should be considered by clinicians when making judgments about the performance of other medical devices such as bandages or stockings. They also call into question the validity of many published studies which rely upon such measurements.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

This project was generously supported by 3M Healthcare who provided a small research grant to assist with the costs associated with the construction of the test equipment.