Timing and modality of the sclerosing agents binding to the human proteins: laboratory analysis and clinical evidences

Sclerotherapy of lower limb veins: Indications, contraindications and treatment strategies to prevent complications - A consensus document of the International Union of Phlebology-2023

BACKGROUND

Sclerotherapy is a non-invasive procedure commonly used to treat superficial venous disease, vascular malformations and other ectatic vascular lesions. While extremely rare, sclerotherapy may be complicated by serious adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To categorise contraindications to sclerotherapy based on the available scientific evidence.

METHODS

An international, multi-disciplinary panel of phlebologists reviewed the available scientific evidence and developed consensus where evidence was lacking or limited.

RESULTS

Absolute Contraindications to sclerotherapy where the risk of harm would outweigh any benefits include known hypersensitivity to sclerosing agents; acute venous thromboembolism (VTE); severe neurological or cardiac adverse events complicating a previous sclerotherapy treatment; severe acute systemic illness or infection; and critical limb ischaemia. Relative Contraindications to sclerotherapy where the potential benefits of the proposed treatment would outweigh the risk of harm or the risks may be mitigated by other measures include pregnancy, postpartum and breastfeeding; hypercoagulable states with risk of VTE; risk of neurological adverse events; risk of cardiac adverse events and poorly controlled chronic systemic illness. Conditions and circumstances where Warnings and Precautions should be considered before proceeding with sclerotherapy include risk of cutaneous necrosis or cosmetic complications such as pigmentation and telangiectatic matting; intake of medications such as the oral contraceptive and other exogenous oestrogens, disulfiram and minocycline; and psychosocial factors and psychiatric comorbidities that may increase the risk of adverse events or compromise optimal treatment outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Sclerotherapy can achieve safe clinical outcomes provided that (1) patient-related risk factors and in particular all material risks are (1a) adequately identified and the risk benefit ratio is clearly and openly discussed with treatment candidates within a reasonable timeframe prior to the actual procedure; (1b) when an individual is not a suitable candidate for the proposed intervention, conservative treatment options including the option of 'no intervention as a treatment option' are discussed; (1c) complex cases are referred for treatment in controlled and standardised settings and by practitioners with more expertise in the field; (1d) only suitable individuals with no absolute contraindications or those with relative contraindications where the benefits outweigh the risks are offered intervention; (1e) if proceeding with intervention, appropriate prophylactic measures and other risk-mitigating strategies are adopted and appropriate follow-up is organised; and (2) procedure-related risk factors are minimised by ensuring the treating physicians (2a) have adequate training in general phlebology with additional training in duplex ultrasound, procedural phlebology and in particular sclerotherapy; (2b) maintain their knowledge and competency over time and (2c) review and optimise their treatment strategies and techniques on a regular basis to keep up with the ongoing progress in medical technology and contemporary scientific evidence.

Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy is safe and effective in the management of superficial venous insufficiency of the lower extremity

BACKGROUND

Superficial venous disease of the lower extremity has a significant impact on quality of life. Both truncal and tributary vein reflux contribute to this disease process. Endovenous foam sclerotherapy is a widely used technique throughout the world for the management of superficial venous reflux and ultrasound guidance improves its safety and efficacy.

METHODS

A PubMed search for ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) was conducted and all abstracts were reviewed to identify clinical trials and systematic reviews for a full-text analysis. Additional articles were also identified through searching the references of the selected studies.

RESULTS

The production of foam for sclerotherapy in a 1:3 or 1:4 ratio of air to sclerosant is optimal in a low silicone, low-volume syringe system. Physiologic gas may decrease any side effects, with the trade-off of decreased foam stability. Proper technique with appropriate sterility and cleansing protocols are paramount for safe and effective treatment. The technical success of UGFS for great saphenous vein disease is inferior to endothermal and surgical modalities and retreatment is more common. However, the clinical improvement in patient-reported quality of life is similar between these three modalities. When used for tributary veins in combination with endothermal approaches of the truncal veins, UGFS has high rates of success with excellent patient satisfaction. UGFS has demonstrated an excellent safety profile comparable with or superior to other modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

With proper technique, UGFS is safe and effective for the management of superficial venous disease.

Implication of foam sclerosant inactivation by human whole blood in a laboratory setting

Background During sclerotherapy, it has been recommended to confirm intravenous placement of the needle by aspirating blood into the sclerosant syringe. This may inactivate some, or all of the sclerosant. Aims To quantify the volume of human blood needed to completely inactivate 1 ml of sodium tetradecyl sulphate, and comparing fresh blood and blood that has been stored in an ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid tube. Methods A series of manual titrations were carried out following a procedure developed at STD Pharmaceutical Products Ltd (Hereford, UK) and listed in the British Pharmacopeia. Three percent of sodium tetradecyl sulphate stock solutions were made with increasing volumes of blood and titrated against benzethonium chloride to determine the active concentration (% w/v) of sodium tetradecyl sulphate remaining in the solution. Results A calculated approximation showed 0.3 ml of blood is required to fully inactivate 1 ml of 3% sodium tetradecyl sulphate when made into a foam. A comparison was made between the use of fresh blood and blood stored in ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid tubes. Blood stored in ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid tubes showed more inactivation of sodium tetradecyl sulphate, but this was not significant at the P ≤ 0.05 level. Conclusion The data from our study have shown that a minimum of 0.3 ml of fresh blood is required to inactivate 1 ml of 3% sodium tetradecyl sulphate as a foam and it is not significantly affected by storing blood in an ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid tube. Our methodology suggests that during foam sclerotherapy treatment, blood should not be aspirated into the syringe to confirm position, and that ultrasound guidance is more appropriate for needle placement.

Novel developments in foam sclerotherapy: Focus on Varithena® (polidocanol endovenous microfoam) in the management of varicose veins

Scope Varithena® is a recently approved commercially available drug/delivery unit that produces foam using 1% polidocanol for the management of varicose veins. The purpose of this review is to examine the benefits of foam sclerotherapy, features of the ideal foam sclerosant and the strengths and limitations of Varithena® in the context of current foam sclerotherapy practices. Method Electronic databases including PubMed, Medline (Ovid) SP as well as trial registries and product information sheets were searched using the keywords, 'Varithena', 'Varisolve', 'polidocanol endovenous microfoam', 'polidocanol' and/or 'foam sclerotherapy/sclerosant'. Articles published prior to 20 September 2016 were identified. Results Foam sclerosants have effectively replaced liquid agents due to their physiochemical properties resulting in better clinical outcomes. Medical practitioners commonly prepare sclerosant foam at the bedside by agitating liquid sclerosant with a gas such as room air, using techniques as described by Tessari or the double syringe method. Such physician-compounded foams are highly operator dependent producing inconsistent foams of different gas/liquid compositions, bubble size, foam behaviour and varied safety profiles. Varithena® overcomes the variability and inconsistencies of physician-compounded foam. However, Varithena® has limited applications due to its fixed sclerosant type and concentration, cost and lack of worldwide availability. Clinical trials of Varithena® have demonstrated efficacy and safety outcomes equivalent or better than physician-compounded foam but only in comparison to placebo alone. Conclusion Varithena® is a promising step towards the creation of an ideal sclerosant foam. Further assessment in independent randomised controlled clinical trials is required to establish the advantages of Varithena® over and above the current best practice physician-compounded foam.