Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis for VTE Post-Endovenous Ablation of Varicose Veins: Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Endovenous ablation has revolutionized treatment of varicose vein surgery but is associated with a risk of venous thromboembolism. There is no consensus regarding anticoagulation protocols for these patients. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to identify which anticoagulant is optimal in this cohort for clot prevention with minimal risk of adverse bleeding events.

METHODS

Library databases were searched for studies where patients were treated with one or more anticoagulants following endovenous ablation for varicose veins. The methodological quality of included studies was quantified using the Risk of Bias (ROB) assessment tools. Findings were reported using the meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) checklist. Statistical analysis was carried out using metainsight (rpackage).

RESULTS

Observational data on just under 1500 patients prescribed post ablation anticoagulation (Rivaroxaban, Enoxaparin, Fondaparinux) were analyzed. Patient characteristics were comparable across the cohorts. 81 thrombotic and 40 minor bleeding events occurred in total. Overall rivaroxaban is found to be superior to the other agents.

CONCLUSIONS

This NMA indicates that prophylactic rivaroxaban is the highest ranked anticoagulant for thromboprophylaxis in patients post endovenous ablation for varicose veins, with a low risk of adverse bleeding. The choice whether to anticoagulate these patients is likely to remain at the discretion of the treating clinician.

Hyperbaric Oxygen as an Adjunct in the Treatment of Venous Ulcers: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The use of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) in diabetic wounds has been studied extensively. Even though venous insufficiency is the most common cause of lower limb ulceration, there is comparatively little evidence regarding the use of HBOT for Venous Leg Ulcers (VLU). We performed a systematic-review to evaluate and synthesise available evidence, to evaluate whether patients with VLU, when treated with HBOT, had greater rates of (i) complete VLU healing or (ii) reduction in VLU area, than controls.

METHODS

In keeping with PRISMA guidelines, database searches of PubMed, Scopus and Embase was performed. After removal of duplicates, titles were screened for relevance by two authors, then abstracts, and in turn full text manuscripts. Data were extracted from relevant sources including one published abstract. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB-2) and Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies (ROBINS-I) tools.

RESULTS

Six studies were included. There was significant heterogeneity across the studies, with no standard control intervention, method of outcome reporting, or duration of follow up. Two studies reported 12 week follow up results and pooled analysis of complete ulcer healing showed no statistically significant difference between HBOT and controls for the outcome of complete ulcer healing OR 1.54 (95%CI = .50-4.75) P = .4478. A similar non-signifiacnt result was seen in four studies reporting 5-6 week follow up; OR 5.39 (95%CI = .57-259.57) P = .1136. Change in VLU area was reported in all studies, and pooled standardised mean difference was 1.70 (95%CI = .60 to 2.79) P = .0024, indicating a statistically significant benefit of HBOT in reducing ulcer area.

CONCLUSION

Existing evidence suggests that HBOT does not significantly affect complete healing of VLU. There is a statistically significant benefit in terms of reducing ulcer size, though in the absence of ulcer healing the clinical significance of this is not established. Current evidence does not justify widespread use of HBOT for VLU.

Axial ablation versus terminal interruption of the reflux source (AAVTIRS): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Treatment of superficial venous reflux has been shown to improve ulcer healing time and reduce the risk of ulcer recurrence. Terminal ablation of the reflux source (TIRS) is an alternative to formal endovenous ablation or surgery which can be performed by injecting sclerosant foam into the peri-ulcer plexus of the veins. TIRS has been shown to be successful and in our experience is the option preferred by many patients, when offered as an alternative to axial ablation (AA).

AIM

To determine if the proportion of ulcers healed within 6 months of endovenous treatment differs between patients undergoing AA of varicose veins or TIRS by peri-ulcer foam sclerotherapy.

METHODS

AAVTIRS is an assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial. Patients will be recruited from a dedicated ulcer clinic in Roscommon University Hospital and from the vascular surgical clinics in University Hospital Galway. All patients attending the ulcer clinic will be screened for eligibility.

RANDOMISATION

Random computer-generated sequence is stratified by ulcer size. Allocation will be concealed using sealed opaque envelopes.

BLINDING

Assessors reviewing wounds at follow -p visits will be blinded to patient allocation.

PRIMARY ENDPOINT

The proportion of ulcers healed within 6 months of enrolment.

DISCUSSION

This will be the first time that TIRS has been evaluated with a properly powered randomised trial in the setting of venous ulcer management. Streamlining the management of venous ulcers has broad health economic benefits. If it is found that TIRS is superior or non-inferior to AA, then a less expensive, less invasive injection can be offered as an alternative to AA in an attempt to encourage the healing of venous ulcers. If AA is found to be superior to TIRS, then this would suggest that all patients undergoing ablation in the management of venous ulcers should have their superficial reflux fully treated, building on the evidence of the EVRA trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04484168. Registered on 23 July 2020.

Systematic review on the incidence and management of endovenous heat-induced thrombosis following endovenous thermal ablation of the great saphenous vein

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine the incidence of endovenous heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) and evaluate its management after endovenous thermal ablation of the great saphenous vein (GSV).

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were searched for studies with at least 100 patients who underwent great saphenous vein endovenous thermal ablation and had duplex ultrasound follow-up within 30 days. Data were gathered on the incidence of thrombotic complications and on the management of cases of EHIT. The primary outcome for the meta-analysis was EHIT types 2 to 4 and secondary outcomes were deep venous thrombotic events (which we defined as types 2-4 EHIT plus deep vein thrombosis [DVT]), DVT, and pulmonary embolism (PE). Pooled proportions were calculated using random effects modelling.

RESULTS

We included 75 studies (23,265 patients). EHIT types 2 to 4 occurred in 1.27% of cases (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74%-1.93%). Deep venous thrombotic events occurred in 1.59% (95% CI, 0.95%-2.4%). DVT occurred in 0.28% (95% CI, 0.18%-0.4%). Pulmonary embolism occurred in 0.11% (95% CI, 0.06%-0.18%). Of the 75 studies, 24 gave a description of the management strategy and outcomes for EHIT and there was inconsistency regarding its management. Asymmetrical funnel plots of studies that reported incidence of EHIT 2 to 4 and DVT suggest publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The recently published guidelines on EHIT from the Society for Vascular Surgery/American Venous Forum provide a framework to direct clinical decision-making. EHIT and other thrombotic complications occur infrequently and have a benign course.

Efficacy of vacuum erectile devices (VEDs) after radical prostatectomy: the initial Irish experience of a dedicated VED clinic

Controversy exists regarding optimal penile rehabilitation program following radical prostatectomy (RP). Vacuum erectile devices (VEDs) have become an important component of penile rehabilitation protocols. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and patient satisfaction of a dedicated VED clinic. A voluntary telephone questionnaire was performed of all patients who attended a VED clinic to date in two university teaching hospitals. Patient demographics, histopathological characteristics and functional status (International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) scores) were obtained from a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. Sixty-five men attended the dedicated VED clinic in the two university teaching hospitals. Forty-men (76.3%) men purchased a VED following the dedicated clinic. There was significant differences noted between the mean preoperative and the 3-month postoperative IIEF scores (22.08±3.16 vs 11.3±3.08, P=0.0001) and between the 3-month postoperative IIEF score and the post-VED use IIEF score (11.3±3.08 vs 16.74±2.62, P=0.0001). Despite VED use, there was a significant reduction in erectile function from presurgery status (22.08±3.16 vs 16.74±2.62, P=0.0001). All patients reported that the dedicated VED was helpful and would recommend it to other patients. Our study demonstrates that, despite a reduction in erectile function after RP, successful erections are attainable with a VED. There is potential and need for the development of a standard penile rehabilitation program and treatment of ED after RP internationally.