Endovenous management of varicose veins

Varicose veins are a very common condition and have been the subject of a recent proliferation of treatment modalities. The advent of the endovenous treatment era has led to a confusing array of different techniques that can be daunting when making the transition from traditional surgery. All modalities offer excellent results in the right situation, and each has its own treatment profile. Thermal ablation techniques have matured and have a reassuring and reliable outcome, but the arrival of nonthermal techniques has delivered further options for both patient and surgeon. This article provides an overview of the different treatment devices and modalities available to the modern superficial vein surgeon and details the currently available evidence and summation analysis to help surgeons to make an appropriate treatment choice for their patients

The risk of harm whilst waiting for varicose veins procedure.

INTRODUCTION: Varicose veins (VV) negatively impact quality of life (QoL) and have risks of major complications including bleeding, ulceration and phlebitis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the VSGBI (Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland) and GIRFT (Get It Right First Time) classified VVs as lowest priority for intervention. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine harm caused and the impact on the QoL on patients waiting for their VVs procedures for more than 1 year. METHODS: This was a prospective study conducted at the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital (NNUH). Patients with VVs awaiting intervention for >1 year were included in the study. Patients with CEAP C6 disease were considered to be too high risk to be invited for treatment during the Covid-19 pandemic. Patients were sent QoL questionnaires and underwent a telephone consultation to assess harm. Both generic (EQ-VAS and EQ-5D) and disease-specific (AVVQ and CIVIQ-14) instruments were utilised. There were no control groups available for comparison. RESULTS: 275 patients were identified (37.1% male) with median time on waiting list of 60 weeks (IQR 56-65). 19 patients (6.9%) came to major harm, including phlebitis (3.6%), bleeding (1.8%) and ulceration (1.8%). Fifty-two patients (18.9%) had minor harm, including worsening pain (12.7%) and swelling (6.2%). 6.9% reported psychological harm. Rising CEAP stage was also associated with worsening level of harm in patients with C5-6 disease (p < 0.0001). Only 8.7% stated they would decline surgery during the pandemic. 104 QoL questionnaires were returned. Median EQ-VAS and EQ-5D was 75 (IQR: 60-85) and 0.685 (0.566-0.761), respectively. Median AVVQ score was 23.2 (14.9-31.0) and CIVIQ-14 score was 33 (21-44).ConclusionsThis study highlights the impact of delaying VVs surgery during a pandemic. A significant rate of both major and minor as well as psychological harm was reported. In addition, VVs had a significant detriment to quality of life

Foam sclerotherapy versus ambulatory phlebectomy for the treatment of varicose vein tributaries: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background Ambulatory phlebectomies and foam sclerotherapy are two of the most common treatments for varicose vein tributaries. Many studies have been published on these treatments, but few comparative studies have attempted to determine their relative effectiveness. Methods/design This is a prospective single-centre randomised clinical trial. Patients with primary truncal vein incompetence and varicose vein tributaries requiring treatment will be assigned randomly to either ambulatory phlebectomies or foam sclerotherapy. The primary outcome measure is the re-intervention rate for the varicose vein tributaries during the study period. The secondary outcomes include the degree of pain during the first two post-operative weeks and the time to return to usual activities or work. Improvements in clinical scores, quality of life scores, occlusion rates and cost-effectiveness for each intervention are other secondary outcomes. The re-intervention rate will be considered from the third month. Discussion This study compares ambulatory phlebectomies and foam sclerotherapy in the treatment of varicose vein tributaries. The re-intervention rates, safety, patient experience and the cost-effectiveness of each intervention will be assessed. This study aims to recruit 160 patients and is expected to be completed by the end of 2019. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03416413. Registered on 31 January 2018

A multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing radiofrequency and mechanical occlusion chemically assisted ablation of varicose veins - final results of the Venefit versus Clarivein for varicose veins trial

BACKGROUND: Endovenous thermal ablation has revolutionised varicose vein treatment. New non-thermal techniques such as mechanical occlusion chemically assisted endovenous ablation (MOCA) allow treatment of entire trunks with single anaesthetic injections. Previous non-randomised work has shown reduced pain post-operatively with MOCA. This study presents a multi-centre randomised controlled trial assessing the difference in pain during truncal ablation using MOCA and radiofrequency endovenous ablation (RFA) with six months' follow-up. METHODS: Patients undergoing local anaesthetic endovenous ablation for primary varicose veins were randomised to either MOCA or RFA. Pain scores using Visual Analogue Scale and number scale (0-10) during truncal ablation were recorded. Adjunctive procedures were completed subsequently. Pain after phlebectomy was not assessed. Patients were reviewed at one and six months with clinical scores, quality of life scores and duplex ultrasound assessment of the treated leg. RESULTS: A total of 170 patients were recruited over a 21-month period from 240 screened. Patients in the MOCA group experienced significantly less maximum pain during the procedure by Visual Analogue Scale (MOCA median 15 mm (interquartile range 7-36 mm) versus RFA 34 mm (interquartile range 16-53 mm), p = 0.003) and number scale (MOCA median 3 (interquartile range 1-5) versus RFA 4 mm (interquartile range 3-6.5), p = 0.002). 'Average' pain scores were also significantly less in the MOCA group; 74% underwent simultaneous phlebectomy. Occlusion rates, clinical severity scores, disease specific and generic quality of life scores were similar between groups at one and six months. There were two deep vein thromboses, one in each group. CONCLUSION: Pain secondary to truncal ablation is less painful with MOCA than RFA with similar short-term technical, quality of life and safety outcomes

The advent of non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques for treatment of varicose veins

Varicose veins are common and their management has undergone a number of changes over the years. Surgery has been the traditional treatment option, but towards the 21st century, new endovenous thermal ablation techniques, namely, radiofrequency ablation and endovenous laser ablation, were introduced which have revolutionised the way varicose veins are treated. These minimally invasive techniques are associated with earlier return to normal activity and less pain, as well as enabling procedures to be carried out as day cases. They are, however, also known to cause a number of side-effects and involve infiltration of tumescent fluid which can cause discomfort. Non-thermal, non-tumescent methods are believed to be the answer to these unwelcome effects. Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy is one such non-thermal, non-tumescent method and, despite a possible lower occlusion, has been shown to improve the quality of life of patients. The early results of two recently launched non-thermal, non-tumescent methods, mechanochemical ablation and cyanoacrylate glue, are promising and are discussed

A systematic review of paediatric deep venous thrombolysis

Objectives: The aim was to assess the effectiveness and safety of Catheter Directed Thrombolysis (CDT) in children with deep venous thrombosis (DVTs) and to evaluate its long-term effect. Method and Results: EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane databases were searched to identify studies in which paediatric acute DVT patients received thrombolysis. Following title and abstract screening, 7cohort studies with total of 183 patients were identified. Technical success was 82%, and superior in regional rather than systemic thrombolysis (p< .00001). One cohort study identified significant difference in thrombus resolution at 1 year between thrombolytic and anticoagulant groups (p=0.01). The complication rate was low, with incidence rates of major bleeding, pulmonary embolism (PE) and others at 2.8%, 1.8% and 8.4%, respectively. The overall PTS rate was 12.7%. The incidence of re-thrombosis ranged from 12.3%-27%. Conclusion: Thrombolysis for paediatric DVT is an effective and relatively safe therapeutic option, lowering the incidence of PTS and DVT recurrence

A systematic review on the use of deep venous stenting for acute venous thrombosis of the lower limb

Objectives: The aim is to evaluate venous stent patency, the development of post thrombotic syndrome (PTS), recurrence, quality of life(QOL) and the optimal post-procedural anticoagulation regimen in the treatment of iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis (DVT). Method and Results: EMBASE and Medline databases were interrogated to identify studies in which acute DVT patients were stented. Twenty-seven studies and 542 patients were identified. Primary, assisted primary and secondary patency rates 12 months after stent placement ranged from 74-95%,90-95% and 84-100% respectively. The observed PTS rate was 14.6%. The incidence of stent re-thrombosis was 8%. In 26% of studies, patients received additional antiplatelet therapy. QOL questionnaires employed in 11% of studies, demonstrating an improvement in the chronic venous insufficiency questionnaire (CIVIQ) (22.67±3.01 vs. 39.34±6.66). Conclusion: Venous stenting appears to be an effective adjunct to early thrombus removal; however, further studies are needed to identify optimal anticoagulant regimen and effect on QOL