Comparison of new continuous measurements of ambulatory venous pressure (AVP) with conventional tiptoe exercise ambulatory AVP in relation to the CEAP clinical classification of chronic venous disease

IntroductionQuantitative measurements of chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) are sensitive in detecting the presence of CVI but have low specificity in differentiating clinical severities of CVI as defined by the CEAP classification. One possible reason for this is measurement techniques do not assess variables that reflect hemodynamic changes that occur during normal exercise. Our aim was to compare the association of variables determined from a new technique, continuous ambulatory venous pressure monitoring (CAVPM), and those of conventional AVP measurement with the clinical severity of chronic venous insufficiency in patients with primary venous reflux.MethodsFifty-four limbs of 49 patients with CVI and 15 healthy controls were studied. CVI clinical severity was classified according to CEAP as C2&C3 (mild disease), C4 (moderate disease), and C5&C6 (severe disease). All participants underwent duplex ultrasound scanning to rule out the presence of reflux in the control group and to confirm it in the patient groups. Conventional AVP measurements, including 90% refilling time (RT90), were compared with the new CAVP variables of mean walking pressure (MWP) and percentage fall in walking pressure (%FWP). Data were analyzed by analysis of variance using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and comparisons between groups were performed using Mann-Whitney tests. Discriminant analysis was used to determine the ability of a test to classify limbs into clinical classes.ResultsConventional AVP measurements could not differentiate between the control group and the presence of mild disease (P = .56) but did differentiate between controls and severe disease as well as mild and severe disease (P < .001). RT90 detected differences between controls and reflux groups (P < .001) but not between moderate (C4) and severe (C5&C6) clinical groups (P > .5). MWP and %FWP showed significant differences between all clinical severities and controls (P < .001).ConclusionIn the assessment of CVI, mean walking pressure and percent fall in walking pressure are more reliably associated with anatomic distribution of reflux and clinical severity of CVI than the gold standard investigations of conventional AVP and RT90

Using centrally held data to validate carotid surgery outcome data

&lt;p&gt;Background and Purpose: Outcome audit data for peer group comparison must be transparent, objective, and independently reproducible. Personal data sets are difficult to maintain and often lack complete follow-up. Local coding difficulties make initial retrieval of centrally held data unreliable. However starting with a complete list of interventions, reliable identification of patients who have experienced an adverse postoperative event may be possible using record linkages.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Methods: A surgical database, augmented by a hand-search of all theater registries and personal logbooks, identified 378 carotid endarterectomies performed for stroke prevention in symptomatic patients, in a single hospital between 2002 and 2009. A list of the names, unique patient identifiers, and operation dates was sent to the Information Services Division of National Health Service Scotland. Data were requested pertaining to all deaths and potential diagnoses of stroke after surgery. Every identified case was scrutinized.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Results: There were 30 (8%) readmissions or transfers of care identified within 30 days of surgery. From this, 12 strokes were identified with another 2 strokes, occurring without readmission, diagnosed in the outpatient clinic. Only 6 of the postoperative strokes were identified during the index admission. There were 2 early deaths resulting in a combined stroke and death rate of 4.2% (95% confidence intervals, 2.4%–6.9%).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Conclusions: These outcome data are similar to the outcomes of the major carotid surgery trials. Record-linked data retrieval seems to be an appropriate starting point for outcome-based audit. This has the potential to generate robust, transparent data for comparison between individuals and centers for a specific procedure.&lt;/p&gt

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. OBJECTIVE : To review available randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) data comparing USGFS, RFA, EVLT to HL/S for the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins. METHODS : Search methods: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group searched their Specialized 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, recanalization, neovascularization, 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 recanalization 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 recanalization (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. Recanalization 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. Neovascularization 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 randomized trials are needed. We should aim to report and analyze results in a congruent manner to facilitate future meta-analysis

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. OBJECTIVE : To review available randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) data comparing USGFS, RFA, EVLT to HL/S for the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins. METHODS : Search methods: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group searched their Specialized 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, recanalization, neovascularization, 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 recanalization 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 recanalization (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. Recanalization 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. Neovascularization 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 randomized trials are needed. We should aim to report and analyze results in a congruent manner to facilitate future meta-analysis