The care of patients with varicose veins and associated chronic venous diseases: Clinical practice guidelines of the Society for Vascular Surgery and the American Venous Forum

The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) and the American Venous Forum (AVF) have developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with varicose veins of the lower limbs and pelvis. The document also includes recommendations on the management of superficial and perforating vein incompetence in patients with associated, more advanced chronic venous diseases (CVDs), including edema, skin changes, or venous ulcers. Recommendations of the Venous Guideline Committee are based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system as strong (GRADE 1) if the benefits clearly outweigh the risks, burden, and costs. The suggestions are weak (GRADE 2) if the benefits are closely balanced with risks and burden. The level of available evidence to support the evaluation or treatment can be of high (A), medium (B), or low or very low (C) quality. The key recommendations of these guidelines are: We recommend that in patients with varicose veins or more severe CVD, a complete history and detailed physical examination are complemented by duplex ultrasound scanning of the deep and superficial veins (GRADE 1A). We recommend that the CEAP classification is used for patients with CVD (GRADE 1A) and that the revised Venous Clinical Severity Score is used to assess treatment outcome (GRADE 1B). We suggest compression therapy for patients with symptomatic varicose veins (GRADE 2C) but recommend against compression therapy as the primary treatment if the patient is a candidate for saphenous vein ablation (GRADE 1B). We recommend compression therapy as the primary treatment to aid healing of venous ulceration (GRADE 1B). To decrease the recurrence of venous ulcers, we recommend ablation of the incompetent superficial veins in addition to compression therapy (GRADE 1A). For treatment of the incompetent great saphenous vein (GSV), we recommend endovenous thermal ablation (radiofrequency or laser) rather than high ligation and inversion stripping of the saphenous vein to the level of the knee (GRADE 1B). We recommend phlebectomy or sclerotherapy to treat varicose tributaries (GRADE 1B) and suggest foam sclerotherapy as an option for the treatment of the incompetent saphenous vein (GRADE 2C). We recommend against selective treatment of perforating vein incompetence in patients with simple varicose veins (CEAP class C2; GRADE 1B), but we suggest treatment of pathologic perforating veins (outward flow duration ≥500 ms, vein diameter ≥3.5 mm) located underneath healed or active ulcers (CEAP class C5-C6; GRADE 2B). We suggest treatment of pelvic congestion syndrome and pelvic varices with coil embolization, plugs, or transcatheter sclerotherapy, used alone or together (GRADE 2B)

Nomenclature of the veins of the lower limb: Extensions, refinements, and clinical application

The relative deficiency of the official Terminologia Anatomica with regard to the veins of the lower limbs was responsible for a nonuniform anatomic nomenclature in the clinical literature. In 2001, an International Interdisciplinary Committee updated and refined the official Terminologia Anatomica regarding the veins of the lower limbs. Recommendations for terminology were included in an updating document that appeared in the Journal of Vascular Surgery (2002;36:416-22). To enhance further the use of a common scientific language, the committee worked on the present document, which includes (1) extensions and refinements regarding the veins of the lower limbs; (2) the nomenclature of the venous system of the pelvis; (3) the use of eponyms; and (4) the use of terms and adjectives of particular importance in clinical vascular anatomy

Revised CEAP classification for chronic verrous disorders

The CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders (CVD) was developed in 1994 by an international ad hoc committee of the American Venous Forum, endorsed by the Society for Vascular Surgery, and incorporated into "Reporting Standards in Venous Disease" in 1995. Today most published clinical papers use all or portions of CEAP. Rather than have it stand as a static classification system, an ad hoc committee of the American Venous Forum, working with an international liaison committee, has recommended a number of practical changes, detailed in this consensus report. These include refinement of several definitions used in describing CVD; refinement of the C classes of CEAP, addition of the descriptor n (no venous abnormality identified); elaboration of the date of classification and level of investigation; and as a simpler alternative to the full (advanced) CEAP classification, introduction of a basic CEAP version. It is important to stress that CEAP is a descriptive classification, whereas venous severity scoring and quality of life scores are instruments for longitudinal research to assess outcomes

Revision of the CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders: Consensus statement

The CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders (CVD) was developed in 1994 by an international ad hoc committee of the American Venous Forum, endorsed by the Society for Vascular Surgery, and incorporated into "Reporting Standards in Venous Disease" in 1995. Today most published clinical papers on CVD use all or portions of CEAP. Rather than have it stand as a static classification system, an ad hoc committee of the American Venous Forum, working with an international liaison committee, has recommended a number of practical changes, detailed in this consensus report. These include refinement of several definitions used in describing CVD; refinement of the C classes of CEAP; addition of the descriptor n (no venous abnormality identified); elaboration of the date of classification and level of investigation; and as a simpler alternative to the full (advanced) CEAP classification, introduction of a basic CEAP version. It is important to stress that CEAP is a descriptive classification, whereas venous severity scoring and quality of life scores are instruments for longitudinal research to assess outcomes

Multicenter assessment of venous reflux by duplex ultrasound

Objective: This prospective multicenter investigation was conducted to define the repeatability of duplex-based identification of venous reflux and the relative effect of key parameters on the reproducibility of the test. Methods: Repeatability was studied by having the same technologist perform duplicate tests, at the same time of the day, using the same reflux-provoking maneuver and with the patient in the same position. Reproducibility was examined by having two different technologists perform the test at the same time of the day, using the same reflux-provoking maneuver and with the patient in the same position. Facilitated reproducibility was studied by having two different technologists examine the same patients immediately after an educational intervention. Limits of agreement between two duplex scans were studied by changing three elements of the test: time of the day (morning vs afternoon), patient's position (standing vs supine), and reflux initiation (manual vs automatic compression decompression). Results: The study enrolled 17 healthy volunteers and 57 patients with primary chronic venous disease. Repeatability of reflux time measurements in deep veins did not significantly differ with the time of day, the patient's position, or the reflux-provoking maneuver. Reflux measurements in the superficial veins were more repeatable (P < .05) when performed in the morning with the patient standing. The agreement between the clinical interpretations significantly depended on a selected cut point (Spearman's rho, -0.4; P < .01). Interpretations agreed in 93.4% of the replicated measurements when a 0.5-second cut point was selected. The training intervention improved the frequency of agreement to 94.4% (kappa = 0.9). Alternations of the time of the duplex scan, the patient's position, and the reflux-provoking maneuver significantly decreased reliability. Conclusions: This study provides evidence to develop a new standard for duplex ultrasound detection of venous reflux. Reports should include information on the time of the test, the patient's position, and the provoking maneuver used. Adopting a uniform cut point of 0.5 second for pathologic reflux can significantly improve the reliability of reflux detection. Implementation of a standard protocol should elevate the minimal standard for agreement between repeated tests from the current 70% to at least 80% and with more rigid standardization, to 90%. (J Vase Surg 2012;55:437-45.