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.

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.