Differences in risk profile associated with varicose veins and chronic venous insufficiency - results from the Bonn Vein Study 1.

Background: The aim of this publication is to demonstrate similarities and differences in the association of risk factors with the prevalence of different manifestations of chronic venous disease (CVD), like varicose veins (VV), venous oedema (C3) and severe chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) in the population-based cross-sectional Bonn Vein Study 1 (BVS). Patients and methods: In the BVS 1 between 13.11.2000 and 15.3.2002, 3.072 participants, 1350 men and 1722 women, from a simple random sample of the general population of the city of Bonn and two rural townships aged 18-79 years were included. The overall response proportion was 59%. All participants answered a standardized questionnaire including information about socio-economic data, lifestyle, physical activity, medical history, and quality of life. Venous investigations were performed clinically and by a standardized duplex examination by trained investigators. The CEAP classification in the version of 1996 was used to classify the findings. Logistic regression models were performed for the association of possible risk factors with VV, venous edema (C3) and severe CVI (C4-C6). The predictive risk (PR) describes the association of the diseases and the possible influencing factors. Results: VV, venous oedema (C3) and severe CVI (C4-C6) have common risk factors like higher age, number of pregnancies, family history of VV and overweight or obesity. Female gender is significantly associated with VV and C3 but not with severe CVI (C4-C6). High blood pressure and urban living are only associated with C3 and C4-C6 disease whereas prolonged sitting is associated with C3 and lower social class with C4-C6 exclusively. Discussion: In many epidemiological studies risk factors were associated with chronic venous disorders in general. Our data show that VV, venous edema and severe CVI may have different risk profiles. Venous edema is more often associated with arterial hypertension and sedentary lifestyle whereas lower social class seems to be a risk factor for severe CVI including venous ulcers. Conclusions: The differences in the association of risk factors to VV, venous edema and severe CVI should be considered if prevention and treatment of chronic venous diseases are planned. As examples, compression stockings could be proposed in sitting profession to prevent oedema, VV patients with risk factors like obesity might benefit from early treatment for VV and obesity. More longitudinal evaluation of risk factors is necessary to evaluate the true risk profile of CVD.

Hypersensitivity reactions following vein closure therapy with venasealTM (n-butyl- 2-cyanoacrylate).

VenaSealTM is composed of a cyanoacrylate adhesive compound often utilized for chronic venous stasis treatment. Rare case reports of hypersensitivity reactions to this compound exist. We present the first case of dermatographism and angioedema after utilization of VenaSealTM successfully treated via high dose antihistamines. We also present a case of type IV hypersensitivity to VenaSealTM, a cyanoacrylate, occurring in a patient with known meth(acrylate) allergy indicating a possible cross reactivity between these acrylate groups.

Laser-sclerosing foam hybrid treatment, a non-tumescent technique for insufficient great saphenous vein ablation.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to report on the Laser-Sclerosing Foam Hybrid Treatment (LSFHT) and its outcomes when used on patients with great saphenous vein (GSV) insufficiency. METHODS: This was a single center retrospective cohort study on patients with GSV insufficiency that were treated with the LSFHT technique, a surgical procedure that comprises the use of both sclerosing foam and endovenous ablation and avoids the use of tumescent anesthesia. Occlusion rates and complications were reported. RESULTS: 139 legs from 106 patients were operated, achieving a 100% occlusion rate, while only a small burn and 2 popliteal vein thrombosis cases occurred. CONCLUSION: The study suggests that the LSFHT is a feasible fast procedure that proved both effective and safe for the treatment of GSV insufficiency.

Factors influencing recurrent varicose vein formation after radiofrequency thermal ablation for truncal reflux performed in two high-volume venous centers.

OBJECTIVE: Recanalization of the saphenous vein trunk after endovenous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is often associated with recurrent varicose veins (RVVs) or recanalization. This study aimed to assess the long-term results of RFA of the great saphenous vein (GSV) and identify the risk factors for GSV recanalization and RVVs during follow-up for patients presenting to dedicated outpatient vein centers. METHODS: All consecutive patients with incompetent GSVs who underwent RFA between 2009 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The primary study end points were freedom from GSV recanalization and the RVV rate during follow-up. The secondary study end points were the postoperative complication rate and the risk factors for GSV recanalization and RVVs. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the potential risk factors for GSV recanalization and RVVs. RESULTS: During the study period, 1568 limbs were treated in 1300 consecutive patients (mean age, 53.5 ± 12.9 years; 71.9% women; CEAP [clinical, etiology, anatomy, pathophysiology] C2-C6; venous clinical severity score >5). Technical success was achieved in 99.7% of cases. At a mean follow-up of 57.2 ± 25.4 months, the GSV occlusion and freedom from reintervention rates were 100% and 100% within 1 week, 97% and 95.7% at 1 year, 95.2% and 93.1% at 3 years, and 92.4% and 92.8% at 5 years, respectively. The recurrence rate was 10% (n = 158) during the follow-up period. On multivariate analysis, a direct confluence of the accessory saphenous vein into the saphenofemoral junction (odds ratio [OR], 1.561; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-7.04; P = .032), a history of pregnancy >2 (OR, 3.68; 95% CI, 1.19-11.36; P = .023), C4 (OR, 6.41; 95% CI, 1.36-30.28; P = .019), and preoperative GSV diameter >10 mm (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.65-4.03; P = .043) were risk factors for GSV recanalization. Moreover, age >70 years (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; P = .014) and incompetent perforator veins (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.65-2.03; P = .018) were also risk factors for RVVs. CONCLUSIONS: RFA is a safe technique to ablate the GSV with a low complication rate and durability during 5 years of follow-up. However, patients with a high clinical score and those with direct confluence of the accessory saphenous vein into the saphenofemoral junction experienced higher long-term GSV recanalization and RVV rates.

A systematic review on ablation techniques for larger saphenous veins in patients with symptomatic superficial venous disease.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to summarize the existing evidence for the treatment of saphenous veins >10 mm in diameter, to determine whether there were vein size limits for treatment modalities, and to determine if there are specific technical considerations for treatment of large veins. METHODS: We searched the literature for reports of treatment methods and outcomes for patients with large-diameter saphenous veins treated with various ablation methods between 1993 and 2023. These studies were evaluated for the size of the vein determined as "large diameter," type of ablation method, study type, outcomes, adverse events, and any technical considerations noted. A systematic review was conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology. The COVIDENCE software was used for full-text screening and data extraction. Three reviewers reviewed the data, and the content expert served as the tiebreaker. RESULTS: Seventy-one records were identified, of which 24 studies were deemed appropriate for extraction. Most of the studies identified reported outcomes of endovenous thermal ablation modalities. There were fewer studies on non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques, and these studies reported an overall lower occlusion rate compared with endovenous thermal ablation techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Large head-to-head trials or randomized controlled that compare all the modalities over a long follow-up duration are yet to be performed. In the existing literature, there is considerable heterogeneity in terms of the study size, design, definition of large veins, site of vein measurement, and follow-up periods, making it challenging to make fair comparisons and draw firm conclusions. Currently available evidence supports the use of endothermal ablation techniques for the treatment of veins >10 mm in diameter as they have a more favorable efficacy and safety profile and have a larger body of evidence available compared with non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques or surgery.

Variations and inconsistencies in venous ablation coverage policies between single-state and multistate carriers in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Vein ablation is a common and effective treatment for patients with chronic venous insufficiency. The overuse of vein ablation despite the existence of evidence-based guidelines has resulted in insurance companies developing restrictive policies for coverage that create barriers to appropriate care. This study compares the insurance coverage by single-state carriers (SSCs) and multistate carriers (MSCs), highlighting the variations and inconsistencies in the various policies. METHODS: The American Venous Forum Venous Policy Navigator was reviewed for the various policies available in the United States. The policies were divided into SSCs and MSCs. The characteristics of the policies, including the anatomic and hemodynamic criteria for specific veins, duration of conservative treatment, disease severity, symptoms, and types of procedures covered, were compared between the two groups. SAS, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc) was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 122 policies were analyzed and divided between SSCs (n = 85; 69.7%) and MSCs (n = 37; 30.3%). A significant variation was found in the size requirement for great saphenous vein ablation. Although 48% of the policies did not specify a size criterion, the remaining policies indicated a minimal size, ranging from 3 to 5.5 mm. However, no significant differences were found between SSCs and MSCs. Similar findings were encountered for the small and anterior accessory saphenous veins. MSCs were more likely to define a saphenous reflux time >500 ms compared with SSCs (81.1% vs 58.8%; P = .04). A significant difference was found between the SSCs and MSCs in the criteria for perforator ablation in terms of size and reflux time. MSCs were significantly more likely to provide coverage for mechanochemical ablation than were SSCs (24.3% vs 8.2%; P = .03). SSCs were more likely to require ≥12 weeks of compression stocking therapy than were MSCs (76.5% vs 48.7%; P = .01). No significant differences were found in the clinical indications between the two groups; however, MSCs were more likely to mention major hemorrhage than were SSCs. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study highlight the variations in policies for venous ablation, in particular, the striking inconsistencies in size criteria. MSCs were more likely to cover mechanochemical ablation and require a shorter duration of conservative therapy before intervention compared with SSCs. Evidence-based guidance is needed to develop more coherent policies for venous ablation coverage.

Increased body mass index and vein diameter are associated with incomplete target vein closure following microfoam ablation of incompetent saphenous veins.

OBJECTIVE: Patient characteristics and risk factors for incomplete or non-closure following thermal saphenous vein ablation have been reported. However, similar findings have not been clearly described following commercially manufactured polidocanol microfoam ablation (MFA). The objective of our study is to identify predictive factors and outcomes associated with non-closure following MFA of symptomatic, refluxing saphenous veins. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained patient database was performed from procedures in our Ambulatory Procedure Unit. All consecutive patients who underwent MFA with commercially manufactured 1% polidocanol microfoam for symptomatic superficial vein reflux between June 2018 and September 2022 were identified. Patients treated for tributary veins only, without truncal vein ablation, were excluded. Patients were then stratified into groups: complete closure (Group I) and non-closure (Group II). Preoperative demographics, procedural details, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Preoperative variables that were significant on univariate analysis (prior deep venous thrombosis [DVT], body mass index [BMI] ≥30 kg/m2, and vein diameter) were entered into a multivariate logistic regression model with the primary outcome being vein non-closure. RESULTS: Between June 2018 and September 2022, a total of 224 limbs underwent MFA in our ambulatory venous center. Of these, 127 limbs in 103 patients met study inclusion criteria. Truncal veins treated included the above-knee great saphenous vein (Group I: n = 89, 77% vs Group II: n = 7, 58%; P = .14), below-knee great saphenous vein (Group I: n = 7, 6% vs Group II: n = 0; P = .38), anterior accessory saphenous vein (Group I: n = 17, 15% vs Group II: n = 4, 33%; P = .12, and small saphenous vein (Group I: n = 4, 4% vs Group II: n = 1, 8%; P = .41). Complete closure (Group I) occurred in 115 limbs, and 12 limbs did not close (Group II) based on postoperative duplex ultrasound screening. The mean BMI in Group II (36.1 ± 6.4 kg/m2) was significantly greater than Group I (28.6 ± 6.1 kg/m2) (P < .001). Vein diameter of ≥10.2 mm was independently associated with truncal vein non-closure with an odds ratio of 4.8. The overall mean foam volume was 6.2 ± 2.7 ml and not different between the two cohorts (Group I: 6.2 ± 2.6 ml vs Group II: 6.3 + 3.5 ml; P = .89). Post MFA improvement in symptoms was higher in Group I (96.9%) compared with Group II (66.7%) (P = .001). The mean postoperative Venous Clinical Severity Score was also lower in Group I (8.0 ± 3.0) compared with Group II (9.9 ± 4.2) (P = .048). The overall incidences of ablation-related thrombus extension and DVT were 4.7% (n = 6) and 1.6% (n = 2), and all occurred in Group I. All were asymptomatic and resolved with anticoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: Microfoam ablation of symptomatic, refluxing truncal veins results in excellent overall closure rates and symptomatic relief. BMI ≥30 kg/m2 and increased vein diameter are associated with an increased risk of saphenous vein non-closure following MFA. Non-closure is associated with less symptomatic improvement and a lower post-procedure reduction in Venous Clinical Severity Score. Despite the incidence of ablation-related thrombus extension and DVT in this study being higher than reported rates following thermal ablation, MFA is safe for patients with early postoperative duplex ultrasound surveillance and selective short-term anticoagulation.

A Comparison of Venaseal Versus Radiofrequency Ablation Outcomes Within a Managed Care Organization.

BACKGROUND: Chronic venous insufficiency is a common medical condition that afflicts over 30 million adults in the United States. Treatment and management have changed dramatically over the past 20 years with the introduction of various endovenous therapies, including radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cyanoacrylate closure using the Venaseal system. In this study, we explore a direct comparison of outcomes between RFA and VenaSeal conducted by a single surgeon within a managed care organization. METHODS: Between May 2020 and December 2021, there were 87 patients undergoing 97 total procedures who were treated with either VenaSeal (n = 55) or RFA (n = 42), conducted by a single surgeon within a managed care organization. Primary outcomes included successful greater saphenous vein (GSV) closure, postoperative deep vein thrombosis (DVT), embolization, saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) thrombosis, skin reaction (allergic or thrombophlebitis), or procedure-related emergency room (ER) and urgent care (UC) visits. Retrospective chart review was conducted to describe patient demographics, indications for treatment, treatment details (number of access sites and indication for treatment), as well as follow-up adjunctive vein procedures (sclerotherapy and stab phlebectomy). RESULTS: All patients had postprocedural ultrasound (US) performed within 7 days by the operating surgeon and mean overall patient follow-up from index procedure was 12 months; 2 patients were lost to follow-up due to death. All operations utilized intraoperative US, and SFJ thrombosis was not observed in any patient postprocedure. The average age of VenaSeal and RFA groups was 59.05 and 59.51 years, respectively. The average number of access sites during the procedure for VenaSeal and RFA was 1.56 and 1.20, respectively. Of the 55 VenaSeal treatments, 9.1% of patients reported postoperative skin reactions, and 9.1% of patients underwent subsequent stab phlebectomy (22 stabs on average). Of the 42 RFA treatments, 7.1% of RFA patients reported postoperative skin reactions, and 9.5% underwent subsequent stab phlebectomy (36 stabs on average). The percentage of patients who had postoperative UC or emergency department visits related to the procedure in the VenaSeal and RFA groups was 3.6% and 0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both VenaSeal and RFA demonstrated effective vein closure of the GSV at 12-month follow-up, with VenaSeal demonstrating continued noninferiority to RFA. Based on our data, postoperative skin reactions do not appear to be significantly higher with VenaSeal treatment, as previously reported.

Effect of junctional reflux on the venous clinical severity score in patients with insufficiency of the great saphenous vein (JURY study).

OBJECTIVE: Effective treatment options are available for chronic venous insufficiency associated with superficial venous reflux. Although many patients with C2 and C3 disease based on the CEAP (Clinical-Etiological-Anatomical-Pathophysiological) classification have combined great saphenous vein (GSV) and saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) reflux, some may not have concomitant SFJ reflux. Several payors have determined that symptom severity in patients without SFJ reflux does not warrant treatment. In patients planned for venous ablation, we tested whether Venous Clinical Severity Scores (VCSS) are equivalent in those with GSV reflux alone compared with those with both GSV and SFJ reflux. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at 10 centers. Inclusion criteria were: candidate for endovenous ablation as determined by treating physician; 18 to 80 years of age; GSV reflux with or without SFJ reflux on ultrasound; and C2 or C3 disease. Exclusion criteria were prior deep vein thrombosis; prior vein ablation on the index limb; ilio-caval obstruction; and renal, hepatic, or heart failure requiring prior hospitalization. An a priori sample size was calculated. We used multiple linear regression (adjusted for patient characteristics) to compare differences in VCSS scores of the two groups at baseline, and to test whether scores were equivalent using a priori equivalence boundaries of +1 and -1. In secondary analyses, we tested differences in VCSS scores in patients with C2 and C3 disease separately. RESULTS: A total of 352 patients were enrolled; 64.2% (n = 226) had SFJ reflux, and 35.8% (n = 126) did not. The two groups did not differ by major clinical characteristics. The mean age of the cohort was 53.9 ± 14.3 years; women comprised 74.2%; White patients 85.8%; and body mass index was 27.8 ± 6.1 kg/m2. The VCSS scores in patients with and without SFJ reflux were found to be equivalent; SFJ reflux was not a significant predictor of VCSS score; and mean VCSS scores did not differ significantly (6.4 vs 6.6, respectively, P = .40). In secondary subset analyses, VCSS scores were equivalent between C2 patients with and without SFJ reflux, and VCSS scores of C3 patients with SFJ reflux were lower than those without SFJ reflux. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom severity is equivalent in patients with GSV reflux with or without SFJ reflux. The absence of SFJ reflux alone should not determine the treatment paradigm in patients with symptomatic chronic venous insufficiency. Patients with GSV reflux who meet clinical criteria for treatment should have equivalent treatment regardless of whether or not they have SFJ reflux.

Endovenous laser ablation vs phlebectomy of foot varicose veins.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes and complications of selected patients treated with endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) or ambulatory phlebectomy for foot varicose veins. METHODS: From October 2016 to February 2022, selected patients undergoing EVLA (using 1470-nm with radial-slim or bare-tip fibers) or phlebectomy of foot varicose veins for cosmetic indications were analyzed, and the outcomes were compared. Patients were classified according to the Clinical, Etiologic, Anatomical, and Pathophysiological (CEAP) classification. Anatomic criteria provided the basis for the decision to perform EVLA or phlebectomy. Clinical and ultrasound assessments were performed on postoperative days 7, 30, and 90 for visualization of the sapheno-femoral and sapheno-popliteal junctions and the deep venous system. Disease severity was graded with the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), and quality of life was measured with the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ) before and after treatment. Treatment outcomes were evaluated based on changes in VCSS and AVVQ scores. The groups were also compared for procedure-related complications. Data were statistically analyzed in SPSS v. 20.0 using the χ2, Student t test, Mann-Whitney test, Wilcoxon test, and analysis of variance. The results were presented as mean (standard deviation or median (interquartile range). RESULTS: The study included 270 feet of 171 patients. Mean patient age was 52.3 (standard deviation, 13.1) years, ranging from 21 to 84 years; 133 (77.8%) were women. Of 270 feet, 113 (41.9%) were treated with EVLA and 157 (58.1%) with phlebectomy. The median preoperative CEAP class was 2 (interquartile range, 2-3) in the phlebectomy and EVLA groups, with no statistically significant difference between the groups (P = .507). Dysesthesia was the most common complication in both groups. Only transient induration was significantly different between EVLA (7.1%) and phlebectomy (0.0%) (P = .001). The two approaches had an equal impact on quality of life and disease severity. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment complications were similar in phlebectomy and EVLA and to those previously described in the literature.

Diabetes, Hypertension, and Smoking Do Not Affect Outcomes of Iliofemoral Vein Stenting for Chronic Proximal Venous Outflow Obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes, hypertension, and smoking are well-recognized risk factors for peripheral artery disease (PAD), but little is known of their impact on chronic venous insufficiency (CVI). This study evaluates these factors in patients undergoing iliac vein stenting (IVS) for CVI. METHODS: A registry of 708 patients who underwent IVS from August 2011 to June 2021 was retrospectively analyzed. Symptoms were quantified using venous clinical severity score (VCSS) and CEAP classification. Both major and minor reinterventions were recorded. Logistic regression models were used to determine the unadjusted and adjusted odds ratio of any reintervention. Log-rank test was used to assess differences in reintervention-free survival. RESULTS: The prevalence of hypertension was 51.1% (N = 362), diabetes was 23.0% (N = 163), and smoking was 22.2% (N = 157). Patients with diabetes (3.6 vs. 3.4; P = 0.062), hypertension (3.6 vs. 3.3; P < 0.001), and smoking (3.7 vs. 3.4; P = 0.003) had higher CEAP scores than those without these comorbidities. Improvement in VCSS composite scores showed no differences postoperatively (diabetes: P = 0.513; hypertension: P = 0.053; smoking: P = 0.608), at 1-year follow-up (diabetes: P = 0.666; hypertension: P = 0.681; smoking: P = 0.745), or at 5-year follow-up (diabetes: P = 0.525; hypertension: P = 0.953; smoking: P = 0.146). Diabetes (P = 0.454), smoking (P = 0.355), and hypertension (P = 0.727) were not associated with increased odds of major reintervention. Log-rank test similarly showed no differences in reintervention-free survival for major or minor reoperations between those with and without diabetes (P = 0.79), hypertension (P = 0.14), and smoking (P = 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes, hypertension, and smoking were prevalent among CVI patients, but unlike in PAD patients, they had little to no impact on long-term outcomes or reinterventions after IVS.

The Effect of Superficial Venous Incompetence Treatment on Combined Segmental Deep Venous Reflux.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the role of treatment of superficial venous reflux (SVR) in patients with combined deep segmental venous reflux as regards clinical symptoms as well as reflux improvement of the deep veins. METHODS: We reviewed 80 patients, retrospectively selected on the inclusion criteria and having combined SVR and segmental deep venous reflux who underwent SVR ablation. The contralateral limb of 44 patients was used as a control group, asked to wear compression stockings for 3 months during day time with no surgical intervention. Duplex ultrasounds follow-up was performed at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Clinical severity of venous disease was graded from C1 to C6 according to the CEAP (Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology) classification. Duplex ultrasound was done in both supine and standing positions with non-weight-bearing of the examined limb. The venous reflux time, the venous flow volume and the peak venous flow velocity were registered. Removal of SVR was performed using either conventional surgery or radiofrequency ablation. The patient was required to wear compression stockings during the day time for the following weeks. RESULTS: During the follow-up period, all patients were improved clinically as regards pain, edema, and ulcer healing. All patients included in this study had no signs of residual SVR. Corrected deep venous segment reflux was in 36 (45%). Similar data at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively after SVR removal. The popliteal vein reflux responded less than the femoral vein reflux did. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of the SVR eliminates segmental deep venous reflux in a good percentage of patients regardless of the treatment modality. Also, symptoms improvement and ulcer healing were documented, and hence, more studies are recommended to evaluate this role.

The 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery, American Venous Forum, and American Vein and Lymphatic Society clinical practice guidelines for the management of varicose veins of the lower extremities. Part II: Endorsed by the Society of Interventional Radiology and the Society for Vascular Medicine.

The Society for Vascular Surgery, the American Venous Forum, and the American Vein and Lymphatic Society recently published Part I of the 2022 clinical practice guidelines on varicose veins. Recommendations were based on the latest scientific evidence researched following an independent systematic review and meta-analysis of five critical issues affecting the management of patients with lower extremity varicose veins, using the patients, interventions, comparators, and outcome system to answer critical questions. Part I discussed the role of duplex ultrasound scanning in the evaluation of varicose veins and treatment of superficial truncal reflux. Part II focuses on evidence supporting the prevention and management of varicose vein patients with compression, on treatment with drugs and nutritional supplements, on evaluation and treatment of varicose tributaries, on superficial venous aneurysms, and on the management of complications of varicose veins and their treatment. All guidelines were based on systematic reviews, and they were graded according to the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations, using the GRADE method. All ungraded Consensus Statements were supported by an extensive literature review and the unanimous agreement of an expert, multidisciplinary panel. Ungraded Good Practice Statements are recommendations that are supported only by indirect evidence. The topic, however, is usually noncontroversial and agreed upon by most stakeholders. The Implementation Remarks contain technical information that supports the implementation of specific recommendations. This comprehensive document includes a list of all recommendations (Parts I-II), ungraded consensus statements, implementation remarks, and best practice statements to aid practitioners with appropriate, up-to-date management of patients with lower extremity varicose veins.

Value and limitations of postoperative duplex scans after endovenous thermal ablation.

BACKGROUND: Endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA) of the lower extremity veins has risen to become the main treatment modality for symptomatic venous reflux disease. One of the main reported side effects of EVTA is recanalization. As of today, there is no clear protocol as to when follow-up duplex ultrasound scans should be performed. However, the standard for postoperative duplex after truncal ablation is within 1 week of the procedure. Our aim is to try to find whether there is a particular time period when postoperative duplex ultrasound scans should be performed to allow us to best diagnose recanalization. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 9799 procedures in 3237 patients with chronic venous insufficiency owing to great, small, and anterior accessory saphenous vein insufficiency from 2012 to 2018. We excluded 466 perforator veins. All 9799 procedures were performed using EVTA in patients who failed to respond to conservative management initially. Postoperative duplex ultrasound scans were performed within 1 week (3-7 days postoperatively). We defined a successful obliteration as lack of color flow on postoperative scan. We defined symptomatic recanalization as presence of reflux on duplex ultrasound examination in the targeted vessel at follow-up with symptom recurrence. Follow-ups were performed every 3 months in the first year and every 6 months thereafter. RESULTS: Patient ages ranged from 15 to 99 years. The median patient age at the time of the procedures was 63 years (interquartile range [IQR], 51-73 years). The median overall follow-up was 25 months (IQR, 4-56 months). The Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology (CEAP) class of all the procedures were: C1, 21; C2, 208; C3, 3585; C4, 4680; C5, 188; and C6, 1117. There were 145 redo procedures performed after symptomatic recanalization was diagnosed in patients. CEAP class of the redo patients were: C1, 0; C2, 2; C3, 49; C4, 70; C5, 5; and C6, 19. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients underwent a redo procedure performed within the first year after the initial procedure. Conversely, there was great variability as to when redo procedures were performed. Because there is no defined pattern as to when these symptomatic occurrences arise, it may not be required to perform postoperative duplex ultrasound scans after EVTA routinely, but instead when a patient comes back with symptoms such as swelling.

Comparison of endovenous microwave ablation versus radiofrequency ablation for lower limb varicose veins.

OBJECTIVE: Endovenous microwave ablation (EMA) is a recently developed thermal ablation technique used in the treatment of lower limb varicose veins. However, its efficacy and safety have been largely understudied. In the present study, we sought to explore the clinical results of EMA and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in treating lower limb varicose veins. METHODS: Patients who underwent EMA (n = 65) or RFA (n = 46) at our institute from September 2018 to September 2020 were included in this retrospective investigation. The clinical results and complications were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the procedure. The effects on disease severity and quality of life were evaluated using the venous clinical severity score and chronic venous insufficiency questionnaire (CIVIQ). RESULTS: The technical success rate was 100% for both experimental groups. Although the operative time between the two groups was comparable, the EMA technique was associated with lower direct costs (P < .001), although also with prolonged hospitalization (P < .001). We found that the use of EMA correlated with more pain at 48 hours postoperatively. Except for the visual analog scale scores, no statistically significant variations were observed in the occurrence of postoperative complications within the first 48 hours postoperatively between the EMA and RFA groups, including paresthesia, ecchymosis, induration, and phlebitis (P > .05). At 4 weeks postoperatively, significantly less pigmentation was observed in the RFA group than in the EMA group (13.04% vs 32.31%; P = .020). However, the pigmentation had resolved in all patients by 12 months postoperatively. The two groups had a reduction in the venous clinical severity scores and an increase in the CIVIQ scores after the procedure. However, the CIVIQ scores within the RFA group had increased more than had those within the EMA group (P < .05). No significant differences were found in recurrence between the two groups (EMA group, 1.54%; RFA group, 2.17%; P = .804). CONCLUSIONS: Both ablation techniques are safe and effective. RFA is associated with relatively higher treatment costs but shorter hospitalization and better quality of life improvement.

Outcomes of Cyanoacrylate Closure Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for the Treatment of Incompetent Great Saphenous Veins.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of cyanoacrylate closure (CAC) for treating incompetent great saphenous veins (GSVs) compared to radiofrequency ablation (RFA). METHODS: In this prospective, randomized controlled study, 248 symptomatic subjects with incompetent GSVs were assigned to either CAC or RFA. The primary end point, complete closure of the target GSV, was determined using a duplex ultrasound examination. RESULTS: In this study, 248 patients (mean age 33.64 ± 8.06 years including 71% women) were treated with either CAC (n = 128) or RFA (n = 120) between August 2018 to May 2022. As a follow-up, after a 1-month duration, the closure rates were 128/128 at the CAC and 154/158 at the RFA. At month 24, closure rates were 122/128 at CAC and 146/158 at RFA. Apart from phlebitis and pigmentation, the incidences of bruising, skin burn, and paresthesia were lower in the CAC group compared to the RFA group. The mean procedural times were shorter for CAC. The satisfaction level with the treatment was moderately higher among CAC patients than RAF patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that Cyanoacrylate glue closure of the GSV and RFA are effective techniques for managing primary varicose veins. Cyanoacrylate glue closure of the GSV appears to have a lower rate of complications and higher satisfaction levels, rapid return to normal activities, and improved procedure time without the need for perivenous tumescent anesthesia and postprocedure compression stockings when compared to RFA.

A systematic review of reported outcomes in people with lower limb chronic venous insufficiency of the deep veins.

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of lower limb chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) of the deep veins is increasing and presents a significant burden to patients and health care services. To improve the evaluation of interventions it is necessary to standardise their reporting. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the outcomes of interventions delivered to people with CVI of the deep veins as part of the development of a novel core outcome set (COS). METHODS: Following the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) framework for COS development, a systematic review was conducted to PRISMA guidance. The protocol was preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42021236795). MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from January 2018 to January 2021. Clinical trials and observational studies involving more than 20 participants, reporting outcomes for patients with CVI of the deep veins were eligible. Outcomes were extracted verbatim, condensed into agreed outcome terms and coded into domains using standard COMET taxonomy. Outcome reporting consistency, where outcomes were fully reported throughout the methods and results of their respective articles was also assessed. RESULTS: Some 103 studies were eligible. There were 1183 verbatim outcomes extracted, spanning 22 domains. No outcome was reported unanimously, with the most widely reported outcome of primary patency featuring in 51 articles (<50%). There was a predominant focus on reporting clinical outcomes (n = 963 [81%]), with treatment durability (n = 278 [23%]) and clinical severity (n = 108 [9%]) reported frequently. Life impact outcomes were relatively under-reported (n = 60 [5%]). Outcome reporting consistency was poor, with just 50% of outcomes reported fully. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome reporting in studies of people with CVI of the deep veins is currently heterogeneous. Life impact outcomes, which likely reflect patients' priorities are under-reported. This study provides the first step in the development of a COS for people with lower limb CVI of the deep veins.

Contemporary management of incompetence of the small saphenous vein in the light of the recent results of the FOVELASS study.

The FOVELASS study, a randomised multicentre trial published this year by the French Society of Phlebology, confirms the technical superiority of endovenous laser over sclerosing foam in the treatment of small saphenous vein incompetence, over a 3-year follow-up. However, this study also validates the good clinical results of foam, equivalent to those of endovenous laser, already observed in other clinical studies on the great saphenous vein. Thermal ablation has therefore consolidated its leading position in the treatment of saphenous veins but depending on the anatomical configuration of the veins and the economic context, sclerosing foam, which is widely applicable, highly versatile, and cost-effective, may be an interesting alternative.

Multidisciplinary Approach to Venous Disease: Enhancing Patient Care and Trainee Education Through Collaboration.

The full spectrum of venous disease poses a significant burden on individuals and health-care systems globally. Venous disease can lead to a wide range of symptoms based on the level of disease and underlying pathology. In general, underlying pathologies are due to nonthrombotic (reflux/obstructive) and thrombotic causes. Most conditions are a sequela of the long-term effects of chronic venous insufficiency, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), or nonthrombotic deep vein obstruction. The prevalence of venous disease is substantial, impacting the quality of life of a considerable proportion of the adult population. Untreated and progressive lower extremity venous disease can lead to venous ulceration and other complications. Additionally, poorly recognized and poorly understood venous conditions of the abdomen and pelvis leave many patients "orphaned" in health-care systems that lack expertise in complex venous conditions. Addressing the burden and breadth of venous disease requires comprehensive management approaches, early diagnosis, appropriate treatment interventions, and provider and patient education. Multidisciplinary collaborations and further research are essential to enhance our understanding, develop innovative therapies, and improve patient outcomes in the field of venous disease. In this paper, we highlight the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration and our journey to building an institutional venous team, as well as lessons learned.