Randomised controlled comparison study of endoleuminal Laser versus Foam Sclerotherapy in Treatment of Varicose veins

Objective The last 10 years have seen the introduction into everyday clinical practice of a wide range of novel non-surgical treatments for varicose veins. In July 2013, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended the following treatment hierarchy for varicose veins: endothermal ablation, ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy, surgery and compression hosiery. The aim of this paper is to review the randomised controlled trials that have compared endothermal ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy to determine if the level 1 evidence base still supports an “endothermal ablation first” strategy for the treatment of varicose veins. Methods A PubMed and OVID literature search (until 31 January 2015) was performed and randomised controlled trials comparing endothermal ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy were obtained. Results Although anatomical success appeared higher with endothermal ablation than ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy, clinical success and patient-reported outcomes measures were similar. Morbidity and complication rates were very low and not significantly different between endothermal ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy. Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy was consistently less expensive that endothermal ablation. Conclusions All endovenous modalities appear to be successful and have a role in modern day practice. Although further work is required to optimise ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy technique to maximise anatomical success and minimise retreatment, the present level 1 evidence base shows there is no significant difference in clinical important outcomes between ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy and endothermal ablation. As ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy is less expensive, it is likely to be a more cost-effective option in most patients in most healthcare settings. Strict adherence to the treatment hierarchy recommended by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence seems unjustified.

Download Full-text

Novel developments in foam sclerotherapy: Focus on Varithena® (polidocanol endovenous microfoam) in the management of varicose veins

Phlebology The Journal of Venous Disease ◽

10.1177/0268355516687864 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 33 (3) ◽

pp. 150-162 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Phoebe Star ◽

David E Connor ◽

Kurosh Parsi

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Best Practice ◽

Product Information ◽

Varicose Veins ◽

Foam Sclerotherapy ◽

Physiochemical Properties ◽

Medical Practitioners ◽

Delivery Unit ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Better Than

Scope Varithena® is a recently approved commercially available drug/delivery unit that produces foam using 1% polidocanol for the management of varicose veins. The purpose of this review is to examine the benefits of foam sclerotherapy, features of the ideal foam sclerosant and the strengths and limitations of Varithena® in the context of current foam sclerotherapy practices. Method Electronic databases including PubMed, Medline (Ovid) SP as well as trial registries and product information sheets were searched using the keywords, ‘Varithena’, ‘Varisolve’, ‘polidocanol endovenous microfoam’, ‘polidocanol’ and/or ‘foam sclerotherapy/sclerosant’. Articles published prior to 20 September 2016 were identified. Results Foam sclerosants have effectively replaced liquid agents due to their physiochemical properties resulting in better clinical outcomes. Medical practitioners commonly prepare sclerosant foam at the bedside by agitating liquid sclerosant with a gas such as room air, using techniques as described by Tessari or the double syringe method. Such physician-compounded foams are highly operator dependent producing inconsistent foams of different gas/liquid compositions, bubble size, foam behaviour and varied safety profiles. Varithena® overcomes the variability and inconsistencies of physician-compounded foam. However, Varithena® has limited applications due to its fixed sclerosant type and concentration, cost and lack of worldwide availability. Clinical trials of Varithena® have demonstrated efficacy and safety outcomes equivalent or better than physician-compounded foam but only in comparison to placebo alone. Conclusion Varithena® is a promising step towards the creation of an ideal sclerosant foam. Further assessment in independent randomised controlled clinical trials is required to establish the advantages of Varithena® over and above the current best practice physician-compounded foam.

Download Full-text

Risk of venous thromboembolism following surgical treatment of superficial venous incompetence

VASA ◽

10.1024/0301-1526/a000656 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 46 (6) ◽

pp. 484-489 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Tom Barker ◽

Felicity Evison ◽

Ruth Benson ◽

Alok Tiwari

Keyword(s):

Venous Thromboembolism ◽

Varicose Vein ◽

Lower Incidence ◽

Varicose Veins ◽

Secondary Data ◽

Foam Sclerotherapy ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Chi Squared ◽

One Year

Abstract. Background: The invasive management of varicose veins has a known risk of post-operative deep venous thrombosis and subsequent pulmonary embolism. The aim of this study was to evaluate absolute and relative risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) following commonly used varicose vein procedures. Patients and methods: A retrospective analysis of secondary data using Hospital Episode Statistics database was performed for all varicose vein procedures performed between 2003 and 2013 and all readmissions for VTE in the same patients within 30 days, 90 days, and one year. Comparison of the incidence of VTEs between procedures was performed using a Pearson’s Chi-squared test. Results: In total, 261,169 varicose vein procedures were performed during the period studied. There were 686 VTEs recorded at 30 days (0.26 % incidence), 884 at 90 days (0.34 % incidence), and 1,246 at one year (0.48 % incidence). The VTE incidence for different procedures was between 0.15–0.35 % at 30 days, 0.26–0.50 % at 90 days, and 0.46–0.58 % at one year. At 30 days there was a significantly lower incidence of VTEs for foam sclerotherapy compared to other procedures (p = 0.01). There was no difference in VTE incidence between procedures at 90 days (p = 0.13) or one year (p = 0.16). Conclusions: Patients undergoing varicose vein procedures have a small but appreciable increased risk of VTE compared to the general population, with the effect persisting at one year. Foam sclerotherapy had a lower incidence of VTE compared to other procedures at 30 days, but this effect did not persist at 90 days or at one year. There was no other significant difference in the incidence of VTE between open, endovenous, and foam sclerotherapy treatments.

Download Full-text