K A Myers1, D Jolley, A Clough, J Kirwan. 1. Melbourne Vascular Ultrasound, Epworth Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. kamyers@bigpond.net.au
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate medium-term success after a technique for ultrasound-guided sclerotherapy for superficial chronic venous disease. DESIGN: A prospective study in a single unit with ultrasound surveillance after treatment. MATERIALS: Results after 1189 treatment sessions for 807 venous saphenous veins and related tributaries or non-saphenous tributaries in 489 patients. METHODS: Univariate life table analysis determined primary and secondary success rates. Multivariate Cox regression analysis detected covariates that affected outcome. RESULTS: Primary and secondary success rates at 36 months for all veins were 52.4% (95%CI 46-58%) and 76.8% (95%CI 71-82%). Cox regression analysis for primary success for all veins showed significantly worse results for saphenous veins compared to tributaries (HR 3.72 - 95%CI 1.9 to 7.3). Cox regression for all saphenous veins showed independently worse results for patients less than 40 years age (HR 2.16 - 95%CI 1.27-3.66), small compared to great saphenous veins (HR 1.58 - 95%CI 1.11-2.24), veins greater than 6mm diameter compared to smaller veins (HR 2.22 - 95%CI 1.40-3.50), liquid compared to foam sclerotherapy (HR 2.20 - 95%CI 1.28-3.78), lower volumes of sclerosant compared to volumes greater than 12 ml (HR 0.51 - 95%CI 0.33-0.81) and highly diluted compared to concentrated sclerosant (HR 2.05 - 95%CI 1.21-3.46) with worse results using highly diluted or undiluted 3% sclerosant compared to a 1.5% concentration. There were no significant differences for primary success for saphenous veins for date of procedure, sex, side, primary or recurrent varicose veins, or commercial type of sclerosant. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided sclerotherapy gives satisfactory results if it is accepted that treatment may need to be repeated to achieve secondary success. Results provide a basis for further research to explore factors that might affect outcome. Younger patients with larger diameter saphenous veins may warrant alternative forms of treatment, particularly for small saphenous reflux.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate medium-term success after a technique for ultrasound-guided sclerotherapy for superficial chronic venous disease. DESIGN: A prospective study in a single unit with ultrasound surveillance after treatment. MATERIALS: Results after 1189 treatment sessions for 807 venous saphenous veins and related tributaries or non-saphenous tributaries in 489 patients. METHODS: Univariate life table analysis determined primary and secondary success rates. Multivariate Cox regression analysis detected covariates that affected outcome. RESULTS: Primary and secondary success rates at 36 months for all veins were 52.4% (95%CI 46-58%) and 76.8% (95%CI 71-82%). Cox regression analysis for primary success for all veins showed significantly worse results for saphenous veins compared to tributaries (HR 3.72 - 95%CI 1.9 to 7.3). Cox regression for all saphenous veins showed independently worse results for patients less than 40 years age (HR 2.16 - 95%CI 1.27-3.66), small compared to great saphenous veins (HR 1.58 - 95%CI 1.11-2.24), veins greater than 6mm diameter compared to smaller veins (HR 2.22 - 95%CI 1.40-3.50), liquid compared to foam sclerotherapy (HR 2.20 - 95%CI 1.28-3.78), lower volumes of sclerosant compared to volumes greater than 12 ml (HR 0.51 - 95%CI 0.33-0.81) and highly diluted compared to concentrated sclerosant (HR 2.05 - 95%CI 1.21-3.46) with worse results using highly diluted or undiluted 3% sclerosant compared to a 1.5% concentration. There were no significant differences for primary success for saphenous veins for date of procedure, sex, side, primary or recurrent varicose veins, or commercial type of sclerosant. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided sclerotherapy gives satisfactory results if it is accepted that treatment may need to be repeated to achieve secondary success. Results provide a basis for further research to explore factors that might affect outcome. Younger patients with larger diameter saphenous veins may warrant alternative forms of treatment, particularly for small saphenous reflux.
Authors: Dario Carugo; Dyan N Ankrett; Vincent O'Byrne; Sean Willis; David D I Wright; Andrew L Lewis; Martyn Hill; Xunli Zhang Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 3.896
Authors: E Rabe; F X Breu; I Flessenkämper; H Gerlach; S Guggenbichler; B Kahle; R Murena; S Reich-Schupke; T Schwarz; M Stücker; E Valesky; S Werth; F Pannier Journal: Hautarzt Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 0.751
Authors: F Pannier; T Noppeney; J Alm; F X Breu; G Bruning; I Flessenkämper; H Gerlach; K Hartmann; B Kahle; H Kluess; E Mendoza; D Mühlberger; A Mumme; H Nüllen; K Rass; S Reich-Schupke; D Stenger; M Stücker; C G Schmedt; T Schwarz; J Tesmann; J Teßarek; S Werth; E Valesky Journal: Hautarzt Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 1.198
Authors: T M Proebstle; B J Alm; O Göckeritz; C Wenzel; T Noppeney; C Lebard; C Sessa; D Creton; O Pichot Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Guilherme Camargo Gonçalves de Abreu; Otacílio de Camargo; Márcia Fayad Marcondes de Abreu; José Luis Braga de Aquino Journal: J Vasc Bras Date: 2020-03-10
Authors: Jacek Kurnicki; Marcin Osęka; Robert Tworus; Zbigniew Gałązka Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 1.195