Literature DB >> 28682127

Factors influencing the choice of treatment modality for individual patients with varicose veins.

B Campbell1, N Chinai1, P Hollering1, H Wright1, R McCarthy1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION There is evidence of effectiveness for a range of different treatment modalities for varicose veins but limited information about factors that influence treatment choice for individual patients. METHODS A postal survey was sent to 438 UK members of the Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland. RESULTS Overall, 251 responses were received (response rate 57%). A total of 222 respondents treated varicose veins using conventional surgery (84%), endothermal ablation (82%) and foam sclerotherapy (68%). The clinical pattern of veins appeared to have the greatest influence on treatment choice. This was followed by guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, patient expectations, facilities, cost and whether treatment was carried out in the public or private sector. Respondents were asked to indicate whether each of 13 clinical 'scenarios' (eg very extensive varicose veins in both legs) would influence them towards or against using specified treatment modalities. 'Consensus' was defined as ≥80% of responses either towards or against any treatment modality; and disagreement as 41-59% both towards and against any modality (i.e. ∼50:50 split). There was consensus towards using endothermal ablation for truncal reflux, towards UGFS for localised varicose veins and towards conventional surgery for large, extensive, bilateral veins. There was consensus against UGFS for large truncal veins, and against surgery for obese patients and those with a history of venous thromboembolism. There were important disagreements about the influence of large or extensive veins, about whether patients were obese or slim and about a prior history of venous thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS Conventional surgery is still widely available in the UK. Disagreements about treatment choice in different clinical scenarios suggest substantial variation in the treatments patients are offered. Attention to identifying subgroups in trials would help to guide treatment choice for individual patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Endothermal ablation; Foam sclerotherapy; Laser ablation; Radiofrequency ablation; Varicose veins

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28682127      PMCID: PMC5696925          DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2017.0122

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl        ISSN: 0035-8843            Impact factor:   1.891


  21 in total

1.  A prospective comparison of a new cyanoacrylate glue and laser ablation for the treatment of venous insufficiency.

Authors:  Ahmet Kürşat Bozkurt; Muhammet Fatih Yılmaz
Journal:  Phlebology       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 1.740

Review 2.  Editor's Choice - Management of Chronic Venous Disease: Clinical Practice Guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS).

Authors:  C Wittens; A H Davies; N Bækgaard; R Broholm; A Cavezzi; S Chastanet; M de Wolf; C Eggen; A Giannoukas; M Gohel; S Kakkos; J Lawson; T Noppeney; S Onida; P Pittaluga; S Thomis; I Toonder; M Vuylsteke; P Kolh; G J de Borst; N Chakfé; S Debus; R Hinchliffe; I Koncar; J Lindholt; M V de Ceniga; F Vermassen; F Verzini; M G De Maeseneer; L Blomgren; O Hartung; E Kalodiki; E Korten; M Lugli; R Naylor; P Nicolini; A Rosales
Journal:  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg       Date:  2015-04-25       Impact factor: 7.069

3.  Predictors of Recanalization of the Great Saphenous Vein in Randomized Controlled Trials 1 Year After Endovenous Thermal Ablation.

Authors:  S K Van der Velden; M Lawaetz; M G R De Maeseneer; L Hollestein; T Nijsten; R R van den Bos
Journal:  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 7.069

4.  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.

Authors:  Peter Gloviczki; Anthony J Comerota; Michael C Dalsing; Bo G Eklof; David L Gillespie; Monika L Gloviczki; Joann M Lohr; Robert B McLafferty; Mark H Meissner; M Hassan Murad; Frank T Padberg; Peter J Pappas; Marc A Passman; Joseph D Raffetto; Michael A Vasquez; Thomas W Wakefield
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 4.268

5.  Reporting standards in venous disease: an update. International Consensus Committee on Chronic Venous Disease.

Authors:  J M Porter; G L Moneta
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 4.268

6.  Randomized clinical trial of co-amoxiclav versus no antibiotic prophylaxis in varicose vein surgery.

Authors:  A I Mekako; I C Chetter; P A Coughlin; J Hatfield; P T McCollum
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 6.939

7.  Combined endovenous laser therapy and microphlebectomy in the treatment of varicose veins: Efficacy and complications of a large single-center experience.

Authors:  Carlos F Fernández; Moisés Roizental; Josefina Carvallo
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2008-08-09       Impact factor: 4.268

8.  Mechanochemical endovenous ablation for the treatment of great saphenous vein insufficiency.

Authors:  Ramon R J P van Eekeren; Doeke Boersma; Suzanne Holewijn; Debora A B Werson; Jean Paul P M de Vries; Michel M J P Reijnen
Journal:  J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord       Date:  2014-03-14

9.  Five-year follow-up of a randomized, controlled trial comparing saphenofemoral ligation and stripping of the great saphenous vein with endovenous laser ablation (980 nm) using local tumescent anesthesia.

Authors:  Stefanie A Gauw; James A Lawson; Clarissa J van Vlijmen-van Keulen; Pascal Pronk; Menno T W Gaastra; Michael C Mooij
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 4.268

Review 10.  Systematic review, network meta-analysis and exploratory cost-effectiveness model of randomized trials of minimally invasive techniques versus surgery for varicose veins.

Authors:  C Carroll; S Hummel; J Leaviss; S Ren; J W Stevens; A Cantrell; J Michaels
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 6.939

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.