Literature DB >> 28818215

Age is not a barrier to good outcomes after varicose vein procedures.

Danielle C Sutzko1, Elizabeth A Andraska2, Andrea T Obi2, Mikel Sadek3, Lowell S Kabnick3, Thomas W Wakefield2, Nicholas H Osborne2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) Varicose Vein Registry (VVR) represents a patient-centered database launched in January 2015. Previous work describing overall trends and outcomes of varicose vein procedures across the United States demonstrates a benefit from these procedures. The existing gaps in evidence to support current and future Medicare coverage of varicose vein procedures necessitate further description of clinical outcomes in patients ≥65 years old compared with the population <65 years old.
METHODS: This study analyzed prospectively captured anatomic, procedural, and outcome data for all patients in a national cohort of all VQI VVR-participating centers. The VQI VVR database was queried for all patients undergoing varicose vein procedures between January 2015 and July 2016. Preprocedural and postprocedural Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology (CEAP) classification, Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were compared between patients <65 years and ≥65 years old. Univariate descriptive statistics of demographic and procedural data were performed. Student t-tests were then performed on change in CEAP classification, VCSS score, and PROs (heaviness, achiness, throbbing, swelling, itching, appearance, and impact on work) for each group.
RESULTS: There were 4841 varicose vein procedures performed from January 2015 to May 2016. There were 3441 procedures performed in 2691 patients (3631 limbs) in the group <65 years old and 1400 procedures performed in 1068 patients (1467 limbs) in the group ≥65 years old. Truncal veins alone were the most common veins treated in both groups. The majority of patients were white and female in both groups. Most of the demographic characteristics were clinically similar (although statistically different) in both groups with the exception of a higher body mass index in the group <65 years old and a history of bilateral varicose vein treatment, and anticoagulation was more common among patients ≥65 years old. Patients in both groups experienced statistically significant improvement in VCSS, PROs, and CEAP class. There was no difference in overall complications between age groups.
CONCLUSIONS: All patients demonstrated an associated improvement in both clinical outcomes (CEAP class, VCSS) and PROs. There was no significant difference in the improvement in CEAP class and VCSS between patients younger and older than 65 years, although the younger population reported greater improvement in PROs. Given these findings, patients older than 65 years appear to benefit from varicose vein procedures and should not be denied interventions on their varicose veins and venous insufficiency on the basis of their age only.
Copyright © 2017 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28818215      PMCID: PMC5584572          DOI: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2017.04.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord


  18 in total

Review 1.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing endovenous ablation and surgical intervention in patients with varicose vein.

Authors:  B Siribumrungwong; P Noorit; C Wilasrusmee; J Attia; A Thakkinstian
Journal:  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg       Date:  2012-06-15       Impact factor: 7.069

Review 2.  Treatment options for primary varicose veins--a review.

Authors:  R J Beale; M J Gough
Journal:  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 7.069

Review 3.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of the treatments of varicose veins.

Authors:  M Hassan Murad; Fernando Coto-Yglesias; Magaly Zumaeta-Garcia; Mohamed B Elamin; Murali K Duggirala; Patricia J Erwin; Victor M Montori; Peter Gloviczki
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 4.268

Review 4.  Management of varicose veins and venous insufficiency.

Authors:  Allen Hamdan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-12-26       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 5.  The epidemiology of chronic venous insufficiency and varicose veins.

Authors:  Jennifer L Beebe-Dimmer; John R Pfeifer; Jennifer S Engle; David Schottenfeld
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.797

Review 6.  Chronic venous insufficiency.

Authors:  Robert T Eberhardt; Joseph D Raffetto
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2014-07-22       Impact factor: 29.690

7.  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

8.  Incidence of deep vein thrombosis after varicose vein surgery.

Authors:  A M van Rij; J Chai; G B Hill; R A Christie
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 6.939

9.  Increasing awareness about venous disease: The American Venous Forum expands the National Venous Screening Program.

Authors:  Robert B McLafferty; Marc A Passman; Joseph A Caprini; Thom W Rooke; Steven A Markwell; Joanne M Lohr; Mark H Meissner; Bo G Eklöf; Thomas W Wakefield; Michael C Dalsing
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2008-06-24       Impact factor: 4.268

10.  The VVSymQ® instrument: Use of a new patient-reported outcome measure for assessment of varicose vein symptoms.

Authors:  Jean Paty; Diane M Turner-Bowker; Celeste A Elash; David Wright
Journal:  Phlebology       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 1.740

View more
  5 in total

1.  Clinical outcomes after varicose vein procedures in octogenarians within the Vascular Quality Initiative Varicose Vein Registry.

Authors:  Danielle C Sutzko; Andrea T Obi; Andrew S Kimball; Margaret E Smith; Thomas W Wakefield; Nicholas H Osborne
Journal:  J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord       Date:  2018-05-08

2.  Effect of concomitant deep venous reflux on truncal endovenous ablation outcomes in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

Authors:  Craig S Brown; Nicholas H Osborne; Gloria Y Kim; Danielle C Sutzko; Thomas W Wakefield; Andrea T Obi; Peter K Henke
Journal:  J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord       Date:  2020-06-24

3.  Outcomes after truncal ablation with or without concomitant phlebectomy for isolated symptomatic varicose veins (C2 disease).

Authors:  Craig S Brown; Andrea T Obi; Jack L Cronenwett; Lowell Kabnick; Thomas W Wakefield; Nicholas H Osborne
Journal:  J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord       Date:  2020-06-02

4.  Comparison of unilateral vs bilateral and staged bilateral vs concurrent bilateral truncal endovenous ablation in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

Authors:  Craig S Brown; Nicholas H Osborne; Gloria Y Kim; Danielle C Sutzko; Thomas W Wakefield; Andrea T Obi; Issam Koleilat
Journal:  J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord       Date:  2020-05-26

5.  Age is not a barrier to good outcomes following ambulatory high ligation and stripping for varicose veins: A prospective cohort study.

Authors:  ChuWen Chen; YuTing Cai; XiaoQing Long; Xiang Fan; Ding Yuan; Yi Yang; Bin Huang; JiChun Zhao; YuKui Ma
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 1.889

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.