Claudine M Hamel-Desnos1, Marianne De Maeseneer2, Matthieu Josnin3, Jean-Luc Gillet3, François-André Allaert4. 1. Société Française de Phlébologie (SFP), Paris, France; Hôpital Privé Saint Martin, Ramsay Générale de Santé, Caen, France. Electronic address: claudine@desnos.eu. 2. Société Française de Phlébologie (SFP), Paris, France; Department of Dermatology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Société Française de Phlébologie (SFP), Paris, France. 4. Société Française de Phlébologie (SFP), Paris, France; Chaire d'évaluation médicale BSB Cenbiotech, Dijon, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the distribution of the diameter of the great saphenous vein (GSV) at mid-thigh level and to investigate its association with clinical class, symptoms, and proximal extent of reflux. METHODS: Vascular physicians, members of the French Society of Phlebology, were invited to participate in a consecutive observational study in patients presenting with symptoms and/or signs of uni- or bilateral chronic venous disorders (CVDs) in previously untreated limbs (clinical class of the CEAP classification C0s - C6). Patients were included between January and March 2015. They completed a specially designed venous symptoms questionnaire. Duplex ultrasound of the included limbs was performed with the patient standing to detect reflux in the GSV and to measure the GSV inner diameter at mid-thigh. RESULTS: Between January and March 2015, 35 physicians examined 1245 patients (2450 limbs after excluding 40 limbs): 77% were female, mean age 52 ± 14; 69% of the patients had venous symptoms in one or both legs. The most frequent symptoms were feeling of heaviness, feeling of swelling and aching. Predominant CEAP clinical classes were C2 (38% of limbs) and C1 (35%). In case of GSV reflux (40% of limbs), the average diameter was 5.6 ± 2 mm and the distribution was 62% < 6 mm, 30% between 6 and 8 mm, and 8% > 8 mm. The study showed a clear association between clinical class and GSV diameter (the higher the clinical class, the larger the diameter; p < .0001), between venous symptoms and diameter (the larger the diameter, the higher the intensity of symptoms, p < .0001 for overall discomfort) and between proximal extent of reflux and diameter (the more proximal the extent of reflux, the larger the diameter, p < .0001). CONCLUSION: The DIAGRAVES study demonstrated that in France for patients consulting with CVDs, more than half of the incompetent GSVs had a diameter < 6 mm, while large diameters were relatively infrequent. This should be kept in mind when considering management strategies in patients with CVDs.
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the distribution of the diameter of the great saphenous vein (GSV) at mid-thigh level and to investigate its association with clinical class, symptoms, and proximal extent of reflux. METHODS: Vascular physicians, members of the French Society of Phlebology, were invited to participate in a consecutive observational study in patients presenting with symptoms and/or signs of uni- or bilateral chronic venous disorders (CVDs) in previously untreated limbs (clinical class of the CEAP classification C0s - C6). Patients were included between January and March 2015. They completed a specially designed venous symptoms questionnaire. Duplex ultrasound of the included limbs was performed with the patient standing to detect reflux in the GSV and to measure the GSV inner diameter at mid-thigh. RESULTS: Between January and March 2015, 35 physicians examined 1245 patients (2450 limbs after excluding 40 limbs): 77% were female, mean age 52 ± 14; 69% of the patients had venous symptoms in one or both legs. The most frequent symptoms were feeling of heaviness, feeling of swelling and aching. Predominant CEAP clinical classes were C2 (38% of limbs) and C1 (35%). In case of GSV reflux (40% of limbs), the average diameter was 5.6 ± 2 mm and the distribution was 62% < 6 mm, 30% between 6 and 8 mm, and 8% > 8 mm. The study showed a clear association between clinical class and GSV diameter (the higher the clinical class, the larger the diameter; p < .0001), between venous symptoms and diameter (the larger the diameter, the higher the intensity of symptoms, p < .0001 for overall discomfort) and between proximal extent of reflux and diameter (the more proximal the extent of reflux, the larger the diameter, p < .0001). CONCLUSION: The DIAGRAVES study demonstrated that in France for patients consulting with CVDs, more than half of the incompetent GSVs had a diameter < 6 mm, while large diameters were relatively infrequent. This should be kept in mind when considering management strategies in patients with CVDs.