Lower limb varicose veins have a significant effect upon the quality of life and a considerable socioeconomic impact despite their relatively benign nature. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of various therapeutic strategies among patients with varicose veins to surgical ligation and vein stripping on the basis of quality of life.
Methods
PubMed/Medline and Scopus databases were systemically searched from 1 January 2000 until 23 December 2015 for studies reporting outcome on the quality of life of different treatment techniques for varicose veins. We used Cohen’s d to make the outcomes of the reported scales comparable. Heterogeneity was calculated with the use of the Q statistic and the I2.
Results
A total of 1047 participants were randomized across all analyzed trials. The number of participants in a single trial ranged from 30 to 308. The majority of participants in any trial were C2 on the CEAP scores. Overall, the quality of evidence was low. For the meta-analysis performed at 12 months postintervention (seven studies, n = 1047 patients) and after random effects meta-analyses due to high heterogeneity, no differences are observed between intervention and surgical ligation and vein stripping. The pooled estimate is −0.001 and the 95% confidence interval is −0.069 to 0.067 with a p = 0.98. In the case of the 24 months, postintervention analysis (six studies, n = 840 patients) the inference is almost identical. The effect of various interventional modes of treatment compared to surgical ligation and vein stripping is negligible in terms of clinical outcomes and quality of life so that surgical ligation and vein stripping versus the other interventional procedures were equally effective approaches to treat great saphenous vein incompetence in terms of quality of life measurements.
Conclusion
The procedures were at least equally efficient in treating patients with varicose vein disease in terms of quality of life assessment tools at 12 and 24 months compared to surgical ligation and vein stripping.
KelleherDLaneTRFranklinIJet al.Treatment options, clinical outcome (quality of life) and cost benefit (quality-adjusted life year) in varicose vein treatment. Phlebology2012; 27: 16–22.
2.
LurieFKistnerRL. Trends in patient reported outcomes of conservative and surgical treatment of primary chronic venous disease contradict current practices. Ann Surg2011; 254: 363–367.
3.
LorenzDGäbelWRedtenbacherMet al.Randomized clinical trial comparing bipolar coagulating and standard great saphenous stripping for symptomatic varicose veins. Br J Surg2007; 94: 434–440.
4.
LurieFCretonDEklofBet al.Prospective randomized study of endovenous radiofrequency obliteration (closure) versus ligation and vein stripping (EVOLVeS): two-year follow-up. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2005; 29: 67–73.
5.
SubramoniaSLeesT. Randomized clinical trial of radiofrequency ablation or conventional high ligation and stripping for great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg2010; 97: 328–336.
6.
ShadidNCeulenRNelemansPet al.Randomized clinical trial of ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy versus surgery for the incompetent great saphenous vein. Br J Surg2012; 99: 1062–1070.
7.
RasmussenLLawaetzMBjoernLet al.Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation and stripping of the great saphenous vein with clinical and duplex outcome after 5 years. J Vasc Surg2013; 58: 421–426.
8.
SamuelNCarradiceDWallaceTet al.Randomized clinical trial of endovenous laser ablation versus conventional surgery for small saphenous varicose veins. Ann Surg2013; 257: 419–426.
9.
MacKenzieRKLeeAJPaisleyAet al.Patient, operative, and surgeon factors that influence the effect of superficial venous surgery on disease-specific quality of life. J Vasc Surg2002; 36: 896–902.
10.
RasmussenLHLawaetzMBjoernLet al.Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, foam sclerotherapy and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg2011; 98: 1079–1087.
11.
DisselhoffBCBuskensEKelderJCet al.Randomized comparison of costs and cost effectiveness of cryostripping and endovenous laser ablation for varicose veins: 2-year results. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2009; 37: 357–363.
12.
ShepherdACGohelMSBrownLCet al.Randomized clinical trial of VNUS ClosureFAST radiofrequency ablation versus laser for varicose veins. Br J Surg2010; 97: 810–818.
13.
KalteisMBergerIMessie-WerndlSet al.High ligation combined with stripping and endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein: early results of a randomized controlled study. J Vasc Surg2008; 47: 822–829.
14.
El-SheikhaJNandhraSCarradiceDet al.Clinical outcomes and quality of life 5 years after a randomized trial of concomitant or sequential phlebectomy following endovenous laser ablation for varicose veins. Br J Surg2014; 101: 1093–1097.
15.
NesbittCEifellRKGCoynePet al.Endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgery for great saphenous vein varices. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2011; 10: CD005624–CD005624.
16.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Varicose veins in the legs: the diagnosis and management of varicose veins. Clinical guideline CG168, London: NICE, 2013.
17.
GloviczkiPComerotaAJDlasingMCet al.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. J Vasc Surg2011; 53: 2S–48S.
18.
CarrollCHummelSLeavissJet al.Systemic review, network meta-analysis and exploratory cost-effectiveness model of randomized trials of minimally invasive techniques versus surgery for varicose veins. Br J Surg2014; 101: 1040–1052.
19.
PanYZhaoJMeiJet al.Comparison of endovenous laser ablation and high ligation and stripping for varicose vein treatment: a meta-analysis. Phlebology2014; 29: 109–119.
20.
FlessenkämperIHartmannMStengerDet al.Endovenous laser ablation with and without high ligation compared with high ligation and stripping in the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins: initial results of a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Phlebology2013; 28: 16–23.
21.
CarradiceDSamuelNWallaceTet al.Comparing the treatment response of great saphenous and small saphenous vein incompetence following surgery and endovenous laser ablation: a retrospective cohort study. Phlebology2012; 27: 128–134.
22.
Schipper H, Clinch J, Powell V, et al. Definitions and conceptual issues. In: Spilker BL (ed) Quality of life assessments in clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1990, pp.11–24.
23.
EklӧfBRutherfordRBBerganJJet al.American venous forum international Ad Hoc Committee for revision of the CEAP classification. Revision of the CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders: consensus statement. J Vasc Surg2004; 40: 1248–1252.
24.
DarvallKABateGRAdamDJet al.Generic health-related quality of life is significantly worse in varicose vein patients with lower limb symptoms independent of CEAP clinical grade. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2012; 44: 341–344.
25.
KahnSRM’IanCELampingDLet al.VEINES study group. Relationship between clinical classification of chronic venous disease and patient-reported quality of life: results from an international cohort study. J Vasc Surg2004; 39: 823–828.
26.
Ortega-SantanaFLimiηanaJMRuanoFet al.The influence of the CIVIQ dimensions on quality of life of patients with primary superficial venous incompetence. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2014; 48: 452–458.
27.
LaunoisRReboul-MartyJHenryB. Construction and validation of a quality of life questionnaire in chronic lower limb venous insufficiency (CIVIQ). Qual Life Res1996; 5: 539–554.
28.
McHorneyCAWareJEJrLuJFet al.The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care1994; 32: 40–66.
29.
EuroQol Group. EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy1990; 16: 199–208.
30.
GarratAMMacdonaldLMRutaDAet al.Towards measurement of outcome for patients with varicose veins. Qual Health Care1993; 2: 5–10.
31.
RuthrfordRBPadbergFTJrComerotaAJet al.Venous severity scoring: an adjunct to venous outcome assessment. J Vasc Surg2000; 31: 1307–1312.
32.
LampingDLSchroterSKurzXet al.Evaluation of outcomes in chronic venous disorders of the leg: development of a scientifically rigorous, patient-reported measure of symptoms and quality of life. J Vasc Surg2003; 37: 410–419.
33.
RassKDaschzerenMGräberSet al.Construction and evaluation of a multidimensional score to assess varicose vein severity – the Homburg Varicose Vein Severity Score (HVVSS). Eur J Dermatol2011; 21: 577–584.
34.
SmithJJGarrattAMGuestMet al.Evaluating and improving health-related quality of life in patients with varicose veins. J Vasc Surg1999; 30: 710–719.
35.
LamersLMMcDonnellJStalmeierPFet al.The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ2006; 15: 1121–1132.
36.
WinterbornRJFoyCHeatherBPet al.Randomized trial of flush saphenofemoral ligation for primary great saphenous varicose veins. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2008; 36: 477–484.
37.
ChristensonJTGueddiSGemayedGet al.Prospective randomized trial comparing endovenous laser ablation and surgery for treatment of primary great saphenous varicose veins with a 2-year follow-up. J Vasc Surg2010; 52: 1234–1241.
38.
MichaelsJACampbellWBBrazierJEet al.Randomized clinical trial, observational study and assessment of cost-effectiveness of the treatment of varicose veins (REACTIV trial). Health Technol Assess2006; 10: 1–196, iii–iv.
39.
WinterbornRJEarnshawJJ. Randomised trial of polytetrafluoroethylene patch insertion for recurrent great saphenous varicose veins. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2007; 34: 367–373.
40.
MichaelsJABrazierJECampbellWBet al.Randomized clinical trial comparing surgery with conservative treatment for uncomplicated varicose veins. Br J Surg2006; 93: 175–181.
41.
RassKFringsNGlowackiPet al.Comparable effectiveness of endovenous laser ablation and high ligation with stripping of the great saphenous vein: two-year results of a randomized clinical trial (RELACS study). Arch Dermatol2012; 148: 49–58.
42.
BrandFNDannenbergALAbbottRDet al.The epidemiology of varicose veins: the Framingham Study. Am J Prev Med1988; 4: 96–101.
43.
BeresfordTSmithJJBrownLet al.A comparison of health-related quality of life of patients with primary and recurrent varicose veins. Phlebology2003; 18: 35–37.
44.
SchulMWEatonTErdmanB. Compression versus sclerotherapy for patients with isolated refluxing reticular veins and telangiectasia: a randomized trial comparing quality-of-life outcomes. Phlebology2011; 26: 148–156.
45.
MenyheiGGyevnarZAratoEet al.Conventional stripping versus cryostripping: a prospective randomized trial to compare improvement in quality of life and complications. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2008; 35: 218–223.
46.
van den BosRArendsLKockaertMet al.Endovenous therapies of lower extremity varicosities: a meta-analysis. J Vasc Surg2009; 49: 230–239.
47.
MunasingheASmithCKianifardBet al.Strip-track revascularization after stripping the great saphenous vein. Br J Surg2007; 94: 840–843.
48.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy for varicose veins. Interventional procedure guidance 217, London: NICE, 2007.
