Catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy,an alternative to ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy for varicose vein treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online July, 2020
Catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy,an alternative to ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy for varicose vein treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy is a new addition to the treatment modalities available for varicose veins. As a modification of ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy, catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy has been purported to offer higher complete ablation rates and an improved safety profile. The aim of this study is to appraise the current literature on the outcomes of catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy compared to ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy in chronic venous insufficiency.
Methods
The review of the literature was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data from studies that reported the outcomes of catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy were extracted, to determine the pooled proportion of complete ablation rates, using a random effect meta-analysis model.
Results
A total of 62 studies, involving 3689 patients, were included in the systematic review. Higher rates of complete ablation were reported in catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy compared to ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy during the short- and medium-term follow-ups (Relative Risk = 1.06, Relative Risk = 1.15, Relative Risk = 1.19, p < 0.05). Fewer major and minor complications were also reported in patients who underwent catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy (Relative Risk = 0.23, Relative Risk= 0.43–0.76, p < 0.05).
Conclusion
Catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy has been demonstrated to have many advantages over ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy, offering superior complete ablation rates in the short-, medium- and long-term follow-ups. It also has a better safety profile, conferring a lower risk of major and minor complications. The conclusions should however be viewed in the context of significant limitations imposed by limited study data.
CallamMJ.Epidemiology of varicose veins. Br J Surg1994;
81: 167–173.
2.
EvansCJFowkesFGRuckleyCV, et al.Prevalence of varicose veins and chronic venous insufficiency in men and women in the general population: Edinburgh Vein Study. J Epidemiol Community Health1999;
53: 149–153.
3.
Varicose vein treatment market worth $475 million by 2024. San Francisco: Grand View Research, Inc., 2018.
4.
ZhaoZ-YZhangX-JLiJ-H, et al.Comparison of high ligation and stripping of the great saphenous vein combined with foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgery for the treatment of superficial venous varicosities of the lower extremity. Int J Clin Exp Med2015;
8: 7843–7848.
5.
MarsdenGPerryMKelleyK, et al.Guideline development G. Diagnosis and management of varicose veins in the legs: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ2013;
347: f4279.
6.
GloviczkiPComerotaAJDalsingMC, et 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.
7.
PuggioniAKalraMCarmoM, et al.Endovenous laser therapy and radiofrequency ablation of the great saphenous vein: analysis of early efficacy and complications. J Vasc Surg2005;
42: 488–493.
8.
BootunRLaneTRDaviesAH.The advent of non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques for treatment of varicose veins. Phlebology2016;
31: 5–14.
9.
CavezziATessariL.Foam sclerotherapy techniques: different gases and methods of preparation, catheter versus direct injection. Phlebology2009;
24: 247–251.
10.
BlaiseSBossonJLDiamandJM.Ultrasound-guided sclerotherapy of the great saphenous vein with 1% vs. 3% polidocanol foam: a multicentre double-blind randomised trial with 3-year follow-up. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2010;
39: 779–786.
11.
RasmussenLHLawaetzMBjoernL, et 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.
12.
ParsiK.Extended long line echosclerotherapy (ELLE). N Sclero Soc Aust1997;
1: 10–12.
13.
ParsiK. Extended long line echosclerotherapy (ELLE): review of technique. Aust NZ J Phleb2000;
4: 6–10.
FlessenkämperIHartmannMHartmannK, et al.Endovenous laser ablation with and without high ligation compared to high ligation and stripping for treatment of great saphenous varicose veins: Results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial with up to 6 years follow-up. Phlebology2014;
31: 23–33.
16.
van der VeldenSKBiemansAAMDe MaeseneerMGR, et al.Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial of conventional surgery, endovenous laser ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy in patients with great saphenous varicose veins. BJS2015;
102: 1184–1194.
17.
RasmussenLLawaetzMBjoernL, et 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.
18.
LawaetzMSerupJLawaetzB, et al.Comparison of endovenous ablation techniques, foam sclerotherapy and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins. Extended 5-year follow-up of a RCT. J Vasc Surg2017;
5: 907–908.
19.
KolbelTHinchliffeRJLindbladB.Catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy of axial saphenous reflux: early results. Phlebology2007;
22: 219–222.
20.
CamilloO.Is catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy more effective than the usual foam sclerotherapy for treatment of the great saphenous vein?Phlebology2018;
33: 646–652.
21.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJ, et al.; Group P.Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol2009;
62: 1006–1012.
22.
ViechtbauerW.Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw2010;
36: 48.
23.
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing.
Vienna, Austria:
R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2013.
24.
CampbellI.Chi-squared and Fisher–Irwin tests of two-by-two tables with small sample recommendations. Stat Med2007;
26: 3661–3675.
25.
KatzDBaptistaJAzenSP, et al.Obtaining confidence intervals for the risk ratio in cohort studies. Biometrics1978;
34: 469–474.
26.
AltmanDGBlandJM.How to obtain the confidence interval from a P value. BMJ2011;
343: d2304.
27.
HigginsJPGreenS (eds). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011).
London:
The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
28.
AliHElbadawyASalehM, et al.Mid-term results of catheter directed foam sclerotherapy combined with tumescent local anaesthesia for treatment of great saphenous vein incompetence. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2017;
54: 363–368.
29.
CavezziAMostiGCampanaF, et al.Catheter foam sclerotherapy of the great saphenous vein, with perisaphenous tumescence infiltration and saphenous irrigation. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2017;
54: 629–635.
30.
DevereuxNReckeALWestermannL, et al.Catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy of great saphenous veins in combination with pre-treatment reduction of the diameter employing the principals of perivenous tumescent local anesthesia. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2014;
47: 187–195.
31.
WilliamssonCDanielssonPSmithL.Catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy for chronic venous leg ulcers. Phlebology2014;
29: 688–693.
32.
WilliamssonCDanielssonPSmithL.Catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy for insufficiency of the great saphenous vein: occlusion rates and patient satisfaction after one year. Phlebology2013;
28: 80–85.
KurdalATYildirimFOzbakkalogluA, et al.Ultrasound-guided catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy for great saphenous vein. Minerva Chir2015;
70: 33–36.
35.
BayoumiMAZakariaMYAhmedFM.Feasibility and safety of catheter directed foam sclerotherapy combined with tumescent local anesthesia for treatment of axial varicose vein. Egypt J Hosp Med2018;
72: 4185–4188.
36.
TanVAbidinSZTanSG.Medium-term results of ultrasonography-guided, catheter-assisted foam sclerotherapy of the long saphenous vein for treatment of varicose veins. Singapore Med J2012;
53: 91–94.
37.
BrodersenJPGeismarU.Catheter-assisted vein sclerotherapy: a new approach for sclerotherapy of the greater saphenous vein with a double-lumen balloon catheter. Dermatol Surg2007;
33: 469–475.
38.
MinRJNavarroL.Transcatheter duplex ultrasound-guided sclerotherapy for treatment of greater saphenous vein reflux: preliminary report. Dermatol Surg2000;
26: 410–414.
39.
MishraMKSoniRKMohilRS, et al.Comparative study of outcome of duplex ultrasound-guided, catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy and radio-frequency ablation in the management of great saphenous varicose veins.Indian J Surg2016;
78: 375–381.
40.
AlòsJCarreñoPLópezJA, et al.Efficacy and safety of sclerotherapy using polidocanol foam: a controlled clinical trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2006;
31: 101–107.
41.
BaeshkoAShestakNKorytkoS.Results of ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy of the great saphenous vein with new parameters of the technique. Vasc Endovasc Surg2016;
50: 528–533.
42.
BiemansAAMKockaertMAkkersdijkGP, et al.Comparing endovenous laser ablation, foam sclerotherapy, and conventional surgery for great saphenous varicose veins. J Vasc Surg2013;
58(3):727–734.e1.
43.
BrittendenJCottonSCEldersA, et al.A randomized trial comparing treatments for varicose veins. N Engl J Med2014;
371: 1218–1227.
44.
CamposWJrTorresIOda SilvaES, et al.A prospective randomized study comparing polidocanol foam sclerotherapy with surgical treatment of patients with primary chronic venous insufficiency and ulcer. Ann Vasc Surg2015;
29: 1128–1135.
45.
ChenC-HChiuC-SYangC-H.Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy for treating incompetent great saphenous veins – results of 5 years of analysis and morphologic evolvement study. Dermatol Surg2012;
38: 851–857.
46.
DarkeSGBakerSJA.Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy for the treatment of varicose veins. BJS2006;
93: 969–974.
47.
DarvallKABateGRAdamDJ, et al.Recovery after ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy compared with conventional surgery for varicose veins. Br J Surg2009;
96: 1262–1267.
48.
DarvallKABateGRAdamDJ, et al.Duplex ultrasound outcomes following ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy of symptomatic primary great saphenous varicose veins. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2010;
40: 534–539.
49.
DarvallKABateGRAdamDJ, et al.Duplex ultrasound outcomes following ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy of symptomatic recurrent great saphenous varicose veins. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2011;
42: 107–114.
50.
DarvallKABateGRSilvermanSH, et al.Medium-term results of ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy for small saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg2009;
96: 1268–1273.
51.
DarvallKALBateGRBradburyAW.Patient-reported outcomes 5–8 years after ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy for varicose veins. BJS2014;
101: 1098–1104.
52.
FigueiredoMAraújoSBarrosNJr, et al.Results of surgical treatment compared with ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy in patients with varicose veins: a prospective randomised study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2009;
38: 758–763.
53.
GilletJLLauseckerMSicaM, et al.Is the treatment of the small saphenous veins with foam sclerotherapy at risk of deep vein thrombosis?Phlebology2013;
29: 600–607.
54.
Gonzalez-ZehRArmisenRBarahonaS.Endovenous laser and echo-guided foam ablation in great saphenous vein reflux: one-year follow-up results. J Vasc Surg2008;
48: 940–946.
55.
HamahataAYamakiTSakuraiH.Outcomes of ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy for varicose veins of the lower extremities: a single center experience. Dermatol Surg2011;
37: 804–809.
56.
Hamel-DesnosCOuvryPBenigniJP, et al.Comparison of 1% and 3% polidocanol foam in ultrasound guided sclerotherapy of the great saphenous vein: a randomised, double-blind trial with 2 year-follow-up. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2007;
34: 723–729.
57.
Hamel-DesnosCMGuiasBJDesnosPR, et al.Foam sclerotherapy of the saphenous veins: randomised controlled trial with or without compression. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2010;
39: 500–507.
58.
KalodikiELattimerCRAzzamM, et al.Long-term results of a randomized controlled trial on ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy combined with saphenofemoral ligation vs standard surgery for varicose veins. J Vasc Surg2012;
55: 451–457.
59.
KulkarniSRSlimFJAEmersonLG, et al.Effect of foam sclerotherapy on healing and long-term recurrence in chronic venous leg ulcers. Phlebology2013;
28: 140–146.
60.
KurnickiJOsękaMTworusR, et al.Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy of great saphenous vein with 2% polidocanol – one-year follow-up results. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne2016;
11: 67–75.
61.
LattimerCRKalodikiEAzzamM, et al.Interim results on abolishing reflux alongside a randomized clinical trial on laser ablation with phlebectomies versus foam sclerotherapy. Int Angiol2013;
32: 394–403.
62.
LattimerCRAzzamMKalodikiE, et al.Cost and effectiveness of laser with phlebectomies compared with foam sclerotherapy in superficial venous insufficiency. Early results of a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2012;
43: 594–600.
63.
LiLHongX-YZengX-Q, et al.Technical feasibility and early results of radiologically guided foam sclerotherapy for treatment of varicose veins. Dermatol Surg2011;
37: 992–998.
64.
LiXFanLRenS, et al.Outcomes of foam sclerotherapy plus ligation versus foam sclerotherapy alone for venous ulcers in lower extremities. Ann Vasc Surg2017;
45: 160–165.
65.
LiXYangBLiX, et al.Prospective comparison of effect of ligation and foam sclerotherapy with foam sclerotherapy alone for varicose veins. Ann Vasc Surg2018;
49: 75–79.
66.
MyersKAJolleyDCloughA, et al.Outcome of ultrasound-guided sclerotherapy for varicose veins: medium-term results assessed by ultrasound surveillance. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2007;
33: 116–121.
67.
NaelRRathbunS.Effectiveness of foam sclerotherapy for the treatment of varicose veins. Vasc Med2009;
15: 27–32.
68.
O’HareJLParkinDVandenbroeckCP, et al.
Mid term results of ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy for complicated and uncomplicated varicose veins. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2008;
36: 109–113.
69.
PalmMDGuihaICGoldmanMP.Foam sclerotherapy for reticular veins and nontruncal varicose veins of the legs: a retrospective review of outcomes and adverse effects. Dermatol Surg2010;
36: 1026–1033.
70.
RabeEOttoJSchliephakeD, et al.Efficacy and safety of great saphenous vein sclerotherapy using standardised polidocanol foam (ESAF): a randomised controlled multicentre clinical trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2008;
35: 238–245.
71.
RanFShiYQiaoT, et al.Comparison of foam sclerotherapy alone or combined with stripping of the great saphenous vein for treating varicose veins. Dermatol Surg2017;
43: 541–547.
72.
RasmussenLLawaetzMSerupJ, et al.Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, foam sclerotherapy, and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins with 3-year follow-up. J Vasc Surg2013;
1: 349–356.
73.
Reza ZafarghandiMFarsavianHDavoudiM, et al.Outcome of ultrasonography-guided foam sclerotherapy versus stab avulsion ambulatory phlebectomy in the treatment of varicosis in small veins of the leg: a single blinded randomized clinical trial. Iran J Radiol2017; 14: e21742.
74.
ShadidNCeulenRNelemansP, et al.Randomized clinical trial of ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy versus surgery for the incompetent great saphenous vein. BJS2012;
99: 1062–1070.
SolomonACMauryaDK.Ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy for varicose veins using two needle technique – a case series.Indian J Surg2010;
72: 249–251.
77.
TanVKTanSG. Technique and early results of ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy of the long spahenous vein for treatment of varicose veins. Singapore J Med2009;
50: 284–287.
78.
ThomassetSCButtZLiptrotS, et al.Ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy: factors associated with outcomes and complications. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2010;
40: 389–392.
79.
UurtoIHannukainenJAarnioP.Single-center experience with foam sclerotherapy without ultrasound guidance for treatment of varicose veins. Dermatol Surg2007; 33: 1334--1339.
80.
VähäahoSHalmesmäkiKAlbäckA, et al.Five-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial comparing open surgery, foam sclerotherapy and endovenous laser ablation for great saphenous varicose veins. BJS2018;
105: 686–691.
81.
VenermoMSaarinenJEskelinenE, et al.Randomized clinical trial comparing surgery, endovenous laser ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy for the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins.Br J Surg2016;
103: 1438–1444.
82.
YamakiTHamahataASoejimaK, et al.Prospective randomised comparative study of visual foam sclerotherapy alone or in combination with ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy for treatment of superficial venous insufficiency: preliminary report. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2012;
43: 343–347.
83.
YilmazSCekenKAlparslanA, et al.Endovenous laser ablation and concomitant foam sclerotherapy: experience in 504 patients. CardioVasc Intervent Radiol2012;
35: 1403–1407.
84.
dos SantosJBJúniorWCPortaRMP, et al.Catheter-directed foam sclerotherapy with tumescence of the great saphenous vein versus ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy: a randomized controlled trial. Phlebology2020; 35: 84–91.
85.
CretonDUhlJF.Foam sclerotherapy combined with surgical treatment for recurrent varicose veins: short term results. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2007;
33: 619–624.
86.
ParavastuSCVHorneMDoddPDF.Endovenous ablation therapy (laser or radiofrequency) or foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgical repair for short saphenous varicose veins. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2016; 11: CD010878.
87.
ParsiK ETConnorDEHerbertA, et al.The lytic effects of detergent sclerosants on erythrocytes, platelets, endothelial cells and microparticles are attenuated by albumin and other plasma components in vitro. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2008;
36: 216–223.
88.
ConnorDECooley-AndradeOGohWX, et al.Detergent sclerosants are deactivated and consumed by circulating blood cells. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2015;
49: 426–431.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
