ArticleJournal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders2023
Treatments for symptomatic class I patients in CEAP classification with saphenous vein reflux: A pilot study.
Article in Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Availability of the Great Saphenous Veins as Conduits for Arterial Bypass Surgery in Patients with Varicose Veins.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- May Patients with Recurrent Venous Disease Benefit from Sequential Treatment More than Those without Previous Intervention? A Single-Center Retrospective Study on the Safety and Efficacy of Abdominal and Pelvic Veins Embolization in Sequential Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor patients with telangiectasia or reticular veins (CEAP [clinical, etiologic, anatomic, pathophysiologic] class C1), less invasive endovenous (EV) treatments have emerged. However, no prospective studies have compared compression stockings (CSs) and EV ablation treatment for C1 symptomatic refluxing saphenous veins. The present prospective study compared the therapeutic results of the two treatment modalities.
methodsFrom June 2020 to December 2021, 46 patients with telangiectasia or reticular veins (<3 mm; class C1) with axial saphenous reflux and venous congestion symptoms were prospectively enrolled. The patients were assigned to CS (n = 21) or EV treatment (n = 25), according to patient preference. Complications, clinical improvement scales (eg, the venous clinical severity score [VCSS]), and quality of life, including the Aberdeen varicose vein symptom severity score (AVSS) and venous insufficiency epidemiological and economic study - quality of life/symptoms (VEINES-QOL/Sym), were evaluated and compared between the two groups at 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment.
resultsNo major complications occurred in either group. The median VCSS was 2.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 1.0-2.0), 1.0 (IQR, 0.5-2.0), 1.0 (IQR 0.0-1.0), and 0.0 (IQR 0.0-1.0) at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment in the CS group, respectively. The corresponding VCSSs were 3.0 (IQR, 1.0-3.0), 1.0 (IQR, 0.0-1.0), 0.0 (IQR, 0.0-0.0), and 0.0 (IQR, 0.0-0.0) in the EV group. The median AVSS was 4.4 (IQR, 3.0-5.5), 2.1 (IQR, 1.3-4.6), 1.0 (IQR, 0.0-2.8), and 0.0 (IQR, 0.0-1.8) at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment in the CS group, respectively. The corresponding scores were 6.2 (IQR, 3.8-12.3), 1.6 (IQR, 0.6-2.8), 0.0 (IQR, 0.0-2.6), and 0.0 (IQR, 0.0-0.4) in the EV group. The mean VEINES-QOL/Sym score was 92.7 ± 8.1, 100.4 ± 7.3, 104.3 ± 8.2, and 106.0 ± 9.7 in the CS group at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment, respectively. The corresponding scores were 83.6 ± 8.0, 102.9 ± 6.6, 107.9 ± 3.9, and 109.6 ± 3.7 in the EV group. Both groups showed considerable improvement in the VCSS, AVSS, and VEIN-SYM/QOL scores, and no significant between-group differences were observed for ≤6 months. Among the severely symptomatic patients (pretreatment VEINES-QOL/Sym score ≤90), the EV group exhibited more marked improvement (P = .029 for the VCSS and P = .030 for the VEINES-QOL/Sym score).
conclusionsBoth CSs and EV treatment provided clinical and quality of life improvement in symptomatic C1 patients with refluxing saphenous veins, with no significant between-group differences. However, a subgroup analysis revealed that EV treatment provided statistically significant improvement in the severe symptomatic C1 group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.