Search

BACKGROUNDVenous disease is the most common cause of leg ulceration. Although compression therapy improves venous ulcer healing, it does not treat the underlying causes of venous hypertension. Treatment of superficial venous reflux has been shown to reduce the rate of ulcer recurrence, but the effect of early endovenous ablation of superficial venous reflux on ulcer healing remains unclear.METHODSIn a trial conducted at 20 centers in the United Kingdom, we randomly assigned 450 patients with venous leg ulcers to receive compression therapy and undergo early endovenous ablation of superficial venous reflux within 2 weeks after randomization (early-intervention group) or to receive compression therapy alone, with consideration of endovenous ablation deferred until after the ulcer was healed or until 6 months after randomization if the ulcer was unhealed (deferred-intervention group). The primary outcome was the time to ulcer healing. Secondary outcomes were the rate of ulcer healing at 24 weeks, the rate of ulcer recurrence, the length of time free from ulcers (ulcer-free time) during the first year after randomization, and patient-reported health-related quality of life.RESULTSPatient and clinical characteristics at baseline were similar in the two treatment groups. The time to ulcer healing was shorter in the early-intervention group than in the deferred-intervention group; more patients had healed ulcers with early intervention (hazard ratio for ulcer healing, 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13 to 1.68; P=0.001). The median time to ulcer healing was 56 days (95% CI, 49 to 66) in the early-intervention group and 82 days (95% CI, 69 to 92) in the deferred-intervention group. The rate of ulcer healing at 24 weeks was 85.6% in the early-intervention group and 76.3% in the deferred-intervention group. The median ulcer-free time during the first year after trial enrollment was 306 days (interquartile range, 240 to 328) in the early-intervention group and 278 days (interquartile range, 175 to 324) in the deferred-intervention group (P=0.002). The most common procedural complications of endovenous ablation were pain and deep-vein thrombosis.CONCLUSIONSEarly endovenous ablation of superficial venous reflux resulted in faster healing of venous leg ulcers and more time free from ulcers than deferred endovenous ablation. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Program; EVRA Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN02335796.)

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is common and symptoms can be debilitating and lethal. Risk management, exercise, radiological and surgical intervention are all valuable therapies, but morbidity and mortality rates from this disease are increasing. Circulatory enhancement can be achieved using simple medical electronic devices, with claims of minimal adverse side effects. The evidence for these is variable, prompting a review of the available literature. METHODS: Embase and Medline were interrogated for full text articles in humans and written in English. Any external medical devices used in the management of peripheral arterial disease were included if they had objective outcome data. RESULTS: Thirty-one papers met inclusion criteria, but protocols were heterogenous. The medical devices reported were intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC), electronic nerve (NMES) or muscle stimulators (EMS), and galvanic electrical dressings. In patients with intermittent claudication, IPC devices increase popliteal artery velocity (49-70 %) and flow (49-84 %). Gastrocnemius EMS increased superficial femoral artery flow by 140 %. Over 4.5-6 months IPC increased intermittent claudication distance (ICD) (97-150 %) and absolute walking distance (AWD) (84-112 %), with an associated increase in quality of life. NMES of the calf increased ICD and AWD by 82 % and 61-150 % at 4 weeks, and 26 % and 34 % at 8 weeks. In patients with critical limb ischaemia IPC reduced rest pain in 40-100 % and was associated with ulcer healing rates of 26 %. IPC had an early limb salvage rate of 58-83 % at 1-3 months, and 58-94 % at 1.5-3.5 years. No studies have reported the use of EMS or NMES in the management of CLI. CONCLUSION: There is evidence to support the use of IPC in the management of claudication and CLI. There is a building body of literature to support the use of electrical stimulators in PAD, but this is low level to date. Devices may be of special benefit to those with limited exercise capacity, and in non-reconstructable critical limb ischaemia. Galvanic stimulation is not recommended.

INTRODUCTION: The prevention and management of venous disease is a therapeutic challenge. Movement of blood through the venous system is augmented by the action of muscles on the deep veins, and can be achieved through the application of electrical current. The efficacy of currently available clinical devices for this purpose is unknown, and is investigated here. METHODS: A literature search of the EMBASE and Medline databases was performed, and studies were included if they were full text articles, written in english, pertaining to venous disease and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES). RESULTS: NMES devices increase venous haemodynamic parameters such as peak velocity and volume flow. Studies report them to be non-inferior to intermittent pneumatic compression. They are effective in the prevention of venous thromboembolism, though inferior to low molecular weight heparin. NMES can reduce symptoms of chronic venous disease. DISCUSSION: NMES is an important tool in the prevention and management of venous disease, and avoids the significant risks associated with heparin administration. Data explored here is heterogenous in device, protocol, and reported end-points, therefore should be interpreted with care. Long term effects of treatment with NMES have not been explored.

SummaryBackgroundIf carotid artery narrowing remains asymptomatic (ie, has caused no recent stroke or other neurological symptoms), successful carotid endarterectomy (CEA) reduces stroke incidence for some years. We assessed the long-term effects of successful CEA.MethodsBetween 1993 and 2003, 3120 asymptomatic patients from 126 centres in 30 countries were allocated equally, by blinded minimised randomisation, to immediate CEA (median delay 1 month, IQR 0·3–2·5) or to indefinite deferral of any carotid procedure, and were followed up until death or for a median among survivors of 9 years (IQR 6–11). The primary outcomes were perioperative mortality and morbidity (death or stroke within 30 days) and non-perioperative stroke. Kaplan-Meier percentages and logrank p values are from intention-to-treat analyses. This study is registered, number ISRCTN26156392.Findings1560 patients were allocated immediate CEA versus 1560 allocated deferral of any carotid procedure. The proportions operated on while still asymptomatic were 89·7% versus 4·8% at 1 year (and 92·1% vs 16·5% at 5 years). Perioperative risk of stroke or death within 30 days was 3·0% (95% CI 2·4–3·9; 26 non-disabling strokes plus 34 disabling or fatal perioperative events in 1979 CEAs). Excluding perioperative events and non-stroke mortality, stroke risks (immediate vs deferred CEA) were 4·1% versus 10·0% at 5 years (gain 5·9%, 95% CI 4·0–7·8) and 10·8% versus 16·9% at 10 years (gain 6·1%, 2·7–9·4); ratio of stroke incidence rates 0·54, 95% CI 0·43–0·68, p

Introduction Varicose veins are a common problem with 25-50% of the population symptomatically affected, and chronic venous disease leads to significant impairments in quality of life with substantial health system cost implications. Significant variability exists in the symptoms suffered by patients, the treatment offered and the outcomes achieved. Identification of the optimal treatment pathways for patients remains difficult. Aims i. To ascertain primary care disease knowledge. ii. To assess what affects treatment and identify which patients benefit most. iii. To generate a predictive model of varicose vein outcomes. iv. To assess the impact of altering treatment of varicosities in the context of endovenous truncal vein ablation v. Toinvestigatetheearlyimpactofnewtechnologies Methods i. Two survey studies were completed: ⁃ 21 questions assessing venous disease management pathways was disseminated to General Practitioners. ⁃ 19 questions assessing the management of superficial venous thrombosis and was distributed to General Practitioners and Vascular Surgeons. ii. A cohort of consecutive patients with symptomatic chronic venous disease were assessed and completed quality of life questionnaires pre and post- intervention. iii. Uni-variable and multi-variable analysis of patient cohort data to facilitate the creation of generalised model of venous treatment outcomes iv. A randomised clinical trial assessing the timing of varicosity avulsion in the context of local anaesthetic endovenous truncal ablation. ⁃ Ambulatory Varicosity avUlsion Later or Synchronised (AVULS) trial. v. Assessmentofnewtechnologies ⁃ The European Sapheon Closure system Observed ProspectivE (eSCOPE) study a multi-site cohort observational study of cyanoacrylate glue occlusion of truncal vein incompetence ⁃ The VNUS Versus Clarivein for Varicose Veins (VVCVV) multi-centre randomised clinical trial comparing the procedural pain profile of radiofrequency and mechanochemical ablation. Results i. Education outcomes ⁃ 138 responses were received. The management of chronic venous disease in the primary care setting is disparate and knowledge of current techniques is poor, despite extensive guidance. ⁃ 369 responses were received, from 197 vascular specialists and 172 primary care physicians. Superficial thrombophlebitis management is shown to be diverse and does not adhere to recent evidence. ii. 461 patients were recruited. Patients suffering from chronic venous disease suffer from substantial quality of life impairment, including previously under-recognised depressive symptoms. Treatment of the underlying venous condition provides relief from venous symptoms and improves quality of life. ⁃ Patient symptoms and quality of life do not correlate with anatomical vein diameter, however clinical severity scores do. iii. Predictive modelling produces models that account for 30-41% of the variability in post-operative scores for disease specific quality of life tools, generic quality of life tools, and clinical severity scores. iv. The AVULS trial recruited 101 patients. Simultaneous treatment leads to improved clinical outcomes at up to 1 year and early quality of life improvement. Delayed treatment has a significantly increased risk of requiring further treatment (Odds Ratio 27.78, Relative Risk 18.36, p