Search

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., (Copyright © 2018 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Foamed sclerosing agents have been used with enthusiasm by phlebologists for more than 5 decades. Any type of varicose veins can and has been treated with this technique. Numerous publications have stressed the advantages of foamed sclerosing agents on the basis of empiric and experimental criteria and have described various individual techniques to prepare foams. Until now, however, no comparative study for the treatment of large varicose veins with foam or liquid exists., Objective: The purpose of this first randomized, prospective, multicenter trial was to study the elimination of reflux, the rate of recanalization, and possible side effects of foam sclerotherapy (FS) compared with conventional liquid sclerotherapy for the greater saphenous vein (GSV)., Methods: Eighty-eight patients were randomized into two groups: One group was treated with sclerosing foam (45 patients) and the other with sclerosing liquid (43 cases). Sclerotherapy was performed with direct puncture of the vessel under duplex guidance. The reference sclerosing agent was polidocanol in a 3% solution. The foam was prepared using the Double Syringe System (DSS) method. Only one injection of 2.0 or 2.5 mL liquid or foam was allowed, depending on the diameter of the GSV. Results were assessed according to the protocol., Results: Follow-up after 3 weeks showed 84% elimination of reflux in the GSV with DSS foam versus 40% with liquid sclerosant (P < 0.01). At 6 months, six recanalizations were found in the liquid group versus two in the foam group. After 1 year, no additional recanalization was observed with either foam or liquid. Longer term studies are underway. Side effects did not differ between both groups., Conclusion: The efficacy of sclerosing foam (DSS) compared with sclerosing liquid in therapy of the GSV is superior, a finding that had already gained empirical recognition but for which there has not been any clinical evidence to date.