medigraphic.com
Órgano Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Angiología y Cirugía Vascular

2016, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Angiol 2016; 44 (4)

Tasas de oclusión de safena mayor mediante ENOF con cloruro de lapirio: tres años de experiencia

Hernando-Ulloa J, Guerra JD, Brun ML, Bello MC, Navarro PI

Language: Spanish
References: 34
Page: 122-128
PDF size: 161.28 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective. Estimate primary, late primary and secondary occlusion rates as well as failure after endoluminal oclussion foam (ENOF) treatment.
Material and methods. A sample of 291 extremities with great saphenous vein insufficiency treated with ENOF between January 2013 and August 2015 at Hospital Universitario Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá was analyzed retrospectively. 1% lapidium chloride foam prepared using Tessari technique with a mixture of CO2-O2 was administered. Follow-up controls were ordered on day three and months one, three, and six. During controls, venous ultrasound was performed evaluating anatomic occlusion. On non-occluded veins, sclerotherapy was re-administered.
Results. We report a total of 56 events: 43 (14.7% of the extremities) events of superficial thrombosis, 4 (1.38% of total extremities) post-sclerotherapy ulcers, 4 (1.38%) events of pain, and isolated events of dyschromia, hematoma, cutaneous necrosis, edema, and matting (0.34% each). Primary occlusion was achieved on 70 extremities (82.3%), late primary on 9 (10.6%), secondary on two (2.35%), and failure on four extremities (4.71%). Total occlusion proportion at months one, three and six were 96%, 97%, and 95% respectively. A statistically significant p = 0.003 was obtained on the χ2 test relating clinical CEAP classification and occlusion.
Conclusions. A high percentage of extremities with saphenous vein insufficiency treated with ENOF achieved anatomic closure in a safe way. We invite other researchers to design prospective studies that take in account the association between clinical CEAP classification and occlusion.


REFERENCES

  1. Asociación Colombiana de Angiología y Cirugía Vascular. Guías colombianas para el diagnóstico y el manejo de los desórdenes crónicos de las venas. Bogotá, 2009. Disponible en: http://es.calameo.com/read/004559239780f83f51ece

  2. Bergan J, Schmid-Schönbein G, Smith P, Nicolaides A, Boisseau M, Eklof B. Chronic venous disease. NEJM 2006; 355(5): 488-98.

  3. Keller WL. A new method of extirpating the internal saphenous and similar veins in varicose conditions: a preliminary report. NY Med J 1905; 82: 385-38.

  4. European Society for Vascular Surgery. Management of venous chronic disease. Eur J VascEndovasc Surg 2015; 49: 678-737.

  5. Gloviczki P, Comerota AJ, Dalsing MC, Eklof BG, Gillespie DL, Gloviczki ML, 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 Surg 2011; 53(5 Suppl.): 2S-48S.

  6. Almeida J, Javier J, Mackay E, Bautista C, Proebstle T. First human use of cyanoacrylate adhesive for treatment of saphenous vein incompetence. J VascSurg 2013; 1(2): 174-80.

  7. Morrison N, Gibson K, McEnroe S, Goldman M, King T, Weiss R, et al. Randomized trial comparing cyanoacrylate embolization and radiofrequency ablation for incompetent great saphenous veins (VeClose). J Vasc Surg 2015; 61(4): 985-94.

  8. Cabrera Garido JR, Cabrera Garcia Olmedo JR, Garcia Olmedo D. Nuevo método de esclerosis en las varices tronculares. Patologías Vasculares 1995; 1: 55-72.

  9. Van den Bos R, Arends L, Kockaert M, Neumann M, Nijsten T. Endovenous therapies of lower extremity varicosities: A meta-analysis. J Vasc Surg 2009; 49(1): 230-9.

  10. Nesbitt C, Bedenis R, Bhattacharya V, Stansby G. Endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy versus open surgery for great saphenous vein varices. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 7: CD005624.

  11. Siribumrungwong B, Noorit P, Wilasrusmee C, Attia J, Thakkinstian A. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing endovenous ablation and surgical intervention in patients with varicose vein. J Vasc Surg 2012; 56(2): 576-77.

  12. Rasmussen L, Lawaetz M, Bjoern L, Vennits B, Blemings A, Eklof B. Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, foam sclerotherapy and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg 2011; 98(8): 1079-87.

  13. Murad M, Coto-Yglesias F, Zumaeta-García M, Elamin M, Duggirala M, Erwin P, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the treatments of varicose veins. J VascSurg 2011; 53(5): 49S-65S.

  14. Biemans A, Kockaert M, Akkersdijk G, van den Bos R, de Maeseneer M, Cuypers P, et al. Comparing endovenous laser ablation, foam sclerotherapy, and conventional surgery for great saphenous varicose veins. J Vasc Surg 2013; 58(3): 727-34.e1.

  15. Coleridge Smith P. Sclerotherapy and foam sclerotherapy for varicose veins. Phlebology 2009; 24(6): 260-9.

  16. Brittenden J, Cotton S, Elders A, Tassie E, Scotland G, Ramsay C, Norrie J, et al. clinical effectiveness and costeffectiveness of foam sclerotherapy, endovenous laser ablation and surgery for varicose veins: results from the comparison of laser, surgery and foam sclerotherapy (CLASS) randomised controlled trial. Health Technology Assessment 2015; 19(27): 1-342.

  17. Ulloa JH, Ulloa J. ENOF: Espuma de Oclusión Endoluminal Guiada por Catéter Ecoasistido. Revista Panamericana de Flebología y Linfología 2008; (13)1: 54-9.

  18. Hamel-Desnos C, Ouvry P, Benigni J, Boitelle G, Schadeck M, Desnos P, Allaert F. 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. The 3/1 Study. J Vasc Surg 2007; 46(6): 1310.

  19. Rasmussen L, Lawaetz M, Serup J, Bjoern L, Vennits B, Blemings A, 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 Surg 2013; 1(4): 349-56.

  20. Brittenden J, Cotton S, Elders A, Ramsay C, Norrie J, Burr J, et al. A randomized trial comparing treatments for varicose veins. NEJM 2014; 371(13): 1218-27.

  21. Ulloa J, Ulloa JH. Escleroespuma. Bogotá: Distribuna Editorial; 2008, p. 150.

  22. Barleben A, Bandyk D. Interpretation of peripheral venous duplex testing. Sem Vasc Surg 2015; 2013(26): 111-9.

  23. Coleridge-Smith P, Labropoulos N, Partsch H, Myers K, Nicolaides A, Cavezzi A. Duplex ultrasound investigation of the veins in chronic venous disease of the lower limbs, a UIP consensus document. Part I. Basic principles. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2007; 36(1): 53-61.

  24. Cavezzi A, Labropoulos N, Partsch H, Ricci S, Caggiati A, Myers K, Nicolaides A, et al. Duplex ultrasound investigation of the veins in chronic venous disease of the lower limbs a UIP consensus document. Part 2. Anatomy. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2007; 36(1): 62-71.

  25. De Maseneer M, Pichot O, Cavezzi A, Earnshaw J, van Rij A, Lurie F, et al. Duplex ultrasound investigation of the veins of the lower limbs after treatment for varicose veins, a UIP consensus document. Eur J VascEndovasc Surg 2011; 2011(42): 89-102.

  26. Hiller H, Ulloa J, Restrepo H. Defining great saphenous vein closure rates for ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy using 1% lapidium chlorhydrate prospectively in 960 patients. XXV Congreso Mundial de la UIA, Praga, julio 2012.

  27. Hiller H, Ulloa J, Restrepo H. Defining great saphenous vein closure rates for ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy using 1% lapidium chlorhydrate prospectively in 1026 patients, Congreso SVS, Febrero 2014.

  28. Ulloa JH. Occlusion rate with foam sclerotherapy for the treatment of greater saphenous vein incompetence: A multicentric study of 3170 cases. J VascSurg 2012; 55(1): 297.

  29. Myers KA, Jolley D, Clough A, Kirwan J. Outcome of ultrasound guided sclerotherapy for varicose veins: medium- term results assessed by ultrasound surveillance. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Jan 2007; 33(1): 116-21.

  30. Myers K, Jolley D. Outcome of endovenous laser therapy for saphenous reflux and varicose veins: mediumterm results assessed by ultrasound surveillance. J Vasc Surg 2009; 49(2): 538.

  31. Eklöf B, Rutherford RB, Bergan JB, et al. Revision of the CEAP classification for chronic venous disease: a consensus statement. J Vasc Surg 2004; 40: 1248-52.

  32. Tessari L, Cavezzi A, Frullini A. Preliminary experience with a new sclerosing foam in the treatment of varicose veins. Dermatologic Surgery 2001; 27(1): 58-60.

  33. Wollman JK. Sclerosant foams: stabilities, physical properties and rheological behavior. Phlebologie 2010; 39: 208-17.

  34. Kahn S, M’lan C, Lamping D, Kurz X, Bérard A, Abenhaim L. Relationship between clinical classification of chronic venous disease and patient-reported quality of life: results from an international cohort study. J Vasc- Surg 2004; 39(4): 823-8.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com