The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) and the American Venous Forum (AVF) have developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with varicose veins of the lower limbs and pelvis. The document also includes recommendations on the management of superficial and perforating vein incompetence in patients with associated, more advanced chronic venous diseases (CVDs), including edema, skin changes, or venous ulcers. Recommendations of the Venous Guideline Committee are based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system as strong (GRADE 1) if the benefits clearly outweigh the risks, burden, and costs. The suggestions are weak (GRADE 2) if the benefits are closely balanced with risks and burden. The level of available evidence to support the evaluation or treatment can be of high (A), medium (B), or low or very low (C) quality. The key recommendations of these guidelines are: We recommend that in patients with varicose veins or more severe CVD, a complete history and detailed physical examination are complemented by duplex ultrasound scanning of the deep and superficial veins (GRADE 1A). We recommend that the CEAP classification is used for patients with CVD (GRADE 1A) and that the revised Venous Clinical Severity Score is used to assess treatment outcome (GRADE 1B). We suggest compression therapy for patients with symptomatic varicose veins (GRADE 2C) but recommend against compression therapy as the primary treatment if the patient is a candidate for saphenous vein ablation (GRADE 1B). We recommend compression therapy as the primary treatment to aid healing of venous ulceration (GRADE 1B). To decrease the recurrence of venous ulcers, we recommend ablation of the incompetent superficial veins in addition to compression therapy (GRADE 1A). For treatment of the incompetent great saphenous vein (GSV), we recommend endovenous thermal ablation (radiofrequency or laser) rather than high ligation and inversion stripping of the saphenous vein to the level of the knee (GRADE 1B). We recommend phlebectomy or sclerotherapy to treat varicose tributaries (GRADE 1B) and suggest foam sclerotherapy as an option for the treatment of the incompetent saphenous vein (GRADE 2C). We recommend against selective treatment of perforating vein incompetence in patients with simple varicose veins (CEAP class C(2); GRADE 1B), but we suggest treatment of pathologic perforating veins (outward flow duration ≥500 ms, vein diameter ≥3.5 mm) located underneath healed or active ulcers (CEAP class C(5)-C(6); GRADE 2B). We suggest treatment of pelvic congestion syndrome and pelvic varices with coil embolization, plugs, or transcatheter sclerotherapy, used alone or together (GRADE 2B).

No abstract

The CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders (CVD) was developed in 1994 by an international ad hoc committee of the American Venous Forum, endorsed by the Society for Vascular Surgery, and incorporated into "Reporting Standards in Venous Disease" in 1995. Today most published clinical papers on CVD use all or portions of CEAP. Rather than have it stand as a static classification system, an ad hoc committee of the American Venous Forum, working with an international liaison committee, has recommended a number of practical changes, detailed in this consensus report. These include refinement of several definitions used in describing CVD; refinement of the C classes of CEAP; addition of the descriptor n (no venous abnormality identified); elaboration of the date of classification and level of investigation; and as a simpler alternative to the full (advanced) CEAP classification, introduction of a basic CEAP version. It is important to stress that CEAP is a descriptive classification, whereas venous severity scoring and quality of life scores are instruments for longitudinal research to assess outcomes.

A protocol of noninvasive assessment increased use of AFs. The cumulative patency rate of AFs was improved, and early failure rates were reduced when compared with the preceding institutional experience. Routine noninvasive assessment is recommended to document adequacy of arterial inflow and delineate venous outflow to maximize opportunities for AF.

The CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders (CVD) was developed in 1994 by an international ad hoc committee of the American Venous Forum (AVF), endorsed by the Society for Vascular Surgery and incorporated into "Reporting standards in venous disease" in 1995. Today most published clinical papers on CVD use all or portions of CEAP. Rather than have it stand as a static classification system, an ad hoc committee of the AVF, working with an international liaison committee, has recommended a number of practical changes which are detailed in this consensus report. These include: refinements of several definitions used in describing CVD; refinement of the C-classes of CEAP; addition of the descriptor n (no venous abnormality identified); elaboration of the date of classification and level of investigation, and as a simpler alternative to the full (advanced) CEAP classification, introduction of a "basic" CEAP version. It is important to stress that CEAP is a descriptive classification, while venous severity scoring and quality of life scores are instruments for longitudinal research to assess outcomes.

Recognizing the impact of the decision making by the dialysis access surgeon on the successful placement of autogenous arteriovenous hemodialysis access, the Society for Vascular Surgery assembled a multispecialty panel to develop practice guidelines in arteriovenous access placement and maintenance with the aim of maximizing the percentage and functionality of autogenous arteriovenous accesses that are placed. The Society commissioned the Knowledge and Encounter Research Unit of the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota, to systematically review the available evidence in three main areas provided by the panel: timing of referral to access surgeons, type of access placed, and effectiveness of surveillance. The panel then formulated practice guidelines in seven areas: timing of referral to the access surgeon, operative strategies to maximize the placement of autogenous arteriovenous accesses, first choice for the autogenous access, choice of arteriovenous access when a patient is not a suitable candidate for a forearm autogenous access, the role of monitoring and surveillance in arteriovenous access management, conversion of a prosthetic arteriovenous access to a secondary autogenous arteriovenous access, and management of the nonfunctional or failed arteriovenous access. For each of the guidelines, the panel stated the recommendation or suggestion, discussed the evidence or opinion upon which the recommendation or suggestion was made, detailed the values and preferences that influenced the group's decision in formulating the relevant guideline, and discussed technical remarks related to the particular guideline. In addition, detailed information is provided on various configurations of autogenous and prosthetic accesses and technical tips related to their placement.

Some measure of disease severity is needed to properly compare the outcomes of the various approaches to the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency. Comparing the outcomes of two or more different treatments in a clinical trial, or the same treatment in two or more reports from the literature cannot be done with confidence unless the relative severity of the venous disease in each treatment group is known. The CEAP (Clinical-Etiology-Anatomic-Pathophysiologic) system is an excellent classification scheme, but it cannot serve the purpose of venous severity scoring because many of its components are relatively static and others use detailed alphabetical designations. A disease severity scoring scheme needs to be quantifiable, with gradable elements that can change in response to treatment. However, an American Venous Forum committee on venous outcomes assessment has developed a venous severity scoring system based on the best usable elements of the CEAP system. Two scores are proposed. The first is a Venous Clinical Severity Score: nine clinical characteristics of chronic venous disease are graded from 0 to 3 (absent, mild, moderate, severe) with specific criteria to avoid overlap or arbitrary scoring. Zero to three points are added for differences in background conservative therapy (compression and elevation) to produce a 30 point-maximum flat scale. The second is a Venous Segmental Disease Score, which combines the Anatomic and Pathophysiologic components of CEAP. Major venous segments are graded according to presence of reflux and/or obstruction. It is entirely based on venous imaging, primarily duplex scan but also phlebographic findings. This scoring scheme weights 11 venous segments for their relative importance when involved with reflux and/or obstruction, with a maximum score of 10. A third score is simply a modification of the existing CEAP disability score that eliminates reference to work and an 8-hour working day, substituting instead the patient's prior normal activities. These new scoring schemes are intended to complement the current CEAP system.

Endovascular repair and open repair resulted in similar long-term survival. The perioperative survival advantage with endovascular repair was sustained for several years, but rupture after repair remained a concern. Endovascular repair led to increased long-term survival among younger patients but not among older patients, for whom a greater benefit from the endovascular approach had been expected. (Funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development; OVER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00094575.).