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.

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.

In a 1994-1998 cross-sectional study of a multiethnic sample of 2,211 men and women in San Diego, California, the authors estimated prevalence of the major manifestations of chronic venous disease: spider veins, varicose veins, trophic changes, and edema by visual inspection; superficial and deep functional disease (reflux or obstruction) by duplex ultrasonography; and venous thrombotic events based on history. Venous disease increased with age, and, compared with Hispanics, African Americans, and Asians, non-Hispanic Whites had more disease. Spider veins, varicose veins, superficial functional disease, and superficial thrombotic events were more common in women than men (odds ratio (OR) = 5.4, OR = 2.2, OR = 1.9, and OR = 1.9, respectively; p < 0.05), but trophic changes and deep functional disease were less common in women (OR = 0.7 for both; p < 0.05). Visible (varicose veins or trophic changes) and functional (superficial or deep) disease were closely linked; 92.0% of legs were concordant and 8.0% discordant. For legs evidencing both trophic changes and deep functional disease, the age-adjusted prevalences of edema, superficial events, and deep events were 48.2%, 11.3%, and 24.6%, respectively, compared with 1.7%, 0.6%, and 1.3% for legs visibly and functionally normal. However, visible disease did not invariably predict functional disease, or vice versa, and venous thrombotic events occurred in the absence of either.

Autologous saphenous vein (ASV) and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) grafts were compared in 845 infrainguinal bypass operations, 485 to the popliteal artery and 360 to infrapopliteal arteries. Life-table primary patency rates for randomized PTFE grafts to the popliteal artery paralleled those for randomized ASV grafts to the same level for 2 years and then became significantly different (4-year patency rate of 68% +/- 8% [SE] for ASV vs. 47% +/- 9% for PTFE, p less than 0.025). Four-year patency differences for randomized above-knee grafts were not statistically significant (61% +/- 12% for ASV vs. 38% +/- 13% for PTFE, p greater than 0.25) but were for randomized below-knee grafts (76% +/- 9% for ASV vs. 54% +/- 11% for PTFE, p less than 0.05). Four-year limb salvage rates after bypasses to the popliteal artery to control critical ischemia did not differ for the two types of randomized grafts (75% +/- 10% for ASV vs. 70% +/- 10% for PTFE, p greater than 0.25). Although primary patency rates for randomized and obligatory PTFE grafts to the popliteal artery were significantly different (p less than 0.025), 4-year limb salvage rates were not (70% +/- 10% vs. 68% +/- 20%, p greater than 0.25). Primary patency rates at 4 years for infrapopliteal bypasses with randomized ASV were significantly better than those with randomized PTFE (49% +/- 10% vs. 12% +/- 7%, p less than 0.001). Limb salvage rates at 3 1/2 years for infrapopliteal bypasses with both randomized grafts (57% +/- 10% for ASV and 61% +/- 10% for PTFE) were better than those for obligatory infrapopliteal PTFE grafts (38% +/- 11%, p less than 0.01). These results fail to support the routine preferential use of PTFE grafts for either femoropopliteal or more distal bypasses. However, this graft may be used preferentially in selected poor-risk patients for femoropopliteal bypasses, particularly those that do not cross the knee. Although every effort should be made to use ASV for infrapopliteal bypasses, a PTFE distal bypass is a better option than a primary major amputation.