Varicosities of the lower extremity, new approaches: cosmetic or therapeutic needs?

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2016.14360

Background

Varicose veins are a manifestation of chronic venous dysfunction [1]. In a consensus statement from the American Venous Forum, varicose veins are defined as subcutaneous, usually tortuous and dilated veins, 3 mm or larger in diameter as measured in the upright position. The disease may involve the saphenous veins, saphenous tributaries or nonsaphenous superficial leg veins [2]. Varicosities can develop as sequelae of deep vein thrombosis or obstruction, superficial thrombophlebitis, arteriovenous fistula or venous malformation. However, in the majority of patients varicose veins develop in the setting of primary venous disease [3]. Varicose veins of the lower extremity (VVLE) are a frequently encountered vascular disorder in the general population with a reported prevalence ranging from 14 to 64%. The prevalence of the more advanced stages of VVLE, including trophic skin changes, ranges from 3.3 to 9.6% [4–8]. VVLE are typically associated with a certain risk factor profile including higher age, positive family history, overweight, pregnancy and daily activities associated with orthostasis [4, 7, 9]. In the course of the disease the superficial leg veins change in morphology and become varicose. The consequence of disease progression is ambulatory venous hypertension in the setting of reflux due to incompetent vein valves.

If appropriate management is not initiated, a series of changes in the skin and subcutaneous tissue occur as a result of the venous hypertension. These changes can include tissue oedema, skin hyperpigmentation, lipodermatosclerosis (induration caused by fibrosis of the subcutaneous fat), eczematous dermatitis, atrophy blanche (white scar tissue) or venous ulceration [10]. Moreover, protracted venous hypertension can cause secondary lymphoedema. More threatening complications include haemorrhage from a ruptured varicose vein [11] as well as superficial varicophlebitis with the possible development of deep vein thrombosis with or without pulmonary embolism [12]. Associated symptoms in patients suffering from varicose veins are itching, feeling of heaviness, tightness, swelling and pain after standing or sitting, and muscle cramps [9, 13, 14]. These symptoms are nonspecific [15], but can be suggestive of chronic venous disease, especially if they are exacerbated by warm weather or if they worsen during the course of the day, and are improved by raising the legs [1, 16]. The symptoms associated with VVLE can have a considerable negative impact on mental and physical health, potentially even decreasing quality of life [17–19]. Further, VVLE can interfere with activities of daily life and work, especially when long lasting activities are part of the daily routine. Treatment of varicose veins with surgery or endovenous ablation techniques improves symptoms and general quality of life, and these treatment options for VVLE are associated with high patient satisfaction [20–23].

Treatment of varicose veins

The first step in all patients with varicose veins is adequate education about the significance of varicose veins, the likelihood of progression of the illness, the possible complications and the treatment options. Recommendations should be given to the patient with regard to weight control, light to moderate physical activity, if possible avoidance of known risk factors and when to seek vascular specialist expert help [24]. In the case of symptomatic varicose veins, in the presence of advanced lower limb skin changes or in the presence of threatening complications, such as venous leg ulcer, thrombophlebitis or bleeding from superficial varicose veins, a more aggressive therapeutic approach is recommended [24]. The initial diagnostic test of choice to determine the extent of the varicose disease and for treatment planning is duplex ultrasound [3, 25–27].

Traditionally, the mainstay of varicose veins treatment included long-term elastic compression stockings or bandages, as well as surgical approaches, namely high ligation, crossectomy and stripping of the truncal veins, combined with phlebectomies of the tributaries. However, for several years surgical approaches have increasingly been replaced by minimally invasive endovascular vein ablation techniques, particularly endothermal methods such as endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). This shift from surgical to endovascular techniques is also reflected in the latest international guidelines, developed by the Society for Vascular Surgery, the American Venous Forum, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the European Society for Vascular Surgery. The endothermal methods (EVLA, RFA) are now recommended in preference to surgical therapy for the treatment of the truncal vein [3, 24, 28]. The reason for the preference of the endothermal methods over surgery is the reduced morbidity, decreased pain levels, quicker recovery and faster return to normal activities. The efficacy profile of endovascular versus surgical techniques is at least comparable [3, 24, 28].

New therapeutic methods

In recent decades, novel minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of varicose veins of the lower extremity have been developed and continually optimised. These new procedures can generally be performed on an outpatient basis. In contrast to surgery, where the treated vein is commonly removed or dissected, with these new techniques the treated vein is left in situ and closed from inside (endovenous ablation) with the aid of a catheter or a cannula placed into the vein under ultrasound guidance. Thus, there is only a single small incision with a reduced risk of bleeding and bruising. Table 1 gives an overview of the main differences between crossectomy/stripping as open surgical technique and the endovascular vein ablation (EVA) procedures. Once the catheter is placed within the vein, the vein can be closed with either thermic energy or alternatively with a chemical substance (fig. 1). It is important to emphasise that for a given pathological situation, different endovenous and surgical (for example, mini-phlebectomy) techniques can be combined to achieve the best clinical outcome. Essential prerequisites for successful VVLE management are a good knowledge of the venous anatomy and pathophysiology, an awareness of the different therapeutic possibilities for treating varicose veins and advanced technical ultrasound skills. The main endovenous ablation techniques will be discussed in the next sections. Table 2 gives an overview of the differences between the various EVA techniques.

Figure 1

Overview of the different techniques of endovascular vein ablation.

Endovenous thermal ablation

Endovenous thermal ablation (ETA) is a minimally invasive procedure which applies, at the tip of an intraluminal placed catheter, intense local heat-based energy, thereby destroying the vein wall and obliterating the vein lumen [29]. Another common feature of this outpatient based technique is so-called tumescent anaesthesia, which is performed with ultrasound-guided application of a large volume of diluted local anaesthetic and epinephrine. Besides improving tolerability of the procedure, the goals of tumescent anaesthesia are also the protection of the surrounding tissue from thermal damage and the reduction of the vein lumen, thereby increasing the efficacy of thermal delivery to the vein wall. The different types of ETA relate to the nature of the heating-source, namely EVLA, RFA and steam vein sclerosis (SVS).

Endovenous laser ablation

The heating source of EVLA is laser energy that is absorbed by the target tissue and converted into heat [30]. After cannulation of the target vein, a laser fibre is placed through a sheath of 1 to 2 mm in diameter near to the saphenofemoral or saphenopopliteal junction. Ultrasound guidance is used for precise placement. Tumescence anaesthesia is applied and the laser treatment is conducted from proximally to distally. Histological studies have shown that the result of this acute thermic exposure is damage to the intima and the inner third of the media [31]. Three months after EVLA there is the endothelium is absent and an organised thrombus has formed in the lumen [32]. Laser systems have evolved significantly in the recent past. There has been a shift from bare fibres with shorter wavelength (810 to 1320 nm) to radial fibres with longer wavelength (1320 to 1550 nm). Radial fibres nowadays emit light at 360°, thus causing homogenous venous ablative changes. Another advantage of radial fibres compared with bare fibres is a lower incidence of skin bleeding and decreased pain, probably secondary to the fact that vein perforation is unlikely [33, 34]. The reported efficacy with the 1470 nm diode laser using radial fibres is high, with short-term (<1 year) ultrasonographically proven occlusion rates that vary between 91 and 100% [33–39], and mid-term ultrasound data after 1 year demonstrate that in the majority of cases the treated vein segment disappears completely [36]. The most common reported side effects are haematomas/ecchymoses and pain with or without induration in the region of the treated vein. These side effects are generally mild and self-limiting [40]. Phlebitis (<10%) and mostly transient par- and dysaesthesias (<10%) are less frequently reported [41]. Serious complications such as venous thromboembolism, skin burns and necrosis or wound infections are exceedingly rare [42].

Radiofrequency ablation

The heating source for RFA originates from a bipolar catheter, and temperatures of up to 100 °C (RFITT^©) and 120 °C (ClosureFAST^©) can be reached. The preparation and placement of the RFA catheter, the application of tumescence anaesthesia, and the ablation direction from proximal to distal are similar to EVLA. This endovenous ablation procedure is segmental, not continuous. The consequence is acute thermal damage to the endothelium, leading to obliteration of the treated vein. The efficacy of RFA is similar to that of EVLA with short-term (<1 year) occlusion rates that vary between 91 and 99.6% in the most recently published reports [43–50]. Long-term occlusion rates are as promising with 87.1% [51] and 91.9% [52], respectively, after 5 years. Overall, RFA is a safe procedure and complication rates and types are comparable to EVLA [41].

Steam vein sclerosis

With the aid of a transcutaneous 60 cm long microcatheter with a diameter of 1.2 mm (VenoSteam™, cermaVEIN), micropulses of steaming water are injected into the accessed vein and the techniques is also combined with tumescence anaesthesia. Steam condensates back to water and the vein wall absorbs the resulting heat. In this way, the heat damages the vein wall and causes obliteration of the varicose vein. One of the advantages of SVS is the increased flexibility of the microcatheter, making it is easier to navigate through tortuous veins [53, 54]. A limited number of studies have been published up to now on the efficacy of SVS in the treatment of varicose veins. In 2013, Milleret reported the first more clinically relevant study in a series of 88 great saphenous vein treatments with an obliteration rate of 96% at 6 months. No major complications were reported. One relevant minor complication was protrusion of thrombus into the femoral vein due to positioning of the delivery catheter close to the saphenofemoral junction. Further minor complications included ecchymosis, pain, symptomatic venous inflammation, skin burn at the entry site and decreased sensitivity at the treatment site [54].

Chemical ablation

In chemical ablation procedures (sclerotherapy, mechanochemical ablation, cyanoacrylate glue), the obliteration of the target vein is secondary to application of a chemical substance. There is no need for thermal energy and for tumescence anesthaesia. Therefore, patient discomfort and possible ETA-related procedural complications due to heat application and to tumescence anaesthesia are minimised when performing chemical ablation.

Sclerotherapy

During the sclerotherapy procedure a liquid or foamed sclerosing drug (for example, polidocanol, Aethoxysklerol®) is injected into the lumen of the varicose vein, with the aim to damage the vessel wall and eventually lead to occlusion of the affected vasculature secondary to fibrotic vascular transformation. Because of their better efficacy in the treatment of varicose veins, the sclerosing substances are usually applied as foam (foam sclerotherapy) [55]. After contraindications are taken onto account, all forms of varicose veins (intradermal, subcutaneous or transfascial), as well as venous malformations, can be treated with sclerotherapy [56]. The reported occlusion rates at 1 year vary between 72% [57] and 84% [46] and are lower if compared with EVTA, RFA or surgery. However, in these studies all treatment groups showed a similar improvement in the clinical status and quality of life. Sclerotherapy is by far the most cost effective procedure of all invasive treatments of varicose veins. Frequently encountered (in the range 1–10%) complications are phlebitis, matting (new occurrence of fine telangiectasias in the area of the sclerosed vein) and residual pigmentation. Rare complications (<1%) include distal deep vein thrombosis, headache/migraine and temporary visual disturbances; exceedingly rare complications (<0.01%) include skin necrosis and proximal deep vein thrombosis [56].

Mechanochemical ablation

Mechanochemical ablation (MOCA, Clarivein^®) combines the endomechanical destruction of the endothelium and media using a rotating wire placed at the tip of a catheter with the simultaneous injection of a liquid sclerosant over the rotating wire [58]. The combination of these two methods results in vein obliteration and fibrosis [59, 60]. The reported occlusion rates of the treated veins in prospective series after 6 months vary between 94 and 97%, and after 12 months vary between 88 and 94% [42]. The most commonly encountered complications are superficial thrombophlebitis (3–10%), haematoma/ecchymosis (10%) and induration along the course of the treated vein (12%) [61, 62]. Unlike the endothermal methods, there is no thermal injury risk to skin, nerves, muscles and blood vessels and there is no need for tumescent anaesthesia. A further advantage is the decreased pain and discomfort reported during the procedure [63].

Cyanoacrylate embolisation

With cyanoacrylate embolisation (VenaSeal™ Closure System), a modified medical glue (cyanoacrylate) is applied segmentally along the target vein with a Teflon catheter in conjunction with manual compression using sonographic guidance. There is no need for tumescent anaesthesia with this procedure. The adhesive polymerises into a solid material in the vessel via an anionic mechanism, leading to chronic occlusion of the treated vein. It has to be mentioned that this glue has longstanding use for a variety of conditions, such as for the treatment of intracranial arteriovenous malformations [64]. The long-term safety of the glue is well established. This procedure has a strong efficacy profile in the treatment of varicose veins. The most frequent reported side effect (side effect rates between 11 and 18.5%) is a predominantly a mild phlebitis reaction, which can be well controlled with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications. The reported closure rates are 99% at 3 months and 92% at 12 months [65–67]. Compared with ETA techniques, cyanoacrylate embolisation has the advantage that no tumescence anaesthesia is needed, obviating the need for multiple needle sticks. Furthermore, the risk of thermal-associated complications such as damage of nerves and surrounding tissues is minimal. Finally, no post-procedural compression therapy is needed. The drawbacks of this procedure are the higher costs and lack of long-term data for VVLE treatment.

Discussion

The general view that VVLE is a non-serious disease with primarily aesthetic impact is a common misconception. This is supported by the fact that VVLE can have a considerable negative impact on generic and disease-specific quality of life [17–19]. The disease is associated with potential serious clinical conditions, such as chronic lower extremity tissue loss, venous thromboembolism and haemorrhage from ruptured varicose veins [10–12]. Hence, in cases of symptomatic varicose veins and in the presence of advanced lower limb skin changes or when venous complication occur, a referral to a vascular medicine specialist for individualised patient management is recommended [24].

Regarding the treatment of varicose veins, over recent decades several EVA techniques have been developed to treat truncal vein incompetence. Compared with the traditional surgical varicose vein approaches, the EVA techniques have a comparable efficacy profile and a reduced morbidity, decreased pain and a faster return to normal activities and, therefore, reflect an attractive option for VVLE treatment. However, the above-mentioned advantages of EVA could lead to an extension from strictly medically indicated treatment of VVLE to treatment for primarily aesthetic purposes. An indirect indicator of this possible shift is the clear growth of venous interventions during the last decade. A careful evaluation and justified indication is necessary for each affected individual in order to prevent unnecessary harm to the patient and to avoid increasing healthcare costs.

The choice of a specific EVA technique from those discussed in this article for the treatment of varicose veins should be based on availability, local expertise, advantages and disadvantages, patients’ preferences and the individual reimbursement situation of the corresponding country. In Switzerland, since January 1 2016 only EVAL and RFA are covered by health insurance even though other endovenous techniques for the treatment of varicose veins have been proven to be effective in abolishing reflux. Long-term clinical data for the newer endovenous techniques is warranted to further improve patient care when treating truncal varicose veins.

References

  1 Eklof B, Perrin M, Delis KT, Rutherford RB, Gloviczki P; American Venous Forum; European Venous Forum; International Union of Phlebology; American College of Phlebology; International Union of Angiology. Updated terminology of chronic venous disorders: the VEIN-TERM transatlantic interdisciplinary consensus document. J Vasc Surg. 2009;49(2):498–501.

  2 Eklöf B, Rutherford RB, Bergan JJ, Carpentier PH, Gloviczki P, Kistner RL, et al.; American Venous Forum International Ad Hoc Committee for Revision of the CEAP Classification. Revision of the CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders: consensus statement. J Vasc Surg. 2004;40(6):1248–52.

  3 Gloviczki P, Comerota AJ, Dalsing MC, Eklof BG, Gillespie DL, Gloviczki ML, et al.; Society for Vascular Surgery; American Venous Forum. 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.

  4 Criqui MH, Jamosmos M, Fronek A, Denenberg JO, Langer RD, Bergan J, et al. Chronic venous disease in an ethnically diverse population: the San Diego Population Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158(5):448–56.

  5 Rabe E, Guex JJ, Puskas A, Scuderi A, Fernandez Quesada F; VCP Coordinators. Epidemiology of chronic venous disorders in geographically diverse populations: results from the Vein Consult Program. Int Angiol. 2012;31(2):105–15.

  6 Evans CJ, Fowkes FG, Ruckley CV, Lee AJ. Prevalence of varicose veins and chronic venous insufficiency in men and women in the general population: Edinburgh Vein Study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53(3):149–53.

  7 Beebe-Dimmer JL, Pfeifer JR, Engle JS, Schottenfeld D. The epidemiology of chronic venous insufficiency and varicose veins. Ann Epidemiol. 2005;15(3):175–84.

  8 Rabe E, Pannier-Fischer F, Bonner BK. Venenstudie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Phlebologie.Epidemiologische Untersuchung zur Frage der Häufigkeit und Ausprägung von chronischen Venenkrankheiten in der städtischen und ländlichen Wohnbevölkerung. Phlebologie. 2003;32:1–14.

  9 Chiesa R, Marone EM, Limoni C, Volontè M, Petrini O. Chronic venous disorders: correlation between visible signs, symptoms, and presence of functional disease. J Vasc Surg. 2007;46(2):322–30.

10 Eberhardt RT, Raffetto JD. Chronic venous insufficiency. Circulation. 2014;130(4):333–46.

11 McCarthy WJ, Dann C, Pearce WH, Yao JS. Management of sudden profuse bleeding from varicose veins. Surgery. 1993;113(2):178–83.

12 Guex JJ. Thrombotic complications of varicose veins. A literature review of the role of superficial venous thrombosis. Dermatol Surg. 1996;22(4):378–82.

13 Bradbury A, Evans C, Allan P, Lee A, Ruckley CV, Fowkes FG. What are the symptoms of varicose veins? Edinburgh vein study cross sectional population survey. BMJ. 1999;318(7180):353–6.

14 Wrona M, Jöckel KH, Pannier F, Bock E, Hoffmann B, Rabe E. Association of Venous Disorders with Leg Symptoms: Results from the Bonn Vein Study 1. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;50(3):360–7.

15 Van der Velden SK, Shadid NH, Nelemans PJ, Sommer A. How specific are venous symptoms for diagnosis of chronic venous disease? Phlebology. 2014;29(9):580–6.

16 Goldmann MP, Guex J-J, Weiss RA. Sclerotherapy Treatment of Varicose and Teleangiectatic Leg Veins, in Sclerotherapy Treatment of Varicose and Teleangiectatic Leg Veins, S. Elsevier, Editor. 2011. p. 30–43.

17 Smith JJ, Garratt AM, Guest M, Greenhalgh RM, Davies AH. Evaluating and improving health-related quality of life in patients with varicose veins. J Vasc Surg. 1999;30(4):710–9.

18 Kaplan RM, Criqui MH, Denenberg JO, Bergan J, Fronek A. Quality of life in patients with chronic venous disease: San Diego population study. J Vasc Surg. 2003;37(5):1047–53.

19 Darvall KA, Bate GR, Adam DJ, Bradbury AW. Generic health-related quality of life is significantly worse in varicose vein patients with lower limb symptoms independent of CEAP clinical grade. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2012;44(3):341–4.

20 Gandhi A, Froghi F, Shepherd AC, Shalhoub J, Lim CS, Gohel MS, et al. A study of patient satisfaction following endothermal ablation for varicose veins. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2010;44(4):274–8.

21 Michaels JA, Brazier JE, Campbell WB, MacIntyre JB, Palfreyman SJ, Ratcliffe J. Randomized clinical trial comparing surgery with conservative treatment for uncomplicated varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2006;93(2):175–81.

22 Sam RC, MacKenzie RK, Paisley AM, Ruckley CV, Bradbury AW. The effect of superficial venous surgery on generic health-related quality of life. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2004;28(3):253–6.

23 Sam RC, Darvall KA, Adam DJ, Silverman SH, Bradbury AW. A comparison of the changes in generic quality of life after superficial venous surgery with those after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Vasc Surg. 2006;44(3):606–10.

24 Marsden G, Perry M, Kelley K, Davies AH; Guideline Development Group. Diagnosis and management of varicose veins in the legs: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2013;347:f4279.

25 Cavezzi A, Labropoulos N, Partsch H, Ricci S, Caggiati A, Myers K, et al. Duplex ultrasound investigation of the veins in chronic venous disease of the lower limbs--UIP consensus document. Part II. Anatomy. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2006;31(3):288–99.

26 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--UIP consensus document. Part I. Basic principles. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2006;31(1):83–92.

27 Spinedi L, Broz P, Baldi T, Imfeld S, Staub D, Jaeger K, et al. Evaluation of Varicose Veins of the Lower Extremity: the Value of the Duplex Ultrasound (Part 1). Ultraschall Med. 2016;37(4):348–65.

28 Wittens C, Davies AH, Bækgaard N, Broholm R, Cavezzi A, Chastanet S, et al.; European Society for Vascular Surgery. Editor’s Choice - Management of Chronic Venous Disease: Clinical Practice Guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;49(6):678–737.

29 Stirling M, Shortell CK. Endovascular treatment of varicose veins. Semin Vasc Surg. 2006;19(2):109–15.

30 Malskat WS, Poluektova AA, van der Geld CW, Neumann HA, Weiss RA, Bruijninckx CM, et al. Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA): a review of mechanisms, modeling outcomes, and issues for debate. Lasers Med Sci. 2014;29(2):393–403.

31 der Kinderen DJ, Disselhoff BC, Koten JW, de Bruin PC, Seldenrijk CA, Moll FL. Histopathologic studies of the below-the-knee great saphenous vein after endovenous laser ablation. Dermatol Surg. 2009;35(12):1985–8.

32 Bush RG, Shamma HN, Hammond KA. 940-nm laser for treatment of saphenous insufficiency: histological analysis and long-term follow-up. Photomed Laser Surg. 2005;23(1):15–9.

33 Doganci S, Demirkilic U. Comparison of 980 nm laser and bare-tip fibre with 1470 nm laser and radial fibre in the treatment of great saphenous vein varicosities: a prospective randomised clinical trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;40(2):254–9.

34 Schwarz T, von Hodenberg E, Furtwängler C, Rastan A, Zeller T, Neumann FJ. Endovenous laser ablation of varicose veins with the 1470-nm diode laser. J Vasc Surg. 2010;51(6):1474–8.

35 Pannier F, Rabe E, Rits J, Kadiss A, Maurins U. Endovenous laser ablation of great saphenous veins using a 1470 nm diode laser and the radial fibre--follow-up after six months. Phlebology. 2011;26(1):35–9.

36 von Hodenberg E, Zerweck C, Knittel M, Zeller T, Schwarz T. Endovenous laser ablation of varicose veins with the 1470 nm diode laser using a radial fiber - 1-year follow-up. Phlebology. 2015;30(2):86–90.

37 Hirokawa M, Kurihara N. Comparison of Bare-Tip and Radial Fiber in Endovenous Laser Ablation with 1470 nm Diode Laser. Ann Vasc Dis. 2014;7(3):239–45.

38 Ahn SH, Gill G, Prince EA, Soares G, Van Zandt B, Dubel G et al. Endovenous laser Ablation (EVLA) performed with 1470 nm laser: Long term outcomes and comparison with 980 nm laser [Abstract]. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;24(S144): Abstract No. 333.

39 Malskat WS, Giang J, De Maeseneer MG, Nijsten TE, van den Bos RR. Randomized clinical trial of 940- versus 1470-nm endovenous laser ablation for great saphenous vein incompetence. Br J Surg. 2016;103(3):192–8.

40 Van Den Bos RR, Neumann M, De Roos KP, Nijsten T. Endovenous laser ablation-induced complications: review of the literature and new cases. Dermatol Surg. 2009;35(8):1206–14.

41 Pavlović MD, Schuller-Petrović S, Pichot O, Rabe E, Maurins U, Morrison N, et al. Guidelines of the First International Consensus Conference on Endovenous Thermal Ablation for Varicose Vein Disease--ETAV Consensus Meeting 2012. Phlebology. 2015;30(4):257–73.

42 van Eekeren RR, Boersma D, de Vries JP, Zeebregts CJ, Reijnen MM. Update of endovenous treatment modalities for insufficient saphenous veins--a review of literature. Semin Vasc Surg. 2014;27(2):118–36.

43 Proebstle TM, Vago B, Alm J, Göckeritz O, Lebard C, Pichot O. Treatment of the incompetent great saphenous vein by endovenous radiofrequency powered segmental thermal ablation: first clinical experience. J Vasc Surg. 2008;47(1):151–6.

44 Calcagno D, Rossi JA, Ha C. Effect of saphenous vein diameter on closure rate with ClosureFAST radiofrequency catheter. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2009;43(6):567–70.

45 Creton D, Pichot O, Sessa C, Proebstle TM; ClosureFast Europe Group. Radiofrequency-powered segmental thermal obliteration carried out with the ClosureFast procedure: results at 1 year. Ann Vasc Surg. 2010;24(3):360–6.

46 Rasmussen LH, 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.

47 Zuniga JM, Hingorani A, Ascher E, Shiferson A, Jung D, Jimenez R, et al. Short-term outcome analysis of radiofrequency ablation using ClosurePlus vs ClosureFast catheters in the treatment of incompetent great saphenous vein. J Vasc Surg. 2012;55(4):1048–51.

48 Harlander-Locke M, Jimenez JC, Lawrence PF, Derubertis BG, Rigberg DA, Gelabert HA. Endovenous ablation with concomitant phlebectomy is a safe and effective method of treatment for symptomatic patients with axial reflux and large incompetent tributaries. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58(1):166–72.

49 Tolva VS, Cireni LV, Bianchi PG, Lombardo A, Keller GC, Casana RM. Radiofrequency ablation of the great saphenous vein with the ClosureFAST™ procedure: mid-term experience on 400 patients from a single centre. Surg Today. 2013;43(7):741–4.

50 Avery J, Kumar K, Thakur V, Thakur A. Radiofrequency ablation as first-line treatment of varicose veins. Am Surg. 2014;80(3):231–5.

51 Merchant RF, Pichot O; Closure Study Group. Long-term outcomes of endovenous radiofrequency obliteration of saphenous reflux as a treatment for superficial venous insufficiency. J Vasc Surg. 2005;42(3):502–9, discussion 509.

52 Proebstle TM, Alm BJ, Göckeritz O, Wenzel C, Noppeney T, Lebard C, et al. Five-year results from the prospective European multicentre cohort study on radiofrequency segmental thermal ablation for incompetent great saphenous veins. Br J Surg. 2015;102(3):212–8.

53 van den Bos RR, Milleret R, Neumann M, Nijsten T. Proof-of-principle study of steam ablation as novel thermal therapy for saphenous varicose veins. J Vasc Surg. 2011;53(1):181–6.

54 Milleret R, Huot L, Nicolini P, Creton D, Roux AS, Decullier E, et al. Great saphenous vein ablation with steam injection: results of a multicentre study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013;45(4):391–6.

55 Jia X, Mowatt G, Burr JM, Cassar K, Cook J, Fraser C. Systematic review of foam sclerotherapy for varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2007;94(8):925–36.

56 Rabe E, Breu FX, Cavezzi A, Coleridge Smith P, Frullini A, Gillet JL, et al.; Guideline Group. European guidelines for sclerotherapy in chronic venous disorders. Phlebology. 2014;29(6):338–54.

57 Biemans AA, Kockaert M, Akkersdijk GP, van den Bos RR, de Maeseneer MG, 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.

58 Mueller RL, Raines JK. ClariVein mechanochemical ablation: background and procedural details. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2013;47(3):195–206.

59 van Eekeren RR, Hillebrands JL, van der Sloot K, de Vries JP, Zeebregts CJ, Reijnen MM. Histological observations one year after mechanochemical endovenous ablation of the great saphenous vein. J Endovasc Ther. 2014;21(3):429–33.

60 Tal MG, Dos Santos SJ, Marano JP, Whiteley MS. Histologic findings after mechanochemical ablation in a caprine model with use of ClariVein. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2015;3(1):81–5.

61 Bishawi M, Bernstein R, Boter M, Draughn D, Gould CF, Hamilton C, et al. Mechanochemical ablation in patients with chronic venous disease: a prospective multicenter report. Phlebology. 2014;29(6):397–400.

62 van Eekeren RRJP, Boersma D, Holewijn S, Werson DA, de Vries JP, Reijnen MM. Mechanochemical endovenous ablation for the treatment of great saphenous vein insufficiency. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2014;2(3):282–8.

63 Vun SV, Rashid ST, Blest NC, Spark JI. Lower pain and faster treatment with mechanico-chemical endovenous ablation using ClariVein®. Phlebology. 2015;30(10):688–92.

64 Linfante I, Wakhloo AK. Brain aneurysms and arteriovenous malformations: advancements and emerging treatments in endovascular embolization. Stroke. 2007;38(4):1411–7.

65 Almeida JI, Javier JJ, Mackay E, Bautista C, Proebstle TM. First human use of cyanoacrylate adhesive for treatment of saphenous vein incompetence. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2013;1(2):174–80.

66 Proebstle T, et al. Twelve-month follow-up of the European multicenter study on cyanoacrylate embolization of incompetent great saphenous veins. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2014;2:105–6.

67 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.