CHIVA method for the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency

Angiology, Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, IBB Sant Pau, Sant Quinti No. 89, Barcelona, Spain, 08041.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 6.03). 07/2013; 7(7):CD009648. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009648.pub2
Source: PubMed


Many surgical approaches are available to treat varicose veins secondary to chronic venous insufficiency. One of the least invasive techniques is the ambulatory conservative hemodynamic correction of venous insufficiency method (cure conservatrice et hémodynamique de l'insuffisance veineuse en ambulatoire (CHIVA)), an approach based on venous hemodynamics with deliberate preservation of the superficial venous system.
To compare the efficacy and safety of the CHIVA method with alternative therapeutic techniques to treat varicose veins.
The Trials Search Co-ordinator of the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched the Specialised Register (November 2012), CENTRAL (2012, Issue 10) and clinical trials databases. The review authors searched PubMed and EMBASE (December 2012). There was no language restriction. We contacted study authors to obtain more information when necessary.
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the CHIVA method versus any other treatments. Two review authors independently selected and evaluated the studies. One review author extracted data and performed the quantitative analysis.
Two independent review authors extracted data from the selected papers. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), the number of people needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB), and the number of people needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Review Manager 5.
We included four RCTs with 796 participants (70.5% women) from the 434 publications identified by the search strategy. Three RCTs compared the CHIVA method with vein stripping, and one RCT compared the CHIVA method with compression dressings in people with venous ulcers. We judged the methodological quality of the included studies as low to moderate. The overall risk of bias across studies was high because neither participants nor outcome assessors were blinded to the interventions. The primary endpoint, clinical recurrence, pooled between studies over a follow-up of 3 to 10 years, showed more favorable results for the CHIVA method than for vein stripping (721 people; RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.78; I(2) = 0%, NNTB 6; 95% CI 4 to 10) or compression dressings (47 people; RR 0.23; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.96; NNTB 3; 95% CI 2 to 17). Only one study reported data on quality of life and these results presented graphically significantly favored the CHIVA method.The vein stripping group had a higher risk of side effects than the CHIVA group; specifically, the RR for bruising was 0.63 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.76; NNTH 4; 95% CI 3 to 6) and the RR for nerve damage was 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.38; I(2) = 0%; NNTH 12; 95% CI 9 to 20). There were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding the incidence of limb infection and superficial vein thrombosis.
The CHIVA method reduces recurrence of varicose veins and produces fewer side effects than vein stripping. However, we based these conclusions on a small number of trials with a high risk of bias as the effects of surgery could not be concealed. New RCTs are needed to confirm these results and to compare CHIVA with approaches other than open surgery.

344 Reads
  • Source
    • "In a recent work, we have shown a correlation between the PDGF-BB released by patient-derived vein endothelial cell (VEC) cultures and relevant hemodynamic parameters measured in vivo into the venous segments from which the VEC was isolated upon surgical ablation [14]. On these bases, to elucidate the link between systemic inflammation and altered hemodynamic forces, the primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a saphenous sparing surgical correction (CHIVA strategy) [15] on the levels of circulating factors related to inflammation and angiogenesis characterizing CVI in order to identify a panel of biological markers able to correlate with the disease that might complement the standard procedures for diagnosis and posttreatment follow-up of CVI patients. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The expression of proinflammatory cytokines/chemokines has been reported in in vitro/ex vivo settings of chronic venous insufficiency (CVI), but the identification of circulating mediators that might be associated with altered hemodynamic forces or might represent innovative biomarkers is still missing. In this study, the circulating levels of 31 cytokines/chemokines involved in inflammatory/angiogenic processes were analysed in (i) CVI patients at baseline before surgical hemody namic correction, (ii) healthy subjects, and (iii) CVI patients after surgery. In a subgroup of CVI patients, in whom the baseline levels of cytokines/chemokines were analyzed in paired blood samples obtained from varicose vein and forearm vein, EGF, PDGF, and RANTES were increased at the varicose vein site as compared to the general circulation. Moreover, while at baseline, CVI patients showed increased levels of 14 cytokines/chemokines as compared to healthy subjects, 6 months after surgery, 11 cytokines/chemokines levels were significantly reduced in the treated CVI patients as compared to the CVI patients before surgery. Of note, a patient who exhibited recurrence of the disease 6 months after surgery, showed higher levels of EGF, PDGF, and RANTES compared to nonrecurrent patients, highlighting the potential role of the EGF/PDGF/RANTES triad as sensitive biomarkers in the context of CVI.
    Journal of Immunology Research 03/2014; 2014(6):473765. DOI:10.1155/2014/473765 · 2.93 Impact Factor
  • Source

    07/2014; 5(3):386-9. DOI:10.4103/2229-5178.137824
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study evaluated how patient characteristics and duplex ultrasound findings influence management decisions of physicians with specific expertise in the field of chronic venous disease. Worldwide, 346 physicians with a known interest and experience in phlebology were invited to participate in an online survey about management strategies in patients with great saphenous vein (GSV) reflux and refluxing tributaries. The survey included two basic vignettes representing a 47 year old healthy male with GSV reflux above the knee and a 27 year old healthy female with a short segment refluxing GSV (CEAP classification C2sEpAs2,5Pr in both cases). Participants could choose one or more treatment options. Subsequently, the basic vignettes were modified according to different patient characteristics (e.g. older age, morbid obesity, anticoagulant treatment, peripheral arterial disease), clinical class (C4, C6), and duplex ultrasound findings (e.g. competent terminal valve, larger or smaller GSV diameter, presence of focal dilatation). The authors recorded the distribution of chosen management strategies; adjustment of strategies according to characteristics; and follow up strategies. A total of 211 physicians (68% surgeons, 12% dermatologists, 12% angiologists, and 8% phlebologists) from 36 different countries completed the survey. In the basic case vignettes 1 and 2, respectively, 55% and 40% of participants proposed to perform endovenous thermal ablation, either with or without concomitant phlebectomies (p < .001). Looking at the modified case vignettes, between 20% and 64% of participants proposed to adapt their management strategy, opting for either a more or a less invasive treatment, depending on the modification introduced. The distribution of chosen management strategies changed significantly for all modified vignettes (p < .05). This study illustrates the worldwide variety in management preferences for treating patients with varicose veins (C2-C6). In clinical practice, patient related and duplex ultrasound related factors clearly influence therapeutic options. Copyright © 2014 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 12/2014; 49(2). DOI:10.1016/j.ejvs.2014.11.006 · 2.49 Impact Factor

Similar Publications