Clinical and hemodynamical findings in legs with previous surgery of the great saphenous vein: role of the small saphenous vein.

AIM: To assess the role of small saphenous vein (SSV) reflux in patients with a long history of varicose disease and previous stripping of the great saphenous vein (GSV). METHODS: Consecutive patients with a history of GSV stripping 5-19 years earlier were enrolled in this prospective clinical study. A total of 101 legs of 75 consecutive patients fulfilled the study criteria: previous stripping of GSV from ankle to groin at least 5 years earlier, no history of thromboembolism and no previous surgery of deep veins or SSV. All patients were studied clinically using standardized classifications: clinical class, clinical disability score (CDS) and venous clinical scoring system (VCSS). Colour flow duplex imaging (CFDI) was used to assess reflux in deep and superficial veins. Details of prior surgery were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, SSV reflux was noted in 28 (28%) of the legs, recurrent GSV (rGSV) in the thigh in 41 (41%), reflux in tributaries alone in 28 (28%) and a combination of SSV and rGSV reflux in 4 (3%). Segmental deep reflux was measured in 23 (23%) of the legs; the prevalence of deep reflux was significantly higher in complicated than in uncomplicated legs (12% versus 47%; P<0.05). Deep reflux was more frequently associated with SSV reflux than with rGSV reflux (50% versus 22%; P<0.05). The prevalence of SSV with or without deep reflux increased from 17% to 50% (P<0.05) when uncomplicated (C2-3) and complicated (C4-6) legs were compared. A similar increase was not seen in the legs with rGSV (39% versus 44%; P>0.05). SSV reflux without deep reflux was observed in 25% of the legs with complicated (C4-6) disease, whereas the prevalence of SSV reflux was low (9%) in uncomplicated (C2-3) legs. VCSS was higher in the legs with SSV reflux than in those with rGSV reflux. CDS scores tended to be higher in the SSV reflux group than in the legs with rGSV reflux or tributary reflux alone. After exclusion of deep reflux, the results remained at the same level. CONCLUSION: Small saphenous vein (SSV) reflux is common in legs with recurrent varicose veins and previous stripping of the GSV. SSV reflux alone is frequent in complicated legs, and SSV reflux is typically associated with segmental deep reflux. Clinical and hemodynamical findings stress the role of SSV reflux in this selected venous population.

Endovascular repair or surveillance of patients with small AAA.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcome of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) treated in a prospective trial of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) to patients randomized to the surveillance arm of the UK Small Aneurysm Trial. METHOD: All patients with small AAA (< or = 5.5 cm diameter) treated with a stent graft (EVARsmall) in the multicenter AneuRx clinical trial from 1997 to 1999 were reviewed with follow up through 2003. A subgroup of patients (EVARmatch) who met the age (60-76 years) and aneurysm size (4.0-5.5 cm diameter) inclusion criteria of the UK Small Aneurysm Trial were compared to the published results of the surveillance patient cohort (UKsurveil) of the UK Small Aneurysm Trial (NEJM 346:1445, 2002). Endpoints of comparison were aneurysm rupture, fatal aneurysm rupture, operative mortality, aneurysm related death and overall mortality. The total patient years of follow-up for EVAR patients was 1369 years and for UK patients was 3048 years. Statistical comparisons of EVARmatch and UKsurveil patients were made for rates per 100 patient years of follow up (/100 years) to adjust for differences in follow-up time. RESULTS: The EVARsmall group of 478 patients comprised 40% of the total number of patients treated during the course of the AneuRx clinical trial. The EVARmatch group of 312 patients excluded 151 patients for age < 60 or > 76 years and 15 patients for AAA diameter < 4 cm. With the exception of age, there were no significant differences between EVARsmall and EVARmatch in pre-operative factors or post-operative outcomes. In comparison to the UKsurveil group of 527 patients, the EVARmatch group was slightly older (70 +/- 4 vs. 69 +/- 4 years, p = 0.009), had larger aneurysms (5.0 +/- 0.3 vs. 4.6 +/- 0.4 cm, p < 0.001), fewer women (7 vs. 18%, p < 0.001), and had a higher prevalence of diabetes and hypertension and a lower prevalence of smoking at baseline. Ruptures occurred in 1.6% of EVARmatch patients and 5.1% of UKsurveil patients; this difference was not significant when adjusted for the difference in length of follow up. Fatal aneurysm rupture rate, adjusted for follow up time, was four times higher in UKsurveil (0.8/100 patient years) than in EVARmatch (0.2/100 patient years, p < 0.001); this difference remained significant when adjusted for difference in gender mix. Elective operative mortality rate was significantly lower in EVARmatch (1.9%) than in UKsurveil (5.9%, p < 0.01). Aneurysm-related death rate was two times higher in UKsurveil (1.6/100 patient years) than in EVARmatch (0.8/100 patient years, p = 0.03). All-cause mortality rate was significantly higher in UKsurveil (8.3/100 patient years) than in EVARmatch (6.4/100 patient years, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: It appears that endovascular repair of small abdominal aortic aneurysms (4.0-5.5 cm) significantly reduces the risk of fatal aneurysm rupture and aneurysm-related death and improves overall patient survival compared to an ultrasound surveillance strategy with selective open surgical repair.

Short- and long-term outcome following endovascular aneurysm repair. How does it compare to open surgery?

The primary objective of aneurysm repair is to prevent aneurysm rupture while avoiding aneurysm-related death. This manuscript reviews the primary and secondary outcome measures following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in relation to similar outcome measures for open surgical repair. Both EVAR and open repair are effective in preventing aneurysm rupture, although late ruptures can occur with either treatment method. The late risk of rupture following EVAR is less that 1% per year using current endovascular devices. Aneurysm-related death rate appears to be lower following EVAR compared to open surgery, primarily due to a lower perioperative mortality rate. Actuarial 5-year survival after both endovascular and open aneurysm repair is approximately 70%. Perioperative outcome measures favor EVAR over open repair for patients with suitable anatomy with reduced morbidity and more rapid patient recovery. Short and long-term outcomes following endovascular repair compare favorably to open repair. However, prospective studies are needed to better define the long-term outcomes using comparable endpoints.