Download startenKlicken Sie, um den Download zu starten.Externen Link öffnenKlicken Sie, um dem Link auf eine externe Seite zu folgen.Arzt-Details ausblendenKlicken Sie, um die Informationen über diesen Arzt auszublenden.Arzt-Details anzeigenKlicken Sie, um näher Informationen über diesen Arzt anzuzeigen.Deutsche Gesellschaft für CHIVA e.V.Das Logo der Deutschen Gesellschaft für CHIVA e.V.Menü schließenKlicken Sie, um das Menü zu schließenMenü öffnenKlicken Sie, um das Menü zu öffnen

Indem Sie diese Web­seite benut­zen, stim­men Sie der Ver­wen­dung von Coo­kies zu. Daten­schutz →

Deutsche Gesellschaft für CHIVA e.V.
Literatur und Studien

Varicose Vein Stripping vs Haemodynamic Correction (CHIVA)

S. Caran­dina · C. Mari · M. De Palma · M.G. Mar­cel­lino · C. Cisno · A. Legnaro · A. Liboni · P. Zam­boni

Details

Vari­cose Vein Strip­ping vs Hae­mo­dy­na­mic Cor­rec­tion (CHIVA)

Verlag

Elsevier

Sprache

Englisch

Jahr

2007

Inhalt

Objec­tives. To com­pare the long-term results of strip­ping vs. hae­mo­dy­na­mic cor­rec­tion (Ambu­la­tory Con­ser­va­tive Hae- mody­na­mic Manage­ment of Vari­cose Veins, CHIVA) in the tre­at­ment of super­fi­cial venous incom­pe­tence resul­ting in chro­nic venous disease (CVD).
Design. Ran­do­mi­sed com­pa­ra­tive trial.

Pati­ents. 150 pati­ents affec­ted by CVD, CEAP cli­ni­cal class 2e6, were ran­do­mi­sed to saphenous strip­ping or to CHIVA. Methods. The cli­ni­cal out­come was asses­sed by an inde­pen­dent obser­ver who recor­ded the Hobbs cli­ni­cal score for trea­ted limbs. A sub­jec­tive report of the out­come was pro­vi­ded by the pati­ents. Recur­rence of vari­ces was asses­sed by both cli­ni­cal exami­na­tion and duplex ultra­so­no­gra­phy.

Results. The mean follow-up was 10 years, 26 pati­ents were lost to follow-up. The Hobbs score simi­lar in the strip­ping and CHIVA groups. Howe­ver recur­rence of vari­cose veins was signi­fi­cantly higher in the strip­ping group (CHIVA 18%; strip- ping 35%, P<0.04 Fisher’s exact test), without signi­fi­cant dif­fe­ren­ces in the rate of recur­ren­ces from the sapheno-femo­ral junc­tion. The asso­cia­ted risk of recur­rence at ten years was dou­bled in the strip­ping group (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1e5, P 1⁄4 0.04).

Con­clu­si­ons. Recur­rent vari­ces occur­red more fre­quently fol­lo­wing saphenous strip­ping than after CHIVA tre­at­ment. The deli­be­rate pre­ser­va­tion of the saphenous trunk as a route of venous drai­nage in the CHIVA group may have been a factor redu­cing the recur­rence rate.