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

Vergleichsstudie CHIVA vs. Stripping

J.O. Parés · J. Juan · R. Tellez · A. Mata · C. Moreno · F. Quer · Xavier · D. Suarez · I. Codony · J. Roca


Ver­gleichs­stu­die CHIVA vs. Strip­ping


Annals of Surgery






Objec­tive: The objec­tive of this ran­do­mi­zed study was to com­pare the effi­cacy of the CHIVA method for the tre­at­ment of vari­cose veins with respect to the stan­dard tre­at­ment of strip­ping.

Con­text: Vari­cose veins are a sign of chro­nic venous dis­or­der. For over a cen­tury, vari­cose veins have been trea­ted with sur­gi­cal abla­tive tech­ni­ques, with strip­ping being the stan­dard tre­at­ment. Cur­rently, post­sur­gi­cal vari­cose veins recur­rence (20% – 80%) is a common, com­plex, and costly pro­blem. Ambu­la­tory Con­ser­va­tive Hemo­dy­na­mic Manage­ment of Vari­cose Veins (CHIVA) is a new option for trea­ting chro­nic venous dis­or­der.

Methods: In this open-label, ran­do­mi­zed con­trol­led trial, 501 adult pati­ents with pri­mary vari­cose veins were trea­ted in a single center. They were assi­gned to an expe­ri­men­tal group, the CHIVA method (n = 167) and 2 con­trol groups: strip­ping with clinic mar­king (n = 167) and strip­ping with duplex mar­king (n = 167). The out­come mea­sure was cli­ni­cal recur­rence within 5 years, asses­sed cli­ni­cally by pre­viously trai­ned inde­pen­dent obser­vers. Duplex ultra­so­no­gra­phy was also used to assess recur­ren­ces and causes.

Results: In an inten­tion-to-treat ana­ly­sis, cli­ni­cal out­co­mes in the CHIVA group were better (44.3% cure, 24.6% impro­ve­ment, 31.1% failure) than in both the strip­ping with clinic mar­king (21.0% cure, 26.3% impro­ve­ment, 52.7% failure) and strip­ping with duplex mar­king (29.3% cure, 22.8% impro­ve­ment, 47.9% failure) groups. The ordi­nal odds ratio bet­ween the strip­ping with clinic mar­king and CHIVA groups, of recur­rence at 5 years of follow-up, was 2.64, (95% con­fi­dence inter­val [CI]: 1.76 – 3.97, P < 0.001). The ordi­nal odds ratio of recur­rence at 5-years of follow-up, bet­ween the strip­ping with duplex mar­king and CHIVA group, was 2.01 (95% CI: 1.34 – 3.00, P < 0.001). This trial is regis­te­red at ISRCTN and car­ries the fol­lo­wing ID number: ISRCT­N52861672, avail­able at: http://​isrctn​.org.

Con­clu­si­ons: The pre­sent results indi­cate that, thanks to spe­ci­fic venous hemo­dy­na­mic eva­lua­tion, the CHIVA method is more effec­tive than strip­ping with cli­ni­cal mar­king or strip­ping with duplex mar­king to treat vari­cose veins. When car­ry­ing out a strip­ping inter­ven­tion, Duplex mar­king does not improve the cli­ni­cal results of this abla­tive tech­ni­que.

Über den Autor

From the Depart­ment of Angio­logy and Vas­cu­lar Sur­gery, Hos­pi­tal Gene­ral de Vic, Vic, Spain; Depart­ment of Angio­logy, Vas­cu­lar and Endo­vas­cu­lar Sur­gery of the Hos­pi­tal Uni­ver­si­tari Vall d’Hebron, Uni­ver­si­tat Autò­noma de Bar­ce­lona, Bar­ce­lona, Spain; Epi­de­mio­logy and Assess­ment Unit, Hos­pi­tal Gene­ral de Vic., Vic. Epi­de­mio­logy and Assess­ment Unit, Fund­a­ció Parc Taulí, Insti­tut Uni­ver­si­tari Parc Taulí, Uni­ver­si­tat Autò­noma de Bar­ce­lona, Saba­dell, Spain; Depart­ment of Gene­ral Sur­gery, Hos­pi­tal Gene­ral de Vic, Vic, Spain; and Epi­de­mio­logy and Assess­ment Unit, Fund­a­ció Parc Taulí, Insti­tut Uni­ver­si­tari Parc Taulí, Uni­ver­si­tat Autò­noma de Bar­ce­lona, Saba­dell, Spain.