Treatments for symptomatic class I patients in CEAP classification with saphenous vein reflux: A pilot study

xBackground: For patients with telangiectasia or reticular veins (CEAP [clinical, etiologic, anatomic, pathophysiologic] class C1), less invasive endovenous (EV) treatments have emerged. However, no prospective studies have compared compression stockings (CSs) and EV ablation treatment for C1 symptomatic refluxing saphenous veins. The present prospective study compared the therapeutic results of the two treatment modalities. Methods: From June 2020 to December 2021, 46 patients with telangiectasia or reticular veins (<3 mm; class C1) with axial saphenous reflux and venous congestion symptoms were prospectively enrolled. The patients were assigned to CS (n = 21) or EV treatment (n = 25), according to patient preference. Complications, clinical improvement scales (eg, the venous clinical severity score [VCSS]), and quality of life, including the Aberdeen varicose vein symptom severity score (AVSS) and venous insufficiency epidemiological and economic study e quality of life/symptoms (VEINES-QOL/Sym), were evaluated and compared between the two groups at 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment. Results: No major complications occurred in either group. The median VCSS was 2.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 1.0-2.0), 1.0 (IQR, 0.5-2.0), 1.0 (IQR 0.0-1.0), and 0.0 (IQR 0.0-1.0) at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment in the CS group, respectively. The corresponding VCSSs were 3.0 (IQR, 1.0-3.0), 1.0 (IQR, 0.0-1.0), 0.0 (IQR, 0.0-0.0), and 0.0 (IQR, 0.0-0.0) in the EV group. The median AVSS was 4.4 (IQR, 3.0-5.5), 2.1 (IQR, 1.3-4.6), 1.0 (IQR, 0.0-2.8), and 0.0 (IQR, 0.0-1.8) at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment in the CS group, respectively. The corresponding scores were 6.2 (IQR, 3.8-12.3), 1.6 (IQR, 0.6-2.8), 0.0 (IQR, 0.0-2.6), and 0.0 (IQR, 0.0-0.4) in the EV group. The mean VEINES-QOL/Sym score was 92.7 +/- 8.1, 100.4 +/- 7.3, 104.3 +/- 8.2, and 106.0 +/- 9.7 in the CS group at baseline and 1, 3, and 6months after treatment, respectively. The corresponding scores were 83.6 +/- 8.0, 102.9 6 +/-.6, 107.9 6 3.9, and 109.6 +/- 3.7 in the EV group. Both groups showed considerable improvement in the VCSS, AVSS, and VEIN-SYM/QOL scores, and no significant between-group differences were observed for <= 6 months. Among the severely symptomatic patients (pretreatment VEINES-QOL/Sym score <= 90), the EV group exhibited more marked improvement ( P =.029 for the VCSS and P =.030 for the VEINES-QOL/Sym score). Conclusions: Both CSs and EV treatment provided clinical and quality of life improvement in symptomatic C1 patients with refluxing saphenous veins, with no significant between-group differences. However, a subgroup analysis revealed that EV treatment provided statistically significant improvement in the severe symptomatic C1 group. (J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2023;11:700-7.)