The impact of 2013 UK NICE guidelines on the management of varicose veins at the Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK

Objective Although varicose veins are a common cause of morbidity, the UK National Health Service and private medical insurers have previously sought to ration their treatment in a non-evidence based manner in order to limit health-care expenditure and reimbursement. In July 2013, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published new national Clinical Guidelines (CG168) to promote evidence-based commissioning and management of varicose veins. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of CG168 on the referral and management of varicose veins at the Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK. Methods Interrogation of a prospectively gathered database, provided by the Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust Performance Unit, of patients undergoing interventions for varicose veins since 1 January 2012. Patients treated before (group 1) and after (group 2) publication of CG168 were compared. Results There were 253 patients, 286 legs (48% male, mean (range) age 54 (20–91) years) treated in group 1, and 417 patients, 452 legs, (46% male, mean (range) age 54 (14–90) years) treated in group 2, an increase of 65%. CG168 was associated with a significant reduction in the use of surgery (131 patients (52%) group 1 vs. 127 patients (30%) group 2, p = 0.0003, χ2), no change in endothermal ablation (30 patients (12%) group 1 vs. 45 patients (11%) group 2), a significant increase in ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (92 patients (36%) group 1 and 245 patients (59%) group 2, p = 0.0001, χ2) and an increase in treatment for C2/3 disease (53% group 1 and 65.2% group 2, p = 0.0022, χ2). Conclusions Publication of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence CG168 has been associated with a significant increase (65%) in the number of patients treated, referral at an earlier (CEAP C) stage and increased use of endovenous treatment. CG 168 has been highly effective in improving access to, and quality of care, for varicose veins at Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust.

[1]  A. Bradbury,et al.  A review of randomised controlled trials comparing ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy with endothermal ablation for the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins , 2016, Phlebology.

[2]  A. Bradbury,et al.  Patient‐reported outcomes 5–8 years after ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy for varicose veins , 2014, The British journal of surgery.

[3]  P. Allan,et al.  Incidence and risk factors for venous reflux in the general population: Edinburgh Vein Study. , 2014, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[4]  A. Bradbury,et al.  Patient‐reported outcomes 5–8 years after ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy for varicose veins , 2014, The British journal of surgery.

[5]  E. Rabe,et al.  The Relevance of the Natural History of Varicose Veins and Refunded Care , 2012, Phlebology.

[6]  G. Moneta.  Trends in Patient Reported Outcomes of Conservative and Surgical Treatment of Primary Chronic Venous Disease Contradict Current Practices , 2012 .

[7]  Joann M Lohr,et al.  Selected Phlebology Abstracts , 2011, Journal of vascular surgery.

[8]  N. Rudarakanchana,et al.  Recommendations for the referral and treatment of patients with lower limb chronic venous insufficiency (including varicose veins) , 2011, Phlebology.

[9]  A. Bradbury,et al.  Venous Forum Annual Meeting 2011 Abstracts , 2010, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[10]  E. Rabe,et al.  Societal costs of chronic venous disease in CEAP C4, C5, C6 disease , 2010, Phlebology.

[11]  A. Bradbury,et al.  Changes in health-related quality of life after ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy for great and small saphenous varicose veins. , 2010, Journal of vascular surgery.

[12]  W B Campbell,et al.  Randomised clinical trial, observational study and assessment of cost-effectiveness of the treatment of varicose veins (REACTIV trial). , 2006, Health technology assessment.

[13]  F. Allaert,et al.  Venous disease and ergonomics of female employment. , 2005, International angiology : a journal of the International Union of Angiology.

[14]  G. Niedzwiecki.  Endovenous thermal ablation of the saphenous vein. , 2005, Seminars in interventional radiology.

[15]  G. Moneta,et al.  Revision of the CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders: consensus statement. , 2004, Journal of vascular surgery.

[16]  Anke Persoon,et al.  Leg ulcers: a review of their impact on daily life. , 2004, Journal of clinical nursing.

[17]  F. Lurie,et al.  Prospective randomized study of endovenous radiofrequency obliteration (closure procedure) versus ligation and stripping in a selected patient population (EVOLVeS Study). , 2003, Journal of vascular surgery.

[18]  Ian D Graham,et al.  Knowledge and attitudes regarding care of leg ulcers. Survey of family physicians. , 2003, Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien.

[19]  M. Criqui,et al.  Quality of life in patients with chronic venous disease: San Diego population study. , 2003, Journal of vascular surgery.

[20]  M. Harrison,et al.  Knowledge and attitudes regarding care of leg ulcers , 2003 .

[21]  A. Nicolaides,et al.  'Real' Epidemiology of Varicose Veins and Chronic Venous Diseases: The San Valentino Vascular Screening Project , 2002, Angiology.

[22]  S. Jones,et al.  Management of varicose veins according to reason for presentation. , 1996, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.