The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) and the American Venous Forum (AVF) have developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with varicose veins of the lower limbs and pelvis. The document also includes recommendations on the management of superficial and perforating vein incompetence in patients with associated, more advanced chronic venous diseases (CVDs), including edema, skin changes, or venous ulcers. Recommendations of the Venous Guideline Committee are based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system as strong (GRADE 1) if the benefits clearly outweigh the risks, burden, and costs. The suggestions are weak (GRADE 2) if the benefits are closely balanced with risks and burden. The level of available evidence to support the evaluation or treatment can be of high (A), medium (B), or low or very low (C) quality. The key recommendations of these guidelines are: We recommend that in patients with varicose veins or more severe CVD, a complete history and detailed physical examination are complemented by duplex ultrasound scanning of the deep and superficial veins (GRADE 1A). We recommend that the CEAP classification is used for patients with CVD (GRADE 1A) and that the revised Venous Clinical Severity Score is used to assess treatment outcome (GRADE 1B). We suggest compression therapy for patients with symptomatic varicose veins (GRADE 2C) but recommend against compression therapy as the primary treatment if the patient is a candidate for saphenous vein ablation (GRADE 1B). We recommend compression therapy as the primary treatment to aid healing of venous ulceration (GRADE 1B). To decrease the recurrence of venous ulcers, we recommend ablation of the incompetent superficial veins in addition to compression therapy (GRADE 1A). For treatment of the incompetent great saphenous vein (GSV), we recommend endovenous thermal ablation (radiofrequency or laser) rather than high ligation and inversion stripping of the saphenous vein to the level of the knee (GRADE 1B). We recommend phlebectomy or sclerotherapy to treat varicose tributaries (GRADE 1B) and suggest foam sclerotherapy as an option for the treatment of the incompetent saphenous vein (GRADE 2C). We recommend against selective treatment of perforating vein incompetence in patients with simple varicose veins (CEAP class C(2); GRADE 1B), but we suggest treatment of pathologic perforating veins (outward flow duration ≥500 ms, vein diameter ≥3.5 mm) located underneath healed or active ulcers (CEAP class C(5)-C(6); GRADE 2B). We suggest treatment of pelvic congestion syndrome and pelvic varices with coil embolization, plugs, or transcatheter sclerotherapy, used alone or together (GRADE 2B).

In response to the need for a disease severity measurement, the American Venous Forum committee on outcomes assessment developed the Venous Severity Scoring system in 2000. There are three components of this scoring system, the Venous Disability Score, the Venous Segmental Disease Score, and the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS). The VCSS was developed from elements of the CEAP classification (clinical grade, etiology, anatomy, pathophysiology), which is the worldwide standard for describing the clinical features of chronic venous disease. However, as a descriptive instrument, the CEAP classification responds poorly to change. The VCSS was subsequently developed as an evaluative instrument that would be responsive to changes in disease severity over time and in response to treatment. Based on initial experiences with the VCSS, an international ad hoc working group of the American Venous Forum was charged with updating the instrument. This revision of the VCSS is focused on clarifying ambiguities, updating terminology, and simplifying application. The specific language of proven quality-of-life instruments was used to better address the issues of patients at the lower end of the venous disease spectrum. Periodic review and revision are necessary for generating more universal applicability and for comparing treatment outcomes in a meaningful way.

The time is ripe for universal understanding and acceptance of outcome assessment in venous disease. Outcome studies promote understanding of the diseases we treat and the results of treatment. The choice of a valid and reliable assessment tool is crucial. Patient-generated quality-of-life tools include generic instruments and disease-specific instruments. Generic instruments evaluate overall well-being and provide subjective measurements of treatment outcomes in various disease states. The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and the Nottingham Health Profile are widely used generic surveys. Disease-specific instruments relate to a particular disease state. They are popular in venous disease reporting and have high sensitivity. The Chronic Venous Insufficiency Questionnaire, the Venous Insufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study, the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire and the Charing Cross Venous Ulceration Questionnaire are such devices. Physician-generated measurement tools are used to evaluate and classify the consequences of venous disease. The clinical, aetiology, anatomy, pathophysiology classification (CEAP) is a popular descriptive platform for chronic venous disease. The Venous Severity Scoring (VSS) system was derived from the CEAP classification to provide evaluative capabilities. The three elements of the VSS are the venous disability score, the venous segmental disease score and the venous clinical severity score (VCSS). The VCSS facilitates the follow-up of features of venous disease that change with treatment. Each of these outcomes tools has been validated, and each has strengths and weaknesses. Maintaining the dynamic nature of assessment with periodic review and revision is the way forward to generating universal applicability. Although the choice of instrument is debatable, the most important factor in improving treatment outcomes is the decision to examine results and to share them in a meaningful way.

In patients with incompetent GSVs, treatment with both CAC and RFA results in high occlusion rates. Time to complete occlusion was faster with CAC, and freedom from reopening was higher after CAC. Quality of life scores improved equally with both therapies.