Regular NSAID prescription after treatment for varicose veins: a feasibility study.

IF 1.5
WeiYing Chua, Abduraheem Mohamed, Bharadhwaj Ravindhran, Arthur Jun Ming Lim, Melanie Chin Ning Liu, Annabel Howitt, Daniel Carradice, George Smith, Ian Chetter
{"title":"Regular NSAID prescription after treatment for varicose veins: a feasibility study.","authors":"WeiYing Chua, Abduraheem Mohamed, Bharadhwaj Ravindhran, Arthur Jun Ming Lim, Melanie Chin Ning Liu, Annabel Howitt, Daniel Carradice, George Smith, Ian Chetter","doi":"10.1177/02683555261493250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>IntroductionThe National Health Service (NHS) in England performs more than 35,000 varicose veins procedures annually to treat superficial venous incompetence (SVI). Around 1 in 10 patients experience significant pain in the first post-procedural week, which frequently affects quality of life (QoL). This feasibility study aimed to assess the effectiveness of routinely prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for pain management following treatment for SVI, and to examine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT).MethodsEligible patients undergoing endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA) and/or concomitant phlebectomy for SVI were enrolled. Patients in the intervention group were prescribed Ibuprofen three times daily for five days following treatment. A 1:1 propensity score matched cohort using the nearest neighbour method with a calliper of 0.2 was derived from participants enrolled in a previous trial. Feasibility outcomes included the eligibility rate, recruitment rate, study completion rate, diary completion rate, and intervention adherence rate. Clinical outcomes included daily post-procedural visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores recorded over seven days and NSAID-related adverse effects documented in patient pain diaries.ResultsOf the 56 patients assessed for study participation, the eligibility rate was 88% (n = 49) and the recruitment rate was 73% (n-36). The study completion rate was 69% (n-25). The diary completion rate was 50% (n = 18). The intervention adherence rate was 6-% (n = 15). There were no statistically significant differences in median pain scores between the two groups. No major NSAID-related adverse effects were reported.ConclusionRoutine post-procedural NSAID use was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in pain following EVTA and phlebectomy for SVI. However, this study demonstrated the feasibility of conducting an adequately powered RCT of NSAIDs for pain management following treatment for SVI and generated data to inform the design of such a trial.</p>","PeriodicalId":94350,"journal":{"name":"Phlebology","volume":" ","pages":"2683555261493250"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Phlebology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02683555261493250","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

IntroductionThe National Health Service (NHS) in England performs more than 35,000 varicose veins procedures annually to treat superficial venous incompetence (SVI). Around 1 in 10 patients experience significant pain in the first post-procedural week, which frequently affects quality of life (QoL). This feasibility study aimed to assess the effectiveness of routinely prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for pain management following treatment for SVI, and to examine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT).MethodsEligible patients undergoing endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA) and/or concomitant phlebectomy for SVI were enrolled. Patients in the intervention group were prescribed Ibuprofen three times daily for five days following treatment. A 1:1 propensity score matched cohort using the nearest neighbour method with a calliper of 0.2 was derived from participants enrolled in a previous trial. Feasibility outcomes included the eligibility rate, recruitment rate, study completion rate, diary completion rate, and intervention adherence rate. Clinical outcomes included daily post-procedural visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores recorded over seven days and NSAID-related adverse effects documented in patient pain diaries.ResultsOf the 56 patients assessed for study participation, the eligibility rate was 88% (n = 49) and the recruitment rate was 73% (n-36). The study completion rate was 69% (n-25). The diary completion rate was 50% (n = 18). The intervention adherence rate was 6-% (n = 15). There were no statistically significant differences in median pain scores between the two groups. No major NSAID-related adverse effects were reported.ConclusionRoutine post-procedural NSAID use was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in pain following EVTA and phlebectomy for SVI. However, this study demonstrated the feasibility of conducting an adequately powered RCT of NSAIDs for pain management following treatment for SVI and generated data to inform the design of such a trial.

静脉曲张治疗后常规非甾体抗炎药处方:可行性研究。
英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)每年实施超过35000例静脉曲张手术来治疗浅静脉功能不全(SVI)。大约十分之一的患者在手术后的第一周会经历明显的疼痛,这经常影响生活质量(QoL)。本可行性研究旨在评估常规处方非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)对SVI治疗后疼痛管理的有效性,并检查进行随机对照试验(RCT)的可行性。方法入选接受静脉内热消融(EVTA)和/或联合静脉切除术治疗SVI的患者。干预组患者在治疗后5天内每天服用三次布洛芬。采用最近邻法,从先前试验的参与者中得出一个1:1倾向评分匹配的队列,卡尺为0.2。可行性结局包括入选率、招募率、研究完成率、日记完成率和干预依从率。临床结果包括7天内记录的每日手术后视觉模拟评分(VAS)疼痛评分和患者疼痛日记中记录的非甾体抗炎药相关不良反应。结果在参与研究的56例患者中,入选率为88% (n = 49),招募率为73% (n-36)。研究完成率为69% (n-25)。日记完成率为50% (n = 18)。干预依从率为6-% (n = 15)。两组的中位疼痛评分差异无统计学意义。没有重大的非甾体抗炎药相关的不良反应报告。结论术后常规使用非甾体抗炎药与SVI EVTA和静脉切除术后疼痛的减少没有统计学意义。然而,本研究证明了在SVI治疗后进行非甾体抗炎药疼痛管理的足够有力的随机对照试验的可行性,并为此类试验的设计提供了数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书