Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

A randomized double-blind trial of upward progressive versus degressive compressive stockings in patients with moderate to severe chronic venous insufficiency
Couzan S, Leizorovicz A, Laporte S, Mismetti P, Pouget J-F, Chapelle C, Quere I
Journal of Vascular Surgery 2012 Nov;56(5):1344-1350
clinical trial
7/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: No; Blind subjects: Yes; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

BACKGROUND: The present randomized double-blind multicenter study was designed to assess the efficacy of a progressive compressive stocking (new concept with maximal pressure at calf), compared to a degressive compressive stocking graded 30 mmHg, evaluating the improvement of lower leg symptoms of chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) in ambulatory patients with moderate to severe chronic venous disease. METHODS: Both gender outpatients presenting symptomatic moderate to severe CVI were eligible for a treatment by compressive stockings. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either degressive compressive stockings (30 mmHg at ankle, 21 mmHg at upper calf) or progressive compressive stockings (10 mmHg at ankle, 23 mmHg at upper calf). The primary outcome, evaluated after 3 months, was a composite success outcome, including improvement of pain or heavy legs without onset of either ulcer, deep or superficial vein thrombosis of the lower limbs, or pulmonary embolism. The ease of application of the compressive stockings reported by patients was one of secondary outcome. RESULTS: Overall, 401 patients (199 in the progressive compressive stocking group and 202 in the degressive compressive stocking group) were randomized by 44 angiologists in France. Among them, 66% were classified in the C3 CEAP category. The rate of success was significantly higher in the progressive compressive stocking group compared to the degressive compressive stocking group (70.0% versus 59.6%; relative risk, 1.18; 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.37; p = 0.03). This was mainly due to more frequent symptom improvement in the progressive compressive stocking group. The compressive stockings were considered easy to apply by 81.3% of patients in the progressive compressive stocking group versus 49.7% of patients in the degressive compressive stocking group (p < 0.0001). The rate of related serious adverse events was low and similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This trial has demonstrated that progressive compressive stockings are more effective than usual degressive compressive stockings in the improvement of pain and lower leg symptoms in patients with CVI. Moreover, progressive compressive stockings were easier to apply, raising no safety concern at 3 months.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help