A Randomized Controlled Trial of Standard versus Customized Graduated Elastic Compression Stockings in Patients with Chronic Venous Disease

Wen-Tao Yang,Ying Xiong,Sheng-Xing Wang,Hua-Liang Ren,Chi Gong,Zhen-Yi Jin,Jia-Hao Wen,Wang-De Zhang,Xiao-Ming Tao,Chun-Min Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvsv.2023.08.017

IF: 4.19

2023-09-14

Journal of Vascular Surgery Venous and Lymphatic Disorders

Abstract:Objective This study aimed to compare the efficacy of customized graduated elastic compression stockings (c-GECSs) based on lower leg parameter models with standard graduated elastic compression stockings (s-GECSs) in patients with chronic venous disease (CVD). Methods In this randomized, single-blind, controlled trial, 79 patients with stage C2 or C3 CVD were assigned to one of two groups: c-GECSs or s-GECSs. The primary outcome was change to Venous Insufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study-Quality of Life (VEINES-QOL) scores at months 1, 3, and 6 as compared to baseline. Secondary outcomes included compliance with wearing ECSs, interface pressure (IP) at the smallest circumference of the ankle (point B) and the largest circumference of the calf (point C), and calf volume (CV). Results 13 pairs of s-GECS and 2 pairs of c-GECS showed pressure values higher than the standard at either point B or C. The c-GECSs were significantly superior to s-GECSs in terms of score improvement at all three time points (month 1, 8.47 [7.47–9.45] vs. 5.89 [5.00–6.78]; month 3, 9.60 [8.47–10.72] vs. 6.72 [5.62–7.83]; month 6, 7.09 [5.93–8.24] vs. 3.92 [2.67–5.18], p < 0.0001). Besides, at month 1, the mean daily usage time of the c-GECS and s-GECS groups was 10.7 and 9.5 h, respectively ( p < 0.05). Correlation analysis indicated a negative relationship between local high pressure and daily duration in the s-GECS group (r pb = -0.388, n = 38, p < .05). Variances in pressure were greater in the s-GECSs group. The c-GECSs showed advantage in maintaining pressure. Both c-GECSs and s-GECSs effectively reduced CV (mL), with no significant differences between groups (month 1, 90.0 [71.4–108.5] vs. 85.0 [65.6–104.2]; month 3, 93.8 [69.7–117.8] vs. 85.9 [65.5–106.2]; month 6, 70.8 [46.5–95.2]) vs. 60.8 [44.1–77.5]). Conclusion The c-GECSs based on individual leg parameter models significantly improved VEINES-QOL scores and provided stable and enduring pressure as compared to s-GECSs for patients with stage C2 or C3 CVD. Although both c-GECSs and s-GECSs effectively reduced CV, the superior fit and comfort of c-GECSs improved patient compliance. Hence, c-GECSs are a viable alternative for patients who have difficulty tolerating s-GECSs.

surgery,peripheral vascular disease