The Experts below are selected from a list of 24 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Sergio X Sallescunha - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • comparisons of side effects using air and carbon dioxide foam for endovenous chemical ablation
    Journal of Vascular Surgery, 2008
    Co-Authors: Nick Morrison, Diana Neuhardt, Charles R Rogers, James Mceown, Terri Morrison, Elaine Johnson, Sergio X Sallescunha
    Abstract:

    Objective This clinical study evaluated prospectively adverse events immediately following ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) for the treatment of lower extremity venous valvular insufficiency. Incidence of side effects associated with carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) foam was compared with a historical control using air-based foam. The literature on the subject was reviewed. Methods Vital signs were monitored during and immediately after UGFS, and adverse events were recorded for 24 hours following the procedure. The air-based foam group had 49 patients: 44 women and 5 men. The CO 2 -based foam group had 128 patients: 115 women and 13 men. CEAP class was C2EpAsPr, describing varicose veins, primary etiology, and saphenous reflux. UGFS followed thermal ablation of the great saphenous vein. Foam was prepared using the three-way tap technique to mix gas with 1% polidocanol in a 4:1 ratio. Segments of the great and small saphenous veins and their tributaries were treated with UGFS. Foam volumes injected were 27 ± 10 (SD) (6-46 range) and 25 ± 12 (6-57 range) mL for air- and CO 2 -based foams respectively ( P = .39). Incidence of adverse events was compared by χ 2 statistics. Vital signs were compared by paired t test. Results During the procedure, the average heart rate decreased by less than 5 bpm for both groups ( P 2 group ( P 2 -foam series ( P > .05). Visual disturbances were experienced by 3.1% (4/128) and 8.2% (4/49) patients in the CO 2 and air groups respectively ( P = .15). Respiratory difficulties or Circumoral Paresthesia each occurred in 0.8% (n = 1) of the CO 2 patients. Incidence of chest tightness (3.1% vs 18%), dry cough (1.6% vs 16%), or dizziness (3.1% vs 12%) were significantly lower in the CO 2 vs air groups ( P 2 and air-based foam groups ( P = .53). Overall, the proportion of patients describing side effects decreased from 39% (19/49) to 11% (14/128) as CO 2 replaced air for foam preparation ( P Conclusions Side effects decreased significantly if CO 2 rather than air was employed to make the sclerosing foam for chemical ablation of superficial veins of the lower extremity.

Nick Morrison - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • comparisons of side effects using air and carbon dioxide foam for endovenous chemical ablation
    Journal of Vascular Surgery, 2008
    Co-Authors: Nick Morrison, Diana Neuhardt, Charles R Rogers, James Mceown, Terri Morrison, Elaine Johnson, Sergio X Sallescunha
    Abstract:

    Objective This clinical study evaluated prospectively adverse events immediately following ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) for the treatment of lower extremity venous valvular insufficiency. Incidence of side effects associated with carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) foam was compared with a historical control using air-based foam. The literature on the subject was reviewed. Methods Vital signs were monitored during and immediately after UGFS, and adverse events were recorded for 24 hours following the procedure. The air-based foam group had 49 patients: 44 women and 5 men. The CO 2 -based foam group had 128 patients: 115 women and 13 men. CEAP class was C2EpAsPr, describing varicose veins, primary etiology, and saphenous reflux. UGFS followed thermal ablation of the great saphenous vein. Foam was prepared using the three-way tap technique to mix gas with 1% polidocanol in a 4:1 ratio. Segments of the great and small saphenous veins and their tributaries were treated with UGFS. Foam volumes injected were 27 ± 10 (SD) (6-46 range) and 25 ± 12 (6-57 range) mL for air- and CO 2 -based foams respectively ( P = .39). Incidence of adverse events was compared by χ 2 statistics. Vital signs were compared by paired t test. Results During the procedure, the average heart rate decreased by less than 5 bpm for both groups ( P 2 group ( P 2 -foam series ( P > .05). Visual disturbances were experienced by 3.1% (4/128) and 8.2% (4/49) patients in the CO 2 and air groups respectively ( P = .15). Respiratory difficulties or Circumoral Paresthesia each occurred in 0.8% (n = 1) of the CO 2 patients. Incidence of chest tightness (3.1% vs 18%), dry cough (1.6% vs 16%), or dizziness (3.1% vs 12%) were significantly lower in the CO 2 vs air groups ( P 2 and air-based foam groups ( P = .53). Overall, the proportion of patients describing side effects decreased from 39% (19/49) to 11% (14/128) as CO 2 replaced air for foam preparation ( P Conclusions Side effects decreased significantly if CO 2 rather than air was employed to make the sclerosing foam for chemical ablation of superficial veins of the lower extremity.

Diana Neuhardt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • comparisons of side effects using air and carbon dioxide foam for endovenous chemical ablation
    Journal of Vascular Surgery, 2008
    Co-Authors: Nick Morrison, Diana Neuhardt, Charles R Rogers, James Mceown, Terri Morrison, Elaine Johnson, Sergio X Sallescunha
    Abstract:

    Objective This clinical study evaluated prospectively adverse events immediately following ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) for the treatment of lower extremity venous valvular insufficiency. Incidence of side effects associated with carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) foam was compared with a historical control using air-based foam. The literature on the subject was reviewed. Methods Vital signs were monitored during and immediately after UGFS, and adverse events were recorded for 24 hours following the procedure. The air-based foam group had 49 patients: 44 women and 5 men. The CO 2 -based foam group had 128 patients: 115 women and 13 men. CEAP class was C2EpAsPr, describing varicose veins, primary etiology, and saphenous reflux. UGFS followed thermal ablation of the great saphenous vein. Foam was prepared using the three-way tap technique to mix gas with 1% polidocanol in a 4:1 ratio. Segments of the great and small saphenous veins and their tributaries were treated with UGFS. Foam volumes injected were 27 ± 10 (SD) (6-46 range) and 25 ± 12 (6-57 range) mL for air- and CO 2 -based foams respectively ( P = .39). Incidence of adverse events was compared by χ 2 statistics. Vital signs were compared by paired t test. Results During the procedure, the average heart rate decreased by less than 5 bpm for both groups ( P 2 group ( P 2 -foam series ( P > .05). Visual disturbances were experienced by 3.1% (4/128) and 8.2% (4/49) patients in the CO 2 and air groups respectively ( P = .15). Respiratory difficulties or Circumoral Paresthesia each occurred in 0.8% (n = 1) of the CO 2 patients. Incidence of chest tightness (3.1% vs 18%), dry cough (1.6% vs 16%), or dizziness (3.1% vs 12%) were significantly lower in the CO 2 vs air groups ( P 2 and air-based foam groups ( P = .53). Overall, the proportion of patients describing side effects decreased from 39% (19/49) to 11% (14/128) as CO 2 replaced air for foam preparation ( P Conclusions Side effects decreased significantly if CO 2 rather than air was employed to make the sclerosing foam for chemical ablation of superficial veins of the lower extremity.

Charles R Rogers - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • comparisons of side effects using air and carbon dioxide foam for endovenous chemical ablation
    Journal of Vascular Surgery, 2008
    Co-Authors: Nick Morrison, Diana Neuhardt, Charles R Rogers, James Mceown, Terri Morrison, Elaine Johnson, Sergio X Sallescunha
    Abstract:

    Objective This clinical study evaluated prospectively adverse events immediately following ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) for the treatment of lower extremity venous valvular insufficiency. Incidence of side effects associated with carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) foam was compared with a historical control using air-based foam. The literature on the subject was reviewed. Methods Vital signs were monitored during and immediately after UGFS, and adverse events were recorded for 24 hours following the procedure. The air-based foam group had 49 patients: 44 women and 5 men. The CO 2 -based foam group had 128 patients: 115 women and 13 men. CEAP class was C2EpAsPr, describing varicose veins, primary etiology, and saphenous reflux. UGFS followed thermal ablation of the great saphenous vein. Foam was prepared using the three-way tap technique to mix gas with 1% polidocanol in a 4:1 ratio. Segments of the great and small saphenous veins and their tributaries were treated with UGFS. Foam volumes injected were 27 ± 10 (SD) (6-46 range) and 25 ± 12 (6-57 range) mL for air- and CO 2 -based foams respectively ( P = .39). Incidence of adverse events was compared by χ 2 statistics. Vital signs were compared by paired t test. Results During the procedure, the average heart rate decreased by less than 5 bpm for both groups ( P 2 group ( P 2 -foam series ( P > .05). Visual disturbances were experienced by 3.1% (4/128) and 8.2% (4/49) patients in the CO 2 and air groups respectively ( P = .15). Respiratory difficulties or Circumoral Paresthesia each occurred in 0.8% (n = 1) of the CO 2 patients. Incidence of chest tightness (3.1% vs 18%), dry cough (1.6% vs 16%), or dizziness (3.1% vs 12%) were significantly lower in the CO 2 vs air groups ( P 2 and air-based foam groups ( P = .53). Overall, the proportion of patients describing side effects decreased from 39% (19/49) to 11% (14/128) as CO 2 replaced air for foam preparation ( P Conclusions Side effects decreased significantly if CO 2 rather than air was employed to make the sclerosing foam for chemical ablation of superficial veins of the lower extremity.

James Mceown - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • comparisons of side effects using air and carbon dioxide foam for endovenous chemical ablation
    Journal of Vascular Surgery, 2008
    Co-Authors: Nick Morrison, Diana Neuhardt, Charles R Rogers, James Mceown, Terri Morrison, Elaine Johnson, Sergio X Sallescunha
    Abstract:

    Objective This clinical study evaluated prospectively adverse events immediately following ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) for the treatment of lower extremity venous valvular insufficiency. Incidence of side effects associated with carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) foam was compared with a historical control using air-based foam. The literature on the subject was reviewed. Methods Vital signs were monitored during and immediately after UGFS, and adverse events were recorded for 24 hours following the procedure. The air-based foam group had 49 patients: 44 women and 5 men. The CO 2 -based foam group had 128 patients: 115 women and 13 men. CEAP class was C2EpAsPr, describing varicose veins, primary etiology, and saphenous reflux. UGFS followed thermal ablation of the great saphenous vein. Foam was prepared using the three-way tap technique to mix gas with 1% polidocanol in a 4:1 ratio. Segments of the great and small saphenous veins and their tributaries were treated with UGFS. Foam volumes injected were 27 ± 10 (SD) (6-46 range) and 25 ± 12 (6-57 range) mL for air- and CO 2 -based foams respectively ( P = .39). Incidence of adverse events was compared by χ 2 statistics. Vital signs were compared by paired t test. Results During the procedure, the average heart rate decreased by less than 5 bpm for both groups ( P 2 group ( P 2 -foam series ( P > .05). Visual disturbances were experienced by 3.1% (4/128) and 8.2% (4/49) patients in the CO 2 and air groups respectively ( P = .15). Respiratory difficulties or Circumoral Paresthesia each occurred in 0.8% (n = 1) of the CO 2 patients. Incidence of chest tightness (3.1% vs 18%), dry cough (1.6% vs 16%), or dizziness (3.1% vs 12%) were significantly lower in the CO 2 vs air groups ( P 2 and air-based foam groups ( P = .53). Overall, the proportion of patients describing side effects decreased from 39% (19/49) to 11% (14/128) as CO 2 replaced air for foam preparation ( P Conclusions Side effects decreased significantly if CO 2 rather than air was employed to make the sclerosing foam for chemical ablation of superficial veins of the lower extremity.