Rutosides for treatment of post-thrombotic syndrome.
關鍵詞
抽象
BACKGROUND
Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a long-term complication of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) that is characterised by pain, swelling, and skin changes in the affected limb. One in three patients with DVT will develop post-thrombotic sequelae within five years. Rutosides are a group of compounds derived from horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum), a traditional herbal remedy for treating oedema formation in chronic venous insufficiency (CVI). However, it is not known whether rutosides are effective and safe in the treatment of PTS.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the effectiveness and safety of rutosides for treatment of PTS in patients with DVT compared to placebo, no intervention, elastic compression stockings (ECS) or any other treatment.
METHODS
The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched October 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 9). Clinical trials databases were searched for details of ongoing and unpublished studies.
METHODS
Two authors (JM and DNK) independently assessed studies for inclusion. Studies were included to allow the comparison of rutosides versus placebo or no treatment, rutosides versus ECS, and rutosides versus any other treatment. Two authors (JM and SEY) extracted information from the trials. Disagreements were resolved by discussion.
METHODS
Data were extracted using designated data extraction forms. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for all included studies to assist in the assessment of quality. Primary outcome measures were the occurrence of leg ulceration over time (yes or no) and any improvement or deterioration of post-thrombotic syndrome (yes or no). Secondary outcomes included reduction of oedema, pain, recurrence of deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, compliance with therapy, and adverse effects. All of the outcome measures were analysed using Mantel-Haenzel fixed-effect model odds ratios. The unit of analysis was the number of patients.
RESULTS
Ten reports of nine studies were identified following searching and three studies with a total of 233 participants met the inclusion criteria. One study compared rutoside with placebo, one study compared rutosides with ECS and rutosides plus ECS versus ECS alone, and one study compared rutosides with an alternative venoactive remedy. Occurrence of leg ulceration was not reported in any of the included studies. There was a 29% odds of an improvement in PTS in the rutoside treated group versus placebo or no treatment, and lower rates of improvement in PTS in the rutoside treated group when compared with ECS, however these were statistically non-significant. Lower rates of improvement in PTS were shown in the rutoside treated group when compared with an alternative venoactive remedy. More PTS deterioration was shown in the placebo or no treatment group when compared with rutosides but this was not statistically significant. Compared with ECS, rutosides showed higher odds of PTS deterioration but this was also not statistically significant. One study reported on adverse effects showing higher odds of mild adverse effects in the rutoside treated group compared to placebo but this was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS
There was no evidence that rutosides were superior to the use of placebo or ECS. Overall, there is currently limited evidence that 'venoactive' or 'phlebotonic' remedies such as rutosides reduce symptoms of PTS. Mild side effects were noted in one study. The three studies included in this review provide no evidence for the use of rutosides in the treatment of PTS.
