These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Clinical improvement in chronic venous insufficiency signs and symptoms with Venoruton® (HR): an 8-month, open-registry, cost-efficacy study.
    Author: Cesarone MR, Belcaro G, Ippolito E, Pellegrini L, Ledda A, Luzzi R, Ricci A, Dugall M, Bavera P, Hosoi M, Stuard S, Corsi M.
    Journal: Panminerva Med; 2010 Jun; 52(2 Suppl 1):43-8. PubMed ID: 20657534.
    Abstract:
    AIM: This study evaluated the clinical efficacy of Venoruton (O-(beta-hydroxyethyl)-rutosides) (HR) (Novartis Consumer Healthcare) in subjects with severe chronic venous insufficiency (CVI). METHODS: Patients were included in an average 8-month follow-up registry. At the end of the study 3 spontaneous groups emerged: a group treated with HR 2 g/day, a second group with HR 1 g/day and elastic stockings, and another group with stockings only. The age range was between 45 and 55. The 3 resulting groups were comparable clinically and for age/sex distribution. There were no differences in ambulatory venous pressure (AVP) at inclusion; microcirculatory and clinical evaluations were comparable. RESULTS: At 8 months there was a decrease in skin resting flux in all groups. Better results (P<0.05) were obtained in the group using the higher dosage and the associated treatment. Stockings alone were less effective (P<0.05). There was significant decrease (P<0.05) in capillary filtration (RAS) in all groups with an advantage in the combination group (P<0.021). HR alone was more effective (P<0.05) than compression alone. There was an improvement in the symptomatic score in all groups with better results (P<0.5) in the combined group; HR alone was more effective (P<0.025) than compression alone. The clinical severity score was reduced (P<0.05) in all groups with better results in the combined group. HR alone was more effective (P<0.05) than compression alone. The venous disability score indicated that HR alone was more effective (P<0.025) than compression. No side effects or tolerability problems were observed with HR. Compliance of HR was also very good. A cost comparison was made considering a comparable control groups (cost of best standard management=100%). Cost in group A was 44% of standard costs; cost in group B (HR+stockings) was 48% of standard costs, and cost in group C (stockings only) was 67% (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: The study confirms the long-term efficacy of HR in CVI patients. Controlling signs/symptoms and edema in CVI with HR also prevents the most severe complications of CVI.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]