A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of cyanoacrylate ablation over endovenous thermal ablation for treating incompetent saphenous veins

Interventions for great saphenous vein insufficiency: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Great saphenous vein insufficiency (GSVI) adversely affects the quality of life of affected individuals. Minimally invasive endo-venous ablation techniques have emerged as effective and safe treatments, despite the longstanding use of surgical interventions. We aim in our study to evaluate all the available interventions in the literature, either endo-venous or conventional approaches for the treatment of GSVI.

METHODS

A thorough search was performed across four electronic databases to identify relevant studies. A frequentist network meta-analysis (NWM) was executed on the combined data to derive network estimates pertaining to the outcomes of concern. Risk ratios (RRs) were employed as the effect size metric for binary outcomes, while mean differences (MDs) were utilized for continuous outcomes, each reported with a 95% confidence interval. The qualitative review was conducted employing the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool 1.

RESULTS

Our NWM included 75 studies encompassing 12,196 patients. Regarding technical success rate within the first 5 years after treatment, Endo-venous Laser Ablation (EVLA) with High Ligation and Stripping (HL/S), EVLA alone, Cyanoacrylate Adhesive Injection, cryostripping, HL/S and Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) were significantly better than Ultrasound-Guided Foam Sclerotherapy and F-care. Also, invagination stripping was inferior to all interventions. Conservative Hemodynamic Cure for Venous Insufficiency and Varicose Veins (CHIVA) demonstrated a significantly lower recurrence rate with a RR of 0.35 [0.15; 0.79] compared to RFA, but RFA was more effective in recurrence prevention than HL/S and Mechanochemical Ablation (MOCA), with a RR of 0.63 [0.41; 0.97] and 0.18 [0.03; 0.95], respectively. Endo-venous Steam Ablation (EVSA) emerged as the most effective in reducing post-intervention pain, showing a MD of -2.73 [-3.72; -1.74] compared to HL/S. In Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire outcome, our analysis favored MOCA over most studied interventions, with an MD of -6.88 [-12.43; -1.32] compared to HL/S. Safety outcomes did not significantly differ among interventions.

CONCLUSION

Our findings revealed significant variations in the technical success rates, recurrence rates, and post-intervention pain levels among different interventions. CHIVA exhibited enhanced performance in terms of lower recurrence rates, while EVSA emerged as a promising choice for mitigating post-intervention pain. Additionally, our analysis underscored the significance of patient-reported outcomes, with MOCA consistently yielding favorable results in terms of enhancing quality of life and expediting the return to regular activities.

Comparative analysis of VenaBlock and VenaSeal Systems for catheter-guided endovenous cyanoacrylate closure in treating chronic venous insufficiency of the lower extremity: effectiveness and feasibility

Cyanoacrylate adhesive closure (CAC) systems are widely used to treat varicose veins. In terms of efficacy and safety, these nonthermal, non-tumescent methods are noninferior to endovenous thermal ablation techniques. However, no published studies have compared products that use CAC systems. VenaSeal® (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) and VenaBlock® (Invamed) are the most commonly used CAC-based products worldwide. This study aimed to focus on the efficacy of these two commonly used products, with little emphasis on safety. Published full-text articles on the VenaBlock® and VenaSeal® systems were searched. Data for each product were evaluated by comparing them with each other in terms of effectiveness. In total, 1882 extremities from 11 studies using VenaBlock® and 524 extremities from eight studies using VenaSeal® were included and compared. Both devices were effective, and their cumulative recanalization-free survival rates were similar (P=0.188) at the 6-, 12-, 24-, 36-, and 60-month follow-ups. Both products improved the venous clinical severity score (VCSS) and quality of life (QoL) scores. VenaBlock® and VenaSeal® are effective in terms of cumulative recanalization-free survival rates, and no significant difference was found between the two groups (P=0.188). Both significantly improve the VCSS and QoL scores. CAC is feasible for the treatment of varicose veins.

Endovenous glue ablation for chronic venous insufficiency: A comprehensive 5-year assessment of clinical and hemodynamic outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Chronic venous insufficiency is mainly caused by reflux, obstruction, or both. Endovenous glue ablation has become one of the widely used methods for treating reflux in recent years. Duplex ultrasonography is the most commonly used method for diagnosing and evaluating treatment. However, there is important information that plethysmographic venous hemodynamics provides, which Duplex USG cannot provide. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the 5-year clinical, anatomical, and hemodynamic results of endovenous glue ablation in the treatment of chronic venous insufficience, accompanied by the data from the plethysmographic study.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

Between January 2018 and August 2018, 133 patients with symptomatic CEAP 2-6 varicose veins with reflux of the great saphenous vein lasting longer than 0.5 seconds and a diameter of 5.5 mm in the standing great saphenous vein underwent EVGA. CEAP, VCSS, CIVIQ 20, Doppler USG, GSV diameters and insufficiency times, and hemodynamically Venous Refilling Time and Venous Half-Value Time measurements were performed before the procedure. In the same way, measurements were made at the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 12th, 24th, and 60th months of the patients who were called and came to the postoperative follow-up.

RESULTS

Procedural success was 100%, and complete occlusion was observed %93 after treatment, at the 60 month. The improvement in VCSS (from 4.4 ± 1.3 to 1.7 ± 0.9), CIVIQ20 (from 8.5 ± 3.1 to 4.7 ± 2.0), VRT (from 20.3 ± 5.0 to 131.1 ± 4.0), and TH (from 2.8 ± 0.3 to 2.4 ± 0.2) was significant (p < .001 was for all).

CONCLUSION

Endovenous glue ablation is a preferred method for the treatment of great saphenous vein insufficiency due to its ease of use and the comfort it provides to patients, as well as its effectiveness and safety. In particular, it can be considered an effective method for improving venous hemodynamics and relieving associated symptoms.

The 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery, American Venous Forum, and American Vein and Lymphatic Society clinical practice guidelines for the management of varicose veins of the lower extremities. Part II: Endorsed by the Society of Interventional Radiology and the Society for Vascular Medicine

The Society for Vascular Surgery, the American Venous Forum, and the American Vein and Lymphatic Society recently published Part I of the 2022 clinical practice guidelines on varicose veins. Recommendations were based on the latest scientific evidence researched following an independent systematic review and meta-analysis of five critical issues affecting the management of patients with lower extremity varicose veins, using the patients, interventions, comparators, and outcome system to answer critical questions. Part I discussed the role of duplex ultrasound scanning in the evaluation of varicose veins and treatment of superficial truncal reflux. Part II focuses on evidence supporting the prevention and management of varicose vein patients with compression, on treatment with drugs and nutritional supplements, on evaluation and treatment of varicose tributaries, on superficial venous aneurysms, and on the management of complications of varicose veins and their treatment. All guidelines were based on systematic reviews, and they were graded according to the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations, using the GRADE method. All ungraded Consensus Statements were supported by an extensive literature review and the unanimous agreement of an expert, multidisciplinary panel. Ungraded Good Practice Statements are recommendations that are supported only by indirect evidence. The topic, however, is usually noncontroversial and agreed upon by most stakeholders. The Implementation Remarks contain technical information that supports the implementation of specific recommendations. This comprehensive document includes a list of all recommendations (Parts I-II), ungraded consensus statements, implementation remarks, and best practice statements to aid practitioners with appropriate, up-to-date management of patients with lower extremity varicose veins.

Outcomes of cyanoacrylate closure of the truncal varicose vein insufficiency: A comparison between young and elderly patients

OBJECTIVES

Cyanoacrylate closure (CAC) procedure has become an alternative treatment method that has become increasingly popular in the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) in recent years. The present study was designed to assess the feasibility, tolerance, results, and efficacy of CAC for truncal varicosities in elderly population.

METHODS

In this retrospective single-center observational cohort study, CAC procedure was performed in 160 patients (184 limbs) with truncal varicose vein insufficiency. The patients were divided into two groups: elderly group, and younger group. The primary outcome of this study was to assess the feasibility, tolerance, and safety of the CAC procedure for truncal varicosities in elderly population over 70 years. The Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), visual analogue scale of pain (VASP) and occlusion rate of the treated target veins of the patients were evaluated and compared among groups. The secondary outcomes were to evaluate and compare technical success, mortality, major adverse events, and other postoperative complications between the groups.

RESULTS

All operations were carried out under local anesthesia. There were no technical failures or device-related complications. Anatomic success rate was 100% after procedures. The occlusion rate for the elderly group at 2 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months was 100%, 92.3%, and 92.3%, respectively, while the occlusion rate for the younger group was 100%, 97%, and 94.7%, respectively. There was no significant difference in occlusion rates between two groups (p > .05) (Log Rank = 0,231). Improvement in the VCSSs was statistically significant between baseline and 12 months after procedure in both groups (p < .001). Improvement in the VASPs was statistically significant between baseline and 2 weeks after procedure in both groups (p < .001). There were no symptoms or signs of sural nerve injury, hematoma, or phlebitis in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although it has some potential risks, it is conceivable that the CAC procedure may be applied in selected fit elderly patients for the treatment of CVI. Age appeared to have no effect on the early and mid-term prognosis of the CAC procedure performed in the study cohort.

Early results of cyanoacrylate adhesive ablation versus laser ablation for the treatment of great saphenous vein insufficiency in the Chinese mainland population

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we present our early outcomes of cyanoacrylate ablation (CA) versus endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) for the treatment of great saphenous vein (GSV) insufficiency in the Chinese mainland population.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 108 patients (53 patients in the CA group and 55 patients in the EVLA group) with GSV insufficiency who were treated with CA and EVLA between May 2020 and May 2021. The Venous Clinical Severity Score and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire were used to assess clinical symptoms and quality of life, respectively. Total closure rates and procedure-related adverse events were also recorded in both groups.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between patients treated with CA or EVLA in terms of demographic and clinical characteristics. The average procedure time was 17 min in the CA group and 35 min in the EVLA group (p < 0.001). The CA group had lower pain scores during the procedure and 3 days afterward than the EVLA group (p < 0.001). At month 12, the CA group had a 90.4% closure rate, while the EVLA group had an 83.0% closure rate, with no significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the Venous Clinical Severity Score or Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire score between the groups (p > 0.05). During follow-up, neither group experienced any significant adverse events, such as pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis. The incidence of ecchymosis and paresthesia was significantly lower in the CA group than in the EVLA group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Cyanoacrylate ablation has a high feasibility profile and is an effective approach to accomplish complete GSV target vein closure at early follow-up in the Chinese patients. Compared to EVLA, the improvement in quality-of-life outcomes is also sustained and similar, with less pain and fewer complications due to the absence of tumescence anesthesia and postprocedural compression stockings.

Pain Outcomes Following Mechanochemical Ablation vs Cyanoacrylate Adhesive for the Treatment of Primary Truncal Saphenous Vein Incompetence: The MOCCA Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Endovenous thermal ablations (ETAs) are recommended as first-line treatment for truncal vein reflux, have a short recovery time, and are cost-effective. However, ETAs are associated with discomfort during tumescent anesthesia infiltration. To minimize discomfort, nonthermal, nontumescent ablation techniques had emerged in the form of mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) and cyanoacrylate adhesive injection (CAE).

Objective

To assess pain scores immediately after truncal ablation using a 100-mm visual analog scale and 10-point number scale to compare pain-related outcomes following mechanochemical ablation vs cyanoacrylate adhesive treatment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Multicenter Randomized II Clinical Trial Comparing Mechanochemical Ablation vs Cyanoacrylate Adhesive for the Treatment of Primary Truncal Saphenous Veins Incompetence study was a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted at 3 sites between November 2017 and January 2020. Inclusion criteria were primary great or small saphenous varicose veins; exclusion criteria included recurrent varicose veins, current deep venous thrombosis, or serious arterial disease. There were 392 participants screened, 225 were excluded, and 167 participants underwent randomization. Four participants did not receive allocated intervention and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Follow-up took place at 2 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months.

Interventions

Patients with primary truncal vein incompetence were randomized to receive either MOCA or CAE.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome measure was pain score immediately after completing truncal ablation using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) and a 10-point number scale. Secondary outcome measures included degree of ecchymosis, occlusion rates, clinical severity, and generic and disease-specific quality of life (QoL) scores.

Results

Of 167 study participants, 99 (59.3%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 56 (15.8) years. Overall, 155 truncal veins treated (92.8%) were great saphenous veins. Demographic data and baseline status were comparable between treatment groups. A total of 73 patients (47%) underwent adjunctive treatment of varicosities. Overall median (IQR) maximum pain score after truncal treatment was 23 mm (10-44) on the VAS and 3 (2-5) on the number scale, showing no significant difference in median (IQR) pain measured by VAS (MOCA, 24 [11.5-44.7] mm vs CAE, 20 [9.0-42.0] mm; P = .23) or by number scale (MOCA, 4 [2-5] vs CAE, 3 [2-4]; P = .18). Both groups demonstrated significant and comparable improvement in clinical severity, generic and disease-specific QoL scores, and complete occlusion rates. Four patients treated with CAE developed minor complications (superficial thrombophlebitis and thrombus extensions).

Conclusions and Relevance

To our knowledge, this was the first randomized clinical trial directly comparing nontumescent ablation techniques. The study demonstrated that the MOCA and CAE techniques have a similar periprocedural pain score.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03392753.