Mechanochemical ablation versus cyanoacrylate adhesive for the treatment of varicose veins: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

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.

Interventions for great saphenous vein incompetence

BACKGROUND

Great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence, causing varicose veins and venous insufficiency, makes up the majority of lower-limb superficial venous diseases. Treatment options for GSV incompetence include surgery (also known as high ligation and stripping), laser and radiofrequency ablation, and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy. Newer treatments include cyanoacrylate glue, mechanochemical ablation, and endovenous steam ablation. These techniques avoid the need for a general anaesthetic, and may result in fewer complications and improved quality of life (QoL). These treatments should be compared to inform decisions on treatment for varicosities in the GSV. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), endovenous steam ablation (EVSA), ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), cyanoacrylate glue, mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) and high ligation and stripping (HL/S) for the treatment of varicosities of the great saphenous vein (GSV).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 2 November 2020. We undertook reference checking to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) treating participants for varicosities of the GSV using EVLA, RFA, EVSA, UGFS, cyanoacrylate glue, MOCA or HL/S. Key outcomes of interest are technical success, recurrence, complications and QoL.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, applied Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 11 new RCTs for this update. Therefore, we included 24 RCTs with 5135 participants. Duration of follow-up ranged from five weeks to eight years. Five comparisons included single trials. For comparisons with more than one trial, we could only pool data for 'technical success' and 'recurrence' due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and time points reported. All trials had some risk of bias concerns. Here we report the clinically most relevant comparisons. EVLA versus RFA Technical success was comparable up to five years (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.38; 5 studies, 780 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); over five years, there was no evidence of a difference (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.41; 1 study, 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported recurrence, showing no clear difference at three years (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.99; 291 participants; low-certainty evidence), but a benefit for RFA may be seen at five years (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.52 to 5.06; 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). EVLA versus UGFS Technical success may be better in EVLA participants up to five years (OR 6.13, 95% CI 0.98 to 38.27; 3 studies, 588 participants; low-certainty evidence), and over five years (OR 6.47, 95% CI 2.60 to 16.10; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in recurrence up to three years and at five years (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.36; 2 studies, 443 participants; and OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.87; 2 studies, 418 participants; very low-certainty evidence, respectively). EVLA versus HL/S Technical success may be better in EVLA participants up to five years (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.23; 6 studies, 1051 participants; low-certainty evidence). No clear difference in technical success was seen at five years and beyond (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.50; 5 studies, 874 participants; low-certainty evidence). Recurrence was comparable within three years and at 5 years (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.29; 7 studies, 1459 participants; and OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.76; 7 studies, 1267 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). RFA versus MOCA There was no clear difference in technical success (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.06 to 54.15; 3 studies, 435 participants; low-certainty evidence), or recurrence (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.81; 3 studies, 389 participants; low-certainty evidence). Long-term data are not available. RFA versus HL/S No clear difference in technical success was detected up to five years (OR 5.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 50.81; 2 studies, 318 participants; low-certainty evidence); over five years, there was no evidence of a difference (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.69; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence). No clear difference in recurrence was detected up to three years (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.51; 4 studies, 546 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but a possible long-term benefit for RFA was seen (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.75; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence). UGFS versus HL/S Meta-analysis showed a possible benefit for HL/S compared with UGFS in technical success up to five years (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.94; 4 studies, 954 participants; low-certainty evidence), and over five years (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.30; 3 studies, 525 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No clear difference was detected in recurrence up to three years (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.77; 3 studies, 822 participants; low-certainty evidence), and after five years (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.71; 3 studies, 639 participants; low-certainty evidence). Complications were generally low for all interventions, but due to different definitions and time points, we were unable to draw conclusions (very-low certainty evidence). Similarly, most studies evaluated QoL but used different questionnaires at variable time points. Rates of QoL improvement were comparable between interventions at follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our conclusions are limited due to the relatively small number of studies for each comparison and differences in outcome definitions and time points reported. Technical success was comparable between most modalities. EVLA may offer improved technical success compared to UGFS or HL/S. HL/S may have improved technical success compared to UGFS. No evidence of a difference was detected in recurrence, except for a possible long-term benefit for RFA compared to EVLA or HL/S. Studies which provide more evidence on the breadth of treatments are needed. Future trials should seek to standardise clinical terminology of outcome measures and the time points at which they are measured.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of mechanochemical endovenous ablation using Flebogrif for varicose veins: A summary of evidence

OBJECTIVE

In the present study, we reviewed and analyzed the currently available data on the Flebogrif device (Balton, Warsaw, Poland) to define its role in the global varicose vein treatment devices market.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Studies were eligible if they had included patients treated using the Flebogrif for saphenous vein incompetence, had been reported in English, and had the full text available. The methodologic quality of the studies was assessed using the methodologic index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS) score. A random effects model was used to estimate the primary outcome of anatomic success, defined as the occlusion rate of the treated vein. The estimates are reported with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The secondary outcomes were clinical success, complication rate, pain during and after the procedure, and time to return to work.

RESULTS

A total of 392 patients are reported in the included studies. A total of 348 legs were treated with Flebogrif (in 6 patients both legs). A total of 50 patients/legs were treated with EVLA (Ammollo et al.). In conclusion, 348 Flebogrif procedures are performed in 392 patients. Four studies reported the 3-month anatomic success, and three studies reported the 12-month anatomic success. The pooled 3-month anatomic success rate was 95.6% (95% CI, 93.2%-98.0%). The 12-month anatomic success rate was 93.2% (95% CI, 90.3%-96.1%). The only major complication reported within 3 months was deep vein thrombosis, which developed in 0.3% of the patients. The minor complications of thrombophlebitis and hyperpigmentation had occurred in 13.3% to 14.5% and 3.3% to 10.0% of patients, respectively, within 3 months. The methodologic quality of the included studies was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanochemical ablation using the Flebogrif device is a safe and well-tolerated procedure for the treatment of saphenous vein insufficiency. However, well-designed studies of sufficient sample size and follow-up are required to compare the effectiveness with other endovenous treatment modalities and define the definitive role of the Flebogrif device.

One-year outcome using cyanoacrylate glue to ablate truncal vein incompetence: A Singapore VenaSeal™ real-world post-market evaluation study (ASVS)

OBJECTIVE

We present 12 months efficacy data from A Singapore VenaSeal™ real-world post-market evaluation Study (ASVS), a prospective single-arm Asian population registry aimed to evaluate cyanoacrylate glue (CAG) closure of refluxing truncal veins.

METHODS

Duplex ultrasound was used to assess truncal vein closure. The revised Venous Clinical Severity Score (rVCSS) and three quality of life (QoL) questionnaires were completed to assess improvement in venous disease symptoms.

RESULTS

90/100 (90%) patients (136 legs; 140 truncal veins) completed evaluation at 6- and 12 months. The truncal closure rates at 6 and 12 months were 139/140 (99.3%) and 137/140 (97.9%), respectively. rVCSS and QoL questionnaires scores were sustained from the 3 to 12 months visits, although there were no futher significant improvement. No serious adverse events were reported between 3 and 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

CAG remains a safe and efficacious venous ablative technology at 12 months and is associated with a high rate of target vein occlusion and sustained QoL improvement.