Editor's Choice - Short Term Cost Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Ablation and High Ligation and Stripping for Great Saphenous Vein Incompetence.

OBJECTIVE: Superficial venous incompetence (SVI) is a common disease that causes significant quality of life (QoL) impairment. There is a need for more health economic evaluations of SVI treatment. The aim of this study was to perform a cost effectiveness analysis in patients with great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence comparing radiofrequency ablation (RFA), high ligation and stripping (HL/S), and no treatment or conservative treatment with one year follow up. METHODS: Randomised controlled trial economic analysis from an ongoing trial; 143 patients (156 limbs) with GSV incompetence (CEAP clinical class 2 - 6) were included. Treatment was performed with RFA or HL/S. Follow up was performed up to one year using duplex ultrasound, revised venous clinical severity score (r-VCSS), Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ), and EuroQol-5D-3L (EQ-5D-3L). RESULTS: Seventy-eight limbs were treated with RFA and HL/S respectively. No treatment or conservative treatment was assumed to have zero in treatment cost and no treatment benefit. In the RFA group, one limb had reflux in the GSV after one month and three limbs after one year. In HL/S, two limbs had remaining reflux in the treated area at one month and one year. Both disease severity (r-VCSS, p = .004) and QoL (AVVQ, p = .021 and EQ-5D-3L, p = .028) were significantly improved over time. The QALY gain was 0.21 for RFA and 0.17 for HL/S. The cost per patient was calculated as €1 292 for RFA and €2 303 for HL/S. The cost per QALY (compared with no treatment or conservative treatment) was €6 155 for RFA and €13 549 for HL/S. With added cost for days absent from work the cost per QALY was €7 358 for RFA and €24 197 for HL/S. The cost per QALY for both methods was well below the threshold suggested by Swedish National Board of Health. CONCLUSION: RFA is more cost effective than HL/S and no treatment or conservative treatment at one year follow up.

Steam ablation versus stripping of great saphenous varicose veins. / Vanndampbehandling versus stripping av vena saphena magna ved åreknuter.

BACKGROUND: Use of new technology can lead to changes in the treatment course for patients and in treatment costs for the health service. The aim of this study was to compare sickness absence and time to resumption of daily activities, as well as treatment costs, for two surgical treatments for varicose veins: endovenous steam ablation and vein stripping. MATERIAL AND METHOD: This prospective observational study included 46 patients treated with steam ablation and 37 treated with vein stripping in the period 2015-2016. The two groups were matched with respect to age, sex, occupational status and classification. After treatment, patients were interviewed every other week until daily activities had been resumed. Detailed information on expenditure related to personnel, equipment, premises and materials was used to calculate the cost of treatment. RESULTS: Patients treated with steam ablation resumed daily activities after a median of 0 (interquartile range 0-2) days versus 4 (2-7) days for vein stripping (p < 0.001), and sporting activities after 4 (2-9) days versus 11 (3-19) days (p < 0.004). For patients in employment, sickness absence after steam ablation was 2 (2-5) days versus 14 (6-21) for patients treated with vein stripping (p < 0.001). The estimated treatment cost for steam ablation was NOK 5 973, compared with NOK 10 109 for vein stripping. INTERPRETATION: Steam ablation led to shorter convalescence and sickness absence for the patient, and lower costs for the hospital. Reduced sickness absence also implies lower costs for society.

Cost-Effectiveness of Current and Emerging Treatments of Varicose Veins.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the cost-effectiveness of current technologies (conservative care [CONS], high-ligation surgery [HL/S], ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy [UGFS], endovenous laser ablation [EVLA], and radiofrequency ablation [RFA]) and emerging technologies (mechanochemical ablation [MOCA] and cyanoacrylate glue occlusion [CAE]) for treatment of varicose veins over 5 years. METHODS: A Markov decision model was constructed. Effectiveness was measured by re-intervention on the truncal vein, re-treatment of residual varicosities, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 5 years. Model inputs were estimated from systematic review, the UK National Health Service unit costs, and manufacturers' list prices. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: CONS has the lowest overall cost and quality of life per person over 5 years; HL/S, EVLA, RFA, and MOCA have on average similar costs and effectiveness; and CAE has the highest overall cost but is no more effective than other therapies. The incremental cost per QALY of RFA versus CONS was £5,148/QALY. Time to return to work or normal activities was significantly longer after HL/S than after other procedures. CONCLUSIONS: At a threshold of £20,000/QALY, RFA was the treatment with highest median rank for net benefit, with MOCA second, EVLA third, HL/S fourth, CAE fifth, and CONS and UGFS sixth. Further evidence on effectiveness and health-related quality of life for MOCA and CAE is needed. At current prices, CAE is not a cost-effective option because it is costlier but has not been shown to be more effective than other options.

Prospective Randomized Study of Ultrasound-Guided Foam Sclerotherapy Combined with Great Saphenous Vein High Ligation in the Treatment of Severe Lower Extremity Varicosis.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effect of ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) in a single session combined with great saphenous vein (GSV) high ligation for severe lower extremity varicosis classified as C4-C6, compared with GSV stripping plus multistab avulsion or transilluminated powered phlebectomy (TIPP). METHODS: From January 2012 to December 2014, 177 patients with primary GSV insufficiency, classified as C4-C6, were randomized into the UGFS group or the control group. The UGFS group was managed by GSV high ligation and foam sclerotherapy in one session under the surveillance of ultrasonography, whereas the control group received GSV high ligation and stripping combined with multistab avulsion or TIPP. The patients were followed up at 1, 6, and 12 months after treatment. Outcome assessments included reflux recurrence rate, procedure-related adverse events, hemodynamic parameters, revised Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ) score. The medical cost and operating time of the 2 groups were also compared. RESULTS: In total, 73 patients received UGFS, whereas 90 patients underwent traditional surgery. Sixty-five patients in the UGFS group (89.0%) and 74 patients in the control group (82.2%) completed the follow-up. At the end of 12 months, the cumulative reflux recurrence rate was 13.8% in the UGFS group and 13.5% in the control group (P = 0.955). In the UGFS and control groups, minor complications (27.7% vs. 21.6%, P = 0.406) and major complications (3.1% vs. 2.7%, P = 0.895) were not significantly different. Compared with baseline values, obvious improvements of the venous filling index, VCSS, and AVVQ scores after treatment were confirmed in both groups (P < 0.001). The average operating and recovery times were much shorter (38.3 vs. 81.2 min, 5.4 vs. 9.6 days, P < 0.001, respectively), and the average hospital cost was much lower ($853 vs. $1,575, P < 0.001) in the UGFS group than in the control group. The patient satisfaction rate reached 92.3% in the UGFS group and 89.2% in the control group 12 months after operation (P = 0.270). CONCLUSIONS: Our outcomes indicated that UGFS combined with GSV high ligation was safe and effective for severe lower extremity varicosis.

[Surgery of varicose vein insufficiency]. / Operative Therapie der Varikose.

The basis of surgery of great saphenous vein insufficiency is the concept of "privat circulation" coined by Trendelenburg in 1891. It was only logical that the dissection of the insuffcient vein or it's partial or complete resection could bring about healing. Over the years varicose vein stripping was modified to finally result in the highly effectiv concept of crossectomy and stripping. For decades this was the Goldstandard in surgery of varicose vein insufficiency. All the other minimally invasive therapeutic techniques which have been developed in the last decades had to compete with crossectomy and stripping. Thanks to progress in technical development the classic stripping procedure has been replaced by highly effectiv, minimally invasiv procedures, at least in the western industrialisied countries. For a minority of patients with specific anatomical pathologies as well as countries with limited health resources vein stripping remains a surgical standard procedure.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Surgery, Endothermal Ablation, Ultrasound-guided Foam Sclerotherapy and Compression Stockings for Symptomatic Varicose Veins.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of interventional treatment for varicose veins (VV) in the UK NHS, and to inform the national clinical guideline on VV, published by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. DESIGN: An economic analysis was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of surgery, endothermal ablation (ETA), ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), and compression stockings (CS). The analysis was based on a Markov decision model, which was developed in consultation with members of the NICE guideline development group (GDG). METHODS: The model had a 5-year time horizon, and took the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Clinical inputs were based on a network meta-analysis (NMA), informed by a systematic review of the clinical literature. Outcomes were expressed as costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: All interventional treatments were found to be cost-effective compared with CS at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. ETA was found to be the most cost-effective strategy overall, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £3,161 per QALY gained compared with UGFS. Surgery and CS were dominated by ETA. CONCLUSIONS: Interventional treatment for VV is cost-effective in the UK NHS. Specifically, based on current data, ETA is the most cost-effective treatment in people for whom it is suitable. The results of this research were used to inform recommendations within the NICE guideline on VV.

Systematic review, network meta-analysis and exploratory cost-effectiveness model of randomized trials of minimally invasive techniques versus surgery for varicose veins.

BACKGROUND: A Health Technology Assessment was conducted to evaluate the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive techniques (foam sclerotherapy (FS), endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA)) for managing varicose veins, in comparison with traditional surgery. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of minimally invasive techniques compared with other treatments, principally surgical stripping, in terms of recurrence of varicose veins, Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), pain and quality of life. Network meta-analysis and exploratory cost-effectiveness modelling were performed. RESULTS: The literature search conducted in July 2011 identified 1453 unique citations: 31 RCTs (51 papers) satisfied the criteria for effectiveness review. Differences between treatments were negligible in terms of clinical outcomes, so the treatment with the lowest cost appears to be most cost-effective. Total FS costs were estimated to be lowest, and FS was marginally more effective than surgery. However, relative effectiveness was sensitive to the model time horizon. Threshold analysis indicated that EVLA and RFA might be considered cost-effective if their costs were similar to those for surgery. These findings are subject to various uncertainties, including the risk of bias present in the evidence base and variation in reported costs. CONCLUSION: This assessment of currently available evidence suggests there is little to choose between surgery and the minimally invasive techniques in terms of efficacy or safety, so the relative cost of the treatments becomes one of the deciding factors. High-quality RCT evidence is needed to verify and further inform these findings.

Cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy, endovenous laser ablation or surgery as treatment for primary varicose veins from the randomized CLASS trial.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of patients with varicose veins constitutes a considerable workload and financial burden to the National Health Service. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) and endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) compared with conventional surgery as treatment for primary varicose veins. METHODS: Participant cost and utility data were collected alongside the UK CLASS multicentre randomized clinical trial, which compared EVLA, surgery and UGFS. Regression methods were used to estimate the effects of the alternative treatments on costs to the health service and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at 6 months. A Markov model, incorporating available evidence on clinical recurrence rates, was developed to extrapolate the trial data over a 5-year time horizon. RESULTS: Compared with surgery at 6 months, UGFS and EVLA reduced mean costs to the health service by £655 and £160 respectively. When additional overhead costs associated with theatre use were included, these cost savings increased to £902 and £392 respectively. UGFS produced 0·005 fewer QALYs, whereas EVLA produced 0·011 additional QALYs. Extrapolating to 5 years, EVLA was associated with increased costs and QALYs compared with UGFS (costing £3640 per QALY gained), and generated a cost saving (£206-439) and QALY gain (0·078) compared with surgery. Applying a ceiling willingness-to-pay ratio of £20 000 per QALY gained, EVLA had the highest probability (78·7 per cent) of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: The results suggest, for patients considered eligible for all three treatment options, that EVLA has the highest probability of being cost-effective at accepted thresholds of willingness to pay per QALY.

Venous disease and chronic oedema: treatment and patient concordance.

Compression therapy is the mainstay in the management of chronic venous disease, venous leg ulceration (VLU) and chronic oedema. The management of VLU alone is thought to cost a staggering £400 million per year and accounts for 13% of all district nursing visits. The predicted increase in elderly, obese and chronically ill patients will pose a further strain on already stretched resources. The impact of chronic venous and lymphovenous disease is also costly in terms of physical and psychological terms for patients. Adopting a preventive approach would reduce the financial, workload and symptomatic aspects of this condition.

The anterior saphenous vein. Part 3. Systematic review of the literature and payor coverage policies. Endorsed by the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, the American Venous Forum and the International Union of Phlebology.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to systemically review the literature on Anterior Saphenous Vein (ASV) reflux treatment and insurance impediments to treatment coverage. METHODS: A literature search was performed using a PRISMA framework. In addition, a cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for ASV treatment was evaluated. RESULTS: Published evidence and treatment considerations in the literature for ASV treatment are discussed. In 155 of 226 (68.6%) insurance policies reviewed coverage of ASV ablation was allowed while 62/226 (27.4%) did not specify coverage and 9/226 (4.0%) specified ASV treatment was not covered. Of the 155 that provide ASV coverage, 98 (62.2%) provide coverage with criteria such as requiring prior treatment of the great saphenous vein. CONCLUSIONS: Vein treatment experts should continue to advocate to insurance carriers to update their varicose vein treatment policies to reflect the substantial clinical evidence so that patients with ASV reflux can be appropriately treated.

Randomized clinical trial of ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy versus surgery for the incompetent great saphenous vein.

BACKGROUND: New minimally invasive treatment modalities, such as ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), are becoming more popular. In a multicentre randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, the effectiveness and costs of UGFS and surgery for treatment of the incompetent great saphenous vein (GSV) were compared. METHODS: Patients with primary great saphenous varicose veins were assigned randomly to either UGFS or surgical stripping with high ligation. Recurrence, defined as reflux combined with venous symptoms, was determined on colour duplex scans at baseline, 3 months, 1 year and 2 years after initial treatment. Secondary outcomes were presence of recurrent reflux (irrespective of symptoms), reduction of symptoms, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D(™)), adverse events and direct hospital costs. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty patients were treated by UGFS and 200 underwent GSV stripping. The 2-year probability of recurrence was similar in the UGFS and surgery groups: 11·3 per cent (24 of 213) and 9·0 per cent (16 of 177) respectively (P = 0·407). At 2 years, reflux irrespective of venous symptoms was significantly more frequent in the UGFS group (35·0 per cent) than in the surgery group (21·0 per cent) (P = 0·003). Mean(s.d.) hospital costs per patient over 2 years were €774(344) per patient for UGFS and €1824(141) for stripping. CONCLUSION: At 2-year follow-up, UGFS was not inferior to surgery when reflux associated with venous symptoms was the clinical outcome of interest. UGFS has the potential to be a cost-effective approach to a common health problem. Registration numbers: NCT01103258 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov) and NTR654 (http://www.trialregister.nl).

Cost and effectiveness of laser with phlebectomies compared with foam sclerotherapy in superficial venous insufficiency. Early results of a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Quantify endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) with concurrent phlebectomies and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) in cost and effectiveness at 3 weeks and 3 months. DESIGN: Single-centre, prospective, randomised controlled trial. PATIENTS: One hundred patients (100 legs), C(2-6), age 21-78, M:F 42:58, with primary varicose veins received either EVLA under local anaesthetic or UGFS. METHODS: Assessments included duplex, Aberdeen varicose vein questionnaire (AVVQ), venous clinical severity score (VCSS), venous filling index (VFI), visual analogue 7-day pain score and analgesia requirements. Additional treatments with UGFS were performed, if required. Micro-costing, using individually timed treatments, was based on consumables, staff pay and overheads. RESULTS: Changes in AVVQ, VCSS and VFI values (3 months) did not demonstrate any significant difference between groups. At 3 months, the above-knee GSV occlusion rate (without co-existing reflux) was not significantly different between the groups (74% vs 69%; EVLA vs UGFS; P = .596). Of the 9 haemodynamic failures in each group, 7 EVLA patients and 4 UGFS patients had co-existing cross-sectional above-knee GSV occlusion at some point. However, UGFS significantly outperformed EVLA in cost, treatment duration, pain, analgesia requirements and recovery. CONCLUSIONS: UGFS is 3.15 times less expensive than EVLA (£230.24 vs £724.72) with comparable effectiveness but 56% (versus 6%) required additional foam (ISRCTN:03080206).

[Comparative characteristics of laser-mediated and radiofrequency-powered thermal obliteration in varicose disease].

The article deals with a comparative analysis of the two most commonly used methods techniques of thermal ablation used for elimination of truncal varicosis in varicose disease, i. e., endovasal laser-mediated and radiofrequency-powered obliteration, underlining differences in the mechanisms of physical impact of the two competitive methods, clinical peculiarities of their application, as well as economic aspects of these interventions under the conditions of the present-day Russia.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of current varicose veins treatments.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of technologies for treatment of varicose veins over 5 years-conservative care, surgery (high ligation and stripping), ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), and radiofrequency ablation (RFA), mechanochemical ablation (MOCA), and cyanoacrylate glue occlusion (CAE). METHODS: A systematic review was updated and used to construct a Markov decision model. Outcomes were reintervention on the truncal vein, retreatment of residual varicosities and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and costs over 5 years. RESULTS: UGFS has a significantly greater reintervention rate than other procedures; there is no significant difference between the other procedures. The cost per QALY of EVLA vs UGFS in our base-case model is £16,966 ($23,700) per QALY, which is considered cost effective in the UK. RFA, MOCA, and CAE have greater procedure costs than EVLA with no evidence of greater benefit for patients. CONCLUSIONS: EVLA is the most cost-effective therapeutic option, with RFA a close second, in adult patients requiring treatment in the upper leg for incompetence of the GSV. MOCA, UGFS, CAE, conservative care, and high ligation and stripping are not cost effective at current prices in the UK National Health Service. MOCA and CAE seem to be promising, but further evidence on the effectiveness, reinterventions, and health-related quality of life is needed, as well as how cost effectiveness may vary across settings and reimbursement systems.

Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, foam sclerotherapy and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins.

BACKGROUND: This randomized trial compared four treatments for varicose great saphenous veins (GSVs). METHODS: Five hundred consecutive patients (580 legs) with GSV reflux were randomized to endovenous laser ablation (980 and 1470 nm, bare fibre), radiofrequency ablation, ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy or surgical stripping using tumescent local anaesthesia with light sedation. Miniphlebectomies were also performed. The patients were examined with duplex imaging before surgery, and after 3 days, 1 month and 1 year. RESULTS: At 1 year, seven (5.8 per cent), six (4.8 per cent), 20 (16.3 per cent) and four (4.8 per cent) of the GSVs were patent and refluxing in the laser, radiofrequency, foam and stripping groups respectively (P < 0.001). One patient developed a pulmonary embolus after foam sclerotherapy and one a deep vein thrombosis after surgical stripping. No other major complications were recorded. The mean(s.d.) postintervention pain scores (scale 0-10) were 2.58(2.41), 1.21(1.72), 1.60(2.04) and 2.25(2.23) respectively (P < 0.001). The median (range) time to return to normal function was 2 (0-25), 1 (0-30), 1 (0-30) and 4 (0-30) days respectively (P < 0.001). The time off work, corrected for weekends, was 3.6 (0-46), 2.9 (0-14), 2.9 (0-33) and 4.3 (0-42) days respectively (P < 0.001). Disease-specific quality-of-life and Short Form 36 (SF-36(®)) scores had improved in all groups by 1-year follow-up. In the SF-36(®) domains bodily pain and physical functioning, the radiofrequency and foam groups performed better in the short term than the others. CONCLUSION: All treatments were efficacious. The technical failure rate was highest after foam sclerotherapy, but both radiofrequency ablation and foam were associated with a faster recovery and less postoperative pain than endovenous laser ablation and stripping.

Economic and outcomes-based analysis of the care of symptomatic varicose veins.

OBJECTIVE: Endoluminal treatment of symptomatic varicose veins (VV) reduces or eliminates inpatient hospital stays, lowers complication rates, and increases revenue for vein care centers adopting the technique. This study compares the outcomes and economics of two treatments for VV. METHODS: Since May 2007, endovenous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of symptomatic VV has been performed at our institution. For outcome measurements, a cohort of 100 RFA procedures (26% CEAP class C5 and C6) was compared with 100 open greater or lesser saphenous stripping and ligation procedures (SL, 18% C5 and C6). Procedures were performed between August 2002 and October 2007. The time frame was chosen to allow for a 6-mo follow-up. Patients who had adjunctive removal of secondary varicosities were included in both cohorts. Cost estimates are based on the actual total direct costs derived from the hospital's charge sheets for 20 of the 100 patients in each of the cohorts (n = 40). The actual direct costs are based on 2009-dollar values and do not include the surgeons' professional fees. RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent of the RFA therapies were performed in an outpatient clinic treatment room with the remaining 21% performed in an operating room (OR). For the SL group, all procedures were performed in the OR with 68% of patients requiring at least one night of hospital stay (average length of stay 1.2 d). The estimated direct cost of performing RFA in the treatment room was $906. This was considerably less than the estimated $4241 total direct cost for open SL followed by in-hospital observation. Outpatient open SL cost $2622, which is only slightly more than the $2533 cost for outpatient RFA performed in the OR. The use of RFA was associated with an earlier return to normal leisure activities (3.3 d versus 26 d, P < 0.05), fewer total hospital nights (3 d versus 82 d, P < 0.05), and less use of general anesthesia (16% versus 95%, P < 0.05). There were no major complications in the RFA group compared with three major complications in the SL group. CONCLUSIONS: With the introduction of endovenous techniques at our institution, there has been a significant increase in the volume of patients seeking this less invasive treatment modality. This is due largely to the ease and comfort with which patients can now be treated as well as the reduced length of stay, reduction of general anesthetic use, and the speed at which they can return to normal activities. We recommend endovenous ablation techniques as both cost-saving and patient-preferred.

Private payers' varicose vein policies are inaccurate, disparate, and not evidence based, which mandates a proposal for a reasonable and responsible policy for the treatment of venous disease.

Varicose veins afflict more than one in five Americans, and although varicose veins may be an asymptomatic cosmetic concern in some, many others experience symptoms of pain, aching, heaviness, itching, and swelling. More advanced venous disease can result from untreated venous insufficiency. The complications of chronic venous disease, including bleeding, thrombosis, and ulceration, are seen in up to 2 million Americans annually. Numerous reports have documented venous disease adversely affects quality of life and that treatment of venous disease can improve quality of life. It has previously been documented that private insurers, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services subcontractors for that matter, have disparate policies that in many instances are self-serving, contain mistakes, use outdated evidence, and disregard evidence-based guidelines. The two leading venous medical societies, the American Venous Forum and the American Venous and Lymphatic Society, have come together to review the varicose vein coverage policies of seven major U.S. private medical insurance carriers whose policies cover more than 150 million Americans. The authors reviewed the policies for venous disease and, if significant gaps or inconsistencies are found, we hope to point them out, and, finally, to propose a thoughtful and reasonable policy based on the best available evidence.

Evaluating patient preferences for thermal ablation versus nonthermal, nontumescent varicose vein treatments.

OBJECTIVE: To measure patient preferences for attributes associated with thermal ablation and nonthermal, nontumescent varicose vein treatments. METHODS: Data were collected from an electronic patient preference survey taken by 70 adult participants (aged 20 years or older) at three Center for Vein Restoration clinics in New Jersey from July 19, 2019, through August 13, 2019. Survey participation was voluntary and anonymous (participation rate of 80.5% [70/87]). Patients were shown 10 consecutive screens that displayed three hypothetical treatment scenarios with different combinations of six attributes of interest and a none option. Choice-based conjoint analysis estimated the relative importance of different aspects of care, trade-offs between these aspects, and total satisfaction that respondents derived from different healthcare procedures. Market simulation analysis compared clusters of attributes mimicking thermal ablation and nonthermal, nontumescent treatments. RESULTS: Of the six attributes studied, out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures were the most important to patients (37.2%), followed by postoperative discomfort (17.1%), risk of adverse events (16.3%), time to return to normal activity (11.0%), number of injections (10.0%), and number of visits (8.4%). Patients were willing to pay the most to avoid postoperative discomfort ($68.9) and risk of adverse events ($65.8). The market simulation analysis found that, regardless of the level of OOP spending, 60% to 80% of respondents favored attribute combinations corresponding with nonthermal, nontumescent procedures over thermal ablation, and that less than 1% of participants would forgo either treatment under no cost sharing. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are highly sensitive to OOP costs for minimally invasive varicose vein treatments. Market simulation analysis favored nonthermal, nontumescent procedures over thermal ablation.

Radiofrequency ablation vs conventional surgery for varicose veins - a comparison of treatment costs in a randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs involved (from procedure to recovery) following radiofrequency ablation and conventional surgery for lower limb varicose veins in a selected population. DESIGN: Prospective randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic great saphenous varicose veins suitable for radiofrequency ablation were randomised to either RF ablation or surgery (sapheno-femoral ligation and stripping). The hospital, general practice and patient costs incurred until full recovery and the indirect cost to society, due to sickness leave after surgery, were calculated to indicate mean cost per patient under each category. RESULTS: Ninety three patients were randomised. Eighty eight patients (47 - RF ablation, 41 - surgery) underwent the allocated intervention. Ablation took longer to perform than surgery (mean 76.8 vs 47.0 min, p<.001). Ablation was more expensive (mean hospital cost per patient 1275.90 pounds vs 559.13 pounds) but enabled patients to return to work 1 week earlier than after surgery (mean 12.2 vs 19.8 days, p=0.006). Based on the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (Office of National Statistics, UK) for full time employees, the cost per working hour gained after ablation was 6.94 pounds (95% CI 6.26, 7.62). CONCLUSION: The increased cost of radiofrequency ablation is partly offset by a quicker return to work in the employed group (ISRCTN29015169http://www.controlled-trials.com).