Comparing mechanochemical endovenous ablation using Flebogrif with endovenous laser ablation in the treatment of primary great saphenous vein incompetence: protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, observer-blinded, randomised controlled trial (REBORN trial).

INTRODUCTION: Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) is associated with an excellent outcome in the treatment of great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence. However, the use of thermal ablation requires tumescent anaesthesia and is associated with a risk of thermal damage. Mechanochemical endovenous ablation (MOCA) is a non-thermal ablation (NTA) alternative, which combines mechanical endothelial damage with the infusion of a sclerosant liquid or foam. Tumescent anaesthesia is not required. Preliminary experiences with MOCA using the Clarivein device show less intraprocedural and postprocedural pain and a faster clinical improvement compared with EVLA. Flebogrif (Balton, Poland) is a relatively new MOCA device. To determine the role of MOCA using Flebogrif, a well-designed, randomised controlled clinical trial of sufficient sample size and follow-up time is required. In this article, we provide the study protocol for the REBORN trial, aiming to demonstrate that MOCA using Flebogrif is not inferior to EVLA for the outcome of anatomical success in the treatment of GSV incompetence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, observer-blinded, randomised controlled trial randomises patients who are diagnosed with GSV incompetence and aged 18-80 years between Flebogrif and EVLA. 310 patients in 3 participating centres (Northwest Clinics Alkmaar, Skin and Vein Clinic Oosterwal Alkmaar and Red Cross Hospital Beverwijk) will be included. The primary outcome is anatomical success at 12 months. Secondary outcomes are intraprocedural pain, operation time, technical success, postprocedural pain, safety, anatomical success during other follow-up moments, complications, clinical success, aesthetic result, disease-specific quality of life, reinterventions, anterior accessory saphenous vein reflux and neovascularisation. Patients will be followed up at 1 week, 1, 6, 12, 24 and 60 month(s) after treatment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The institutional review board (Medical Ethical Review Committee of the Vrije Universiteit Medical Center) approved this study on 17 May 2021 under case number 2020.0740. Written informed consent is obtained by the coordinating investigator from all participants prior to study enrolment. After completion of the trial, the results will be submitted to an international scientific journal for peer-reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Overzicht van Medisch-wetenschappelijk Onderzoek in Nederland, NL-OMON25145, previously NL9527; Centrale Commissie Mensgebonden Onderzoek, NL74491.029.20.

A comparison of patient-reported outcome measures following technical success and technical failure in the treatment of great saphenous vein incompetence using ClariVein: A subanalysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing 2% and 3% polidocanol.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare patient-reported outcomes after technical success (TS) and technical failure (TF) in treating great saphenous vein incompetence (GSV) with ClariVein. METHODS: A subanalysis of a previous trial was conducted on symptomatic GSV incompetence patients who received ClariVein treatment with 2% or 3% polidocanol (POL) and were followed for 6 months. Blinding was implemented for observers and patients, and data from both POL groups were combined. TS was defined as at least 85% occlusion of the treated vein, while TF indicated failure to meet TS criteria. Secondary outcomes included Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ), and Short-Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire (SF-36). RESULTS: Among the 364 patients included, the TS rate was 64.5%. Comparison of VCSS, AVVQ, and SF-36 scores between TS and TF groups did not yield significant differences. CONCLUSION: This study indicates no significant variation in VCSS, AVVQ, and SF-36 scores between patients experiencing TS and TF following ClariVein treatment for GSV insufficiency.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment modalities for anterior accessory saphenous vein insufficiency.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate and compare the outcomes of the available treatment modalities for anterior accessory saphenous vein (AASV) incompetence. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Studies reporting the outcomes of patients who were treated for primary AASV incompetence were included. The methodologic quality of the articles was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). A random-effects model was used to estimate anatomic success, defined as AASV occlusion. The secondary outcomes were pain during and after treatment, venous clinical severity score, quality of life, esthetic result, time to return to daily activities, and complications. RESULTS: The search identified 860 articles, of which 16 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 609 AASVs were reported. The included studies were of poor or moderate quality according to MINORS score. The pooled anatomic success rates were 91.8% after endovenous laser ablation and radiofrequency ablation (EVLA, RFA, 11 studies), 93.6% after cyanoacrylate closure (3 studies), and 79.8% after sclerotherapy (2 studies). The non-pooled anatomic success rate was 97.9% after phlebectomy and 82% after CHIVA. Paresthesia was seen after EVLA in 0.7% of patients (6 studies). Phlebitis was seen in 2.6% of patients after RFA (2 studies), 27% after sclerotherapy (1 study), and 12% after the phlebectomy (1 study). Deep venous thrombosis and skin burn did not occur. CONCLUSION: Treatment of AASV incompetence is safe and effective. Despite limited evidence, occlusion of the AASV can be achieved with endovenous thermal ablation and cyanoacrylate. There does not appear to be a benefit of EVLA compared to RFA regarding treatment efficacy. Phlebectomy shows promising results if the saphenofemoral junction is competent. Lower results are seen after sclerotherapy and CHIVA. However, studies with sufficient sample sizes of solely treatment of AASV incompetence are needed to draw firm conclusions.

A multicenter, randomized, dose-finding study of mechanochemical ablation using ClariVein and liquid polidocanol for great saphenous vein incompetence.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to identify the ideal polidocanol (POL) concentration for mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) of the great saphenous vein (GSV) using the ClariVein system (Merit Medical, South Jordan, Utah). METHODS: We performed a multicenter, randomized, controlled, single-blind trial with a follow-up period of 6 months. Patients with symptomatic primary truncal GSV incompetence were randomized to MOCA + 2% POL liquid (2% group) or MOCA + 3% POL liquid (3% group). The primary outcome was technical success (TS), defined as an open part of the treated vein segment of ≤10 cm in length. The secondary outcomes were alternative TS, defined as ≥85% occlusion of the treated vein segment, postoperative pain, venous clinical severity scores, Aberdeen varicose vein questionnaire scores, and short-form 36-item health survey questionnaire scores, and complications. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2018, 364 patients (375 limbs) were included, of which, 189 limbs were randomly allocated to the 2% group and 186 to the 3% group. The TS rate at 6 months was 69.8% in the 2% group vs 78.0% in the 3% group (P = .027). A higher overall TS rate was seen in GSVs of ≤5.9 mm compared with GSVs >5.9 mm (84.3% vs 59.5%, respectively; P < .001). The alternative TS rate at 6 months was 61.4% in the 2% group and 67.7% in the 3% group (P = .028). The venous clinical severity scores, Aberdeen varicose vein questionnaire scores, and most short-form 36-item health survey questionnaire domains had improved in both groups (P < .002). Postprocedural pain was low. Two pulmonary embolisms and two deep vein thromboses were seen. Superficial venous thrombosis had occurred more often in the 3% group (18 vs 8 in the 2% group; P = .033). CONCLUSIONS: The results from the present study showed a higher success rate for MOCA with 3% POL liquid than for MOCA with 2% POL liquid at 6 months of follow-up. However, the difference in quality of life was not significant. Long-term follow-up studies are required to investigate whether these results will be sustained in the future.

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

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: Five articles met the inclusion criteria, reporting 348 procedures 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.

Ten-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial comparing saphenofemoral ligation and stripping of the great saphenous vein with endovenous laser ablation (980 nm) using local tumescent anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE: The long-term results of saphenofemoral ligation and stripping (SFL/S) were compared with 980-nm bare fiber endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) for the treatment of great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence. METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized, controlled trial with a follow-up time of 10 years. Patients with GSV incompetence were randomized to undergo SFL/S or EVLA under tumescent anesthesia. The primary outcome was recurrence of groin-related varicose veins seen on duplex ultrasound imaging and clinical examination. The secondary outcomes were (changes or improvement in) CEAP clinical class, venous symptoms, cosmetic results, quality of life, reinterventions, and complications. RESULTS: Between June 2007 and December 2008, 122 patients (130 limbs) were included; of these, 68 limbs were treated with SFL/S and 62 limbs with EVLA. The 10-year estimated freedom from groin recurrence as seen on duplex ultrasound imaging was higher in the SFL/S group (73% vs 44% in the EVLA group; P = .002), and the same trend was seen for clinically evident recurrence (77% vs 58%, respectively; P = .034). Nine reinterventions (17%) were deemed necessary in the SFL/S group vs 18 (36%) in the EVLA group (P = .059). All reinterventions in the SFL/S group consisted of foam sclerotherapy. Reinterventions in the EVLA group included foam sclerotherapy (n = 5), crossectomy (n = 2), and endovenous procedures (n = 11). There was no significant differences in quality of life and relief of venous symptoms. Cosmetic appearance improved, with a better cosmetic rating in the SFL/S group compared with the EVLA group (P = .026). One patient in the SFL/S group had a persisting neurosensory deficit remaining at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed no clear long-term advantage of EVLA with a 980-nm wavelength and bare-tip fiber over high ligation and stripping of the GSV under local tumescent anesthesia.