RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To compare long term outcomes after great saphenous vein (GSV) treatment with three radiofrequency (RF) thermal devices: Venefit (Closurefast), Radiofrequency Induced Thermal Therapy (RFITT), and Endovenous Radiofrequency (EVRF). DESIGN: A 72 month follow up of patients who were treated in the randomised 3RF study. METHODS: A total of 172 participants from the 3RF study were invited to take part in a single visit, long term, follow up study. Failure of GSV closure was assessed with duplex ultrasound (DUS) and constituted the primary outcome. Patients completed questionnaires for secondary outcomes: Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ), Euroqol 5D (EQ-5D), and patient reported varicose veins measured by counting vein occupying boxes in AVVQ question 1. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients (12%) had already been re-treated. Of the remainder, 13 (7%) could not be contacted, 20 (11%) declined invitation, and one did not consent. Therefore, 116 (64%) and 95 (53%) participants completed questionnaires and DUS, respectively. Failure of GSV closure on 72 month DUS was 16%, 21%, and 37% for Venefit, RFITT, and EVRF, respectively (p = .14), whilst outcomes for all failures were 14%, 17%, and 44% (p < .001) (Venefit vs. EVRF: p < .001; RFITT vs. EVRF: p < .001; and Venefit vs. RFITT: p = .63). There were no between group differences in AVVQ or EQ-5D scores. Rates of patient reported presence of any varicose veins were high for all groups (97%, 92%, and 97% after Venefit, RFITT, and EVRF, respectively; p = .48). The EVRF treated participants reported more extensive recurrence than the Venefit and RFITT participants (p = .008). CONCLUSION: Long term technical outcomes after RF ablation for GSV varicose veins were significantly better after Venefit and RFITT compared with EVRF treatment. However, quality of life scores showed no differences after 72 months. Rates of patient reporting any varicose veins were high for all treatments. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT04720027.