COmpressioN following endovenous TreatmenT of Incompetent varicose veins by sclerotherapy (CONFETTI).

OBJECTIVE: The evidence for post-foam sclerotherapy compression stockings for varicose veins is limited. Thus, we examined the effects of post-procedural compression stockings on varicose vein patients undergoing foam sclerotherapy. METHODS: The CONFETTI study was a prospective, single-center, randomized controlled trial. Patients with foam sclerotherapy-suitable varicose veins were randomly assigned to the compression group (CG) or the no compression stockings group (NCG) for 7 days. The primary outcome was post-procedural pain measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale for 10 days. Secondary outcomes included clinical severity, generic and disease-specific quality of life scores, return to normal activities and/or work, occlusion rates, degree of ecchymosis, CG compliance, and complications. Patients were reviewed at 2 weeks and 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 139 patients were consented to and randomly assigned. The intention-to-treat analysis included 15 patients who did not receive the allocated intervention. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics. Of the patients, 63.3% and 55.4% returned for follow-up at 2 weeks and 6 months, respectively. Most of the veins treated were tributaries. The CG experienced significantly lower pain scores than the NCG, with median scores of 7 mm and 19 mm, respectively (Mann-Whitney U-test; P = .001). At 2 weeks, no differences were observed in ecchymosis or the time to return to normal activities or work. Both groups showed improvements in clinical severity and quality of life, and occlusion rates were comparable. The NCG experienced one deep venous thrombosis and superficial thrombophlebitis, whereas the CG experienced two superficial thrombophlebitis. CONCLUSIONS: The CONFETTI study suggests that short-term post-procedural compression stockings are beneficial for reducing post-procedure pain.

Predicting Features of Visceral Stent Failure in Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

PURPOSE: Visceral stents in fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) have a significant risk of complications and carry a considerable burden of reinterventions. The aim of this study is to identify preoperative and intraoperative predictors of visceral stent failure. MATERIALS: A retrospective review of 75 consecutive FEVARs in a single center from 2013 to 2021 was undertaken. Data on mortality, stent failure, and reintervention pertaining to 226 visceral stents were collected. METHODS: Anatomical features including aortic neck angulation, aneurysm diameter, and angulation of target viscerals were obtained from preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans. Stent oversizing and intraprocedural complications were recorded. Postoperative CT scans were analyzed to determine the length of cover of target vessels. RESULTS: Only bridging stents through fenestrations to visceral vessels were considered; 28 (37%) cases had 4 visceral stents, 24 (32%) had 3, 19 (25%) had 2, 4 (5%) had 1. Thirty day mortality was 8%, a third of which was related to visceral stent complications. Intraprocedural complexity was documented during the cannulation of 8 (3.5%) target vessels, with a technical success rate of 98.7%. A significant endoleak or visceral stent failure was identified in 22 stents (9.8%) postoperatively, of which 7 (3%) had in-patient reintervention within 30 days. Further reinterventions at 1, 2, and 3 years were 12 (5.4%), 2 (1%), and 1 (0.4%), respectively. Most reinterventions were for renal stents (n=19, 86%). A smaller stent diameter and a shorter length of visceral stent were significant predictors of failure. No other anatomical feature or stent choice was found to be a significant predictor of failure. CONCLUSIONS: The modality of visceral stent failures varies, but renal stents with a smaller diameter and/or shorter length are more likely to fail over time. Their complications and reinterventions are common and carry a significant burden; therefore, close surveillance must be continued long term. CLINICAL IMPACT: With this work we share the methodology adopted at our centre to treat juxtarenal aneurysm with FEVAR. Thanks to this detailed review of anatomical and technical features we provide guidance for endovascular surgeons to face hostile aneurysm with peculiar visceral vessels anatomy. With our findings will also motivate industries in their attempt to produce improved technologies able to overcome issues identified in this paper.

The risk of harm whilst waiting for varicose veins procedure.

INTRODUCTION: Varicose veins (VV) negatively impact quality of life (QoL) and have risks of major complications including bleeding, ulceration and phlebitis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the VSGBI (Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland) and GIRFT (Get It Right First Time) classified VVs as lowest priority for intervention. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine harm caused and the impact on the QoL on patients waiting for their VVs procedures for more than 1 year. METHODS: This was a prospective study conducted at the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital (NNUH). Patients with VVs awaiting intervention for >1 year were included in the study. Patients with CEAP C6 disease were considered to be too high risk to be invited for treatment during the Covid-19 pandemic. Patients were sent QoL questionnaires and underwent a telephone consultation to assess harm. Both generic (EQ-VAS and EQ-5D) and disease-specific (AVVQ and CIVIQ-14) instruments were utilised. There were no control groups available for comparison. RESULTS: 275 patients were identified (37.1% male) with median time on waiting list of 60 weeks (IQR 56-65). 19 patients (6.9%) came to major harm, including phlebitis (3.6%), bleeding (1.8%) and ulceration (1.8%). Fifty-two patients (18.9%) had minor harm, including worsening pain (12.7%) and swelling (6.2%). 6.9% reported psychological harm. Rising CEAP stage was also associated with worsening level of harm in patients with C5-6 disease (p < 0.0001). Only 8.7% stated they would decline surgery during the pandemic. 104 QoL questionnaires were returned. Median EQ-VAS and EQ-5D was 75 (IQR: 60-85) and 0.685 (0.566-0.761), respectively. Median AVVQ score was 23.2 (14.9-31.0) and CIVIQ-14 score was 33 (21-44).ConclusionsThis study highlights the impact of delaying VVs surgery during a pandemic. A significant rate of both major and minor as well as psychological harm was reported. In addition, VVs had a significant detriment to quality of life.

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.

A clinical guide to deep venous stenting for chronic iliofemoral venous obstruction.

BACKGROUND: An increase in endovenous interventions for deep venous pathologies has been observed. This article aims to provide an overview of the role of venous stenting in the management of chronic conditions affecting the deep venous system of the lower limbs, with a focus on intervention relating to the vena cava and iliofemoral venous segments. METHODS: An overview of the literature on the minimally invasive venous stenting procedures that are being increasingly used in the management of chronic conditions affecting the deep venous system of the lower limbs. RESULTS: We discuss key areas of interest to a venous specialist practicing in this area, including diagnostic imaging in chronic deep venous disease, with a focus on the use of intravascular ultrasound examination in this context; the treatment of chronic venous outflow obstruction, including the rationale and structural indications for stenting, current guidance regarding stent placement, and fundamental points to consider during decision-making (endophlebectomy and stenting, stenting across the inguinal ligament, optimal sizing of venous stents, extension of venous stenting to beyond the common femoral vein confluence, the role of thrombolysis useful in chronic venous disease, and arteriovenous fistulae); outcomes and initial reports of stenting; and the future of venous stents. CONCLUSIONS: Deep venous stenting has become a key treatment option for chronic (thrombotic or nonthrombotic) obstructive venous disease. Dedicated venous stents and intravascular ultrasound examination represent important technological advances in the minimally invasive treatment of symptomatic chronic deep venous obstruction, which previously required open surgical reconstruction.

Clinical outcomes and overview of dedicated venous stents for management of chronic iliocaval and femoral deep venous disease.

OBJECTIVES: Venous stenting of the lower extremities has grown in popularity and is now considered a key component of the primary treatment strategy for the management of pathologically obstructive or stenotic lesions of the deep venous system. This review aims to provide an overview of the role of venous stenting in the management of chronic conditions affecting the deep venous system of the lower limbs. METHODS: An overview of venous stents design and current role of stenting procedure in individuals presenting with Chronic Venous Insufficiency (CVI) and presenting the current trials of dedicated venous stenting in management of chronic deep venous lesions. This review provides a focused insight on venous stent design, physical properties and the available dedicated venous stents selected studies with their related patency outcome based on selective literature search of the PubMed database and Cochrane library. CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated venous stent technology is advancing at a rapid pace alongside the increased undertaking of endovascular deep venous stent reconstruction in the management of iliocaval vein pathologies. The ideal design(s) for venous stents remain unknown, although it is hoped that the presence of new dedicated venous stents in clinical practice will allow the generation of experience and data to advance our understanding in this area.

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.

Comparison between open repair with suprarenal clamping and fenestrated endovascular repair for unruptured juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Management of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (JRAAA) remains challenging. Both open surgical and endovascular options are feasible, however, there is lack of level 1 evidence to support one modality over the other. Operative interventions frequently necessitate either open repair with a suprarenal clamp positioning (ORSRC) or complex endovascular repair (EVAR) with fenestrated (fEVAR) or parallel stent grafts (chEVAR). The aim of this study was to compare the renal function deterioration and mortality between ORSRC and fEVAR in patients who were operated on for unruptured JRAAA at a tertiary centre. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed on patients who underwent repair for unruptured JRAAA between March 2008 and October 2019. Analysis of short and mid-term outcomes after ORSRC (occlusion of the aorta above at least one of the main renal arteries) and fEVAR was conducted. Patients who underwent open repair of JRAAA with an infrarenal clamp were excluded. Procedural data as well as data regarding complications was noted. Acute kidney injury (AKI) and chronic kidney disease were defined using the KDIGO criteria (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes). Renal impairment data up to 1 year and mortality up to 5 years was recorded. RESULTS: During the study period, 162 patients who underwent JRAAA repair met the inclusion criteria (60.5% of them having ORSRC). Approximately, 85.8% of the population were males (80.6% in the open group compared to 93.7% in the endovascular group; P=0.019). The mean age for patients in the open group was 74.0 (SD=±5.5) years compared to 76.1 (SD=±7.2) years in the fEVAR group (P=0.035). More patients in the ORSRC group were symptomatic (18.4% versus 6.3% in the fEVAR group; P=0.028) and they also had larger aneurysms compared to the fEVAR group (66.9 (±12.7) mm versus 62.6 (±8.6) mm, respectively; P=0.021). In the ORSRC group, all patients required suprarenal clamping, with clamping above only one of the main renal arteries carried out in 43 patients (44.3%) of cases. At baseline, 37.0% and 44.5% of patients had CKD stage 3 or worse in ORSRC and fEVAR groups, respectively (P=0.759). Approximately 47.6% of patients having ORSRC had evidence of acute renal impairment on post-operative day 3 compared to 12.7% of those in the endovascular group (p<0.05). By 9-12 months, 54.6% of patients in the OR group had a CKD stage of 3 or worse, compared to 62.1% of patients in the fEVAR group (Pearson χ2, P=0.713). The median total length of stay (LOS) was 10 days for OR versus 6 days for fEVAR (p<0.05). Patients having fEVAR were more likely to require re-intervention (26.6% v/s 10.2%; P=0.006). Mortality at 30 days was 8.2% for ORSRC against 7.8% for complex EVAR (P=0.936). The corresponding figures at 1 and 5 years were 10.2% and 25.5% for ORSRC compared to 14.1% and 32.8% (P=0.456 and P=0.314, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In the context of JRAAA, patients receiving fEVAR procedures tended to be older, with a smaller diameter aneurysm. Postoperatively, fEVAR was associated with shorter hospitalisation and less risk of AKI in the immediate post-operative course, but had a greater likelihood of requiring re-intervention over time. Both interventions had similar rate of renal function deterioration at 1 year and the five year mortality rate was comparable.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Compression After Endovenous Thermal Ablation of Varicose Veins (COMETA Trial).

BACKGROUND: The 21st century has witnessed a rise in the use of endovenous thermal ablation. Being highly clinically and cost-effective and improving the quality of life of patients, they are now considered to be the "gold-standard" treatment for varicose veins. Post-intervention management, especially in terms of postoperative compression, however, remains unclear. As a result, a randomized study was undertaken to investigate the effects of wearing compression stockings after varicose vein treatment. METHOD: Patients with saphenous vein reflux undergoing treatment with endothermal ablation (with or without concurrent phlebectomies) were randomized to receive either 7 days of compression stockings or no stockings. The primary outcome measure for this study was the pain score over the first 10 postoperative days. The pain scores, clinical score, time to return to normal activities, and ecchymosis were assessed. Patients were followed-up at 2 weeks and 6 months post-ablation. RESULTS: In total, 206 patients were randomized, 49% of them to the compression group. The mean age was 49.7 (±16) years and approximately 51% of the population was male. The median pain score in the compression group using a visual analog scale was significantly lower on days 2-5, compared to the no compression group. Those having concurrent phlebectomies and compression stockings also had significantly better pain scores on days 1-3, day 5, and day 7. Improvement in the median venous clinical severity score was noted at 6-month follow-up, but this was not significant. No difference in the generic- or disease-specific quality of life was observed and the time to return to activities was similar. There were no differences in the degree of ecchymosis between the 2 groups and both groups had similar occlusion rates. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that wearing compression stockings after endothermal ablation is advantageous in the first few days after treatment and is especially beneficial for those having concurrent phlebectomies.

Foam sclerotherapy versus ambulatory phlebectomy for the treatment of varicose vein tributaries: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory phlebectomies and foam sclerotherapy are two of the most common treatments for varicose vein tributaries. Many studies have been published on these treatments, but few comparative studies have attempted to determine their relative effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective single-centre randomised clinical trial. Patients with primary truncal vein incompetence and varicose vein tributaries requiring treatment will be assigned randomly to either ambulatory phlebectomies or foam sclerotherapy. The primary outcome measure is the re-intervention rate for the varicose vein tributaries during the study period. The secondary outcomes include the degree of pain during the first two post-operative weeks and the time to return to usual activities or work. Improvements in clinical scores, quality of life scores, occlusion rates and cost-effectiveness for each intervention are other secondary outcomes. The re-intervention rate will be considered from the third month. DISCUSSION: This study compares ambulatory phlebectomies and foam sclerotherapy in the treatment of varicose vein tributaries. The re-intervention rates, safety, patient experience and the cost-effectiveness of each intervention will be assessed. This study aims to recruit 160 patients and is expected to be completed by the end of 2019. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03416413 . Registered on 31 January 2018.

A systematic review of paediatric deep venous thrombolysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to assess the effectiveness and safety of catheter-directed thrombolysis in children with deep venous thrombosis and to evaluate its long-term effect. METHOD AND RESULTS: EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane databases were searched to identify studies in which paediatric acute deep venous thrombosis patients received thrombolysis. Following title and abstract screening, seven cohort studies with a total of 183 patients were identified. Technical success was 82% and superior in regional rather than systemic thrombolysis (p < 0.00001). One cohort study identified significant difference in thrombus resolution at one year between thrombolytic and anticoagulant groups (p = 0.01). The complication rate was low, with incidence rates of major bleeding, pulmonary embolism and others at 2.8%, 1.8% and 8.4%, respectively. The overall post-thrombotic syndrome rate was 12.7%. The incidence of re-thrombosis ranged from 12.3% to 27%. CONCLUSION: Thrombolysis for paediatric deep venous thrombosis is an effective and relatively safe therapeutic option, lowering the incidence of post-thrombotic syndrome and deep venous thrombosis recurrence.

A systematic review on the use of deep venous stenting for acute venous thrombosis of the lower limb.

OBJECTIVES: The aim is to evaluate venous stent patency, the development of post-thrombotic syndrome, recurrence, quality of life and the optimal post-procedural anticoagulation regimen in the treatment of iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis. METHOD AND RESULTS: EMBASE and Medline databases were interrogated to identify studies in which acute deep venous thrombosis patients were stented. Twenty-seven studies and 542 patients were identified. Primary, assisted primary and secondary patency rates 12 months after stent placement ranged from 74 to 95, 90 to 95 and 84 to 100%, respectively. The observed post-thrombotic syndrome rate was 14.6%. The incidence of stent re-thrombosis was 8%. In 26% of studies, patients received additional antiplatelet therapy. Quality of life questionnaires employed in 11% of studies, demonstrating an improvement in the chronic venous insufficiency questionnaire (22.67 ± 3.01 versus 39.34 ± 6.66). CONCLUSION: Venous stenting appears to be an effective adjunct to early thrombus removal; however, further studies are needed to identify optimal anticoagulant regimen and effect on quality of life.

Endovenous Management of Varicose Veins.

Varicose veins are a very common condition and have been the subject of a recent proliferation of treatment modalities. The advent of the endovenous treatment era has led to a confusing array of different techniques that can be daunting when making the transition from traditional surgery. All modalities offer excellent results in the right situation, and each has its own treatment profile. Thermal ablation techniques have matured and have a reassuring and reliable outcome, but the arrival of nonthermal techniques has delivered further options for both patient and surgeon. This article provides an overview of the different treatment devices and modalities available to the modern superficial vein surgeon and details the currently available evidence and summation analysis to help surgeons to make an appropriate treatment choice for their patients.

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

BACKGROUND: Thermal ablation techniques have become the first-line treatment of truncal veins in the management of chronic venous disease (CVD). Despite excellent outcomes, these methods are often associated with pain; generally due to their use of heat and the necessity of fluid infiltration around the vein. More recently, novel non-thermal techniques, such as mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) and cyanoacrylate adhesive (CAE) have been developed to overcome these unwelcome effects. So far, the novel techniques have been found to have similar efficacy to thermal methods, yet no direct comparisons between the non-thermal treatment techniques have been conducted to date, giving rise to this study. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, multicentre, randomised clinical trial, recruiting patients with truncal saphenous incompetence. Patients will be randomised to undergo either MOCA or CAE truncal ablation, followed by treatment of any varicosities. All patients will be required to wear compression stockings for 4 days post intervention. The primary outcome measure is the pain score immediately following completion of truncal ablation, measured by a 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The secondary outcomes are entire treatment pain scores, clinical scores, quality of life scores, occlusion rates, time to return to usual activities/work at 2 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months. Re-intervention rate will be considered from the third month. Cost-effectiveness will be assessed for each intervention at 12 months. The study is powered to detect a mean 10-mm difference in maximum pain score. Allowing for loss to follow-up, the total target recruitment is 180 patients. DISCUSSION: The study will be the first study to compare MOCA against CAE and is designed to determine which method causes less pain. Completion of this study is expected to be the end of 2019. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03392753 . Registered on 17 November 2017.

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.

A multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing radiofrequency and mechanical occlusion chemically assisted ablation of varicose veins - Final results of the Venefit versus Clarivein for varicose veins trial.

Background Endovenous thermal ablation has revolutionised varicose vein treatment. New non-thermal techniques such as mechanical occlusion chemically assisted endovenous ablation (MOCA) allow treatment of entire trunks with single anaesthetic injections. Previous non-randomised work has shown reduced pain post-operatively with MOCA. This study presents a multi-centre randomised controlled trial assessing the difference in pain during truncal ablation using MOCA and radiofrequency endovenous ablation (RFA) with six months' follow-up. Methods Patients undergoing local anaesthetic endovenous ablation for primary varicose veins were randomised to either MOCA or RFA. Pain scores using Visual Analogue Scale and number scale (0-10) during truncal ablation were recorded. Adjunctive procedures were completed subsequently. Pain after phlebectomy was not assessed. Patients were reviewed at one and six months with clinical scores, quality of life scores and duplex ultrasound assessment of the treated leg. Results A total of 170 patients were recruited over a 21-month period from 240 screened. Patients in the MOCA group experienced significantly less maximum pain during the procedure by Visual Analogue Scale (MOCA median 15 mm (interquartile range 7-36 mm) versus RFA 34 mm (interquartile range 16-53 mm), p = 0.003) and number scale (MOCA median 3 (interquartile range 1-5) versus RFA 4 mm (interquartile range 3-6.5), p = 0.002). ' Average' pain scores were also significantly less in the MOCA group; 74% underwent simultaneous phlebectomy. Occlusion rates, clinical severity scores, disease specific and generic quality of life scores were similar between groups at one and six months. There were two deep vein thromboses, one in each group. Conclusion Pain secondary to truncal ablation is less painful with MOCA than RFA with similar short-term technical, quality of life and safety outcomes.

Long-term follow-up for different varicose vein therapies: is surgery still the best?

Management of varicose vein disease has changed drastically over the past decades. Since its introduction in vein practice, surgery has gone through several stages of evolution until the method of ligation with stripping eventually became and remained the standard for a long time. It was found to be effective at treating the condition and, indications of its beneficial impact on patients' quality of life soon also became evident. However, being associated with significant morbidity, surgery gradually fell out of favour, especially, once the newer endovenous techniques were launched around the turn of the century. These endothermal methods allowed procedures to be carried out under local anaesthetic as day case interventions, often with a similar or even better effect on occlusion rates and quality of life. In addition, there is mounting evidence that these newer techniques might be more cost-effective. This review evaluates surgical treatment of varicose veins compared to endovenous methods and also assesses its place in current phlebological practice.

The advent of non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques for treatment of varicose veins.

Varicose veins are common and their management has undergone a number of changes over the years. Surgery has been the traditional treatment option, but towards the 21st century, new endovenous thermal ablation techniques, namely, radiofrequency ablation and endovenous laser ablation, were introduced which have revolutionised the way varicose veins are treated. These minimally invasive techniques are associated with earlier return to normal activity and less pain, as well as enabling procedures to be carried out as day cases. They are, however, also known to cause a number of side-effects and involve infiltration of tumescent fluid which can cause discomfort. Non-thermal, non-tumescent methods are believed to be the answer to these unwelcome effects. Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy is one such non-thermal, non-tumescent method and, despite a possible lower occlusion, has been shown to improve the quality of life of patients. The early results of two recently launched non-thermal, non-tumescent methods, mechanochemical ablation and cyanoacrylate glue, are promising and are discussed.