Need for adjunctive procedures following cyanoacrylate closure of incompetent great,small and accessory saphenous veins without the use of postprocedure compression: Three-month data from a postmarket evaluation of the VenaSeal System (the WAVES Study)

Abstract

Purpose

Studies examining cyanoacrylate closure of saphenous veins with the VenaSeal™ System have not allowed concomitant procedures for tributaries at the time of the index procedure. Outside of clinical trials, however, concomitant procedures are frequently performed in conjunction with endovenous ablation. We report on the frequency of need for saphenous tributary treatment three months after cyanoacrylate closure of the treatment of great saphenous vein, small saphenous vein, and/or accessory saphenous vein.

Methods

Fifty subjects with symptomatic great saphenous vein, small saphenous vein, and/or accessory saphenous vein incompetence were treated with no postprocedure compression stockings. Concomitant procedures were not allowed. Treating physicians predicted the type and nature of any concomitant procedures that they would usually perform at the time of ablation, if not limited by the constraints of the study. Evaluations were performed at one week, one and three months and included duplex ultrasound, numeric pain rating scale, revised venous clinical severity score, the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire, and time to return to work and normal activities. At the three-month visit, the need for and type of adjunctive procedures were recorded.

Results

Complete closure at three months was achieved in 70 (99%) of the treated veins (48 great saphenous veins, 14 accessory saphenous veins, eight small saphenous veins). Revised venous clinical severity score improved from 6.4 ± 2.2 to 1.8 ± 1.5 (P < .001) and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire from 17.3 ± 7.9 to 6.5 ± 7.2 (P < .0001). Sixty-six percent of patients underwent tributary treatment at three months. The percentage of patients who required adjunctive treatments at three months was lower than had been predicted by the treating physicians (65% versus 96%, p=.0002).

Conclusions

Closure rates were high in the absence of the use of compression stockings or side branch treatment. Improvement in quality of life was significant, and the need for and extent of concomitant procedures was significantly less than had been predicted by the treating physicians.

Keywords

Chronic venous insufficiency endovenous technique great saphenous vein small saphenous vein varicose veins

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

US markets for varicose vein treatment devices 2013: Medtech 360. Millennium Research Group, Inc., 2013.

US approval order, P140018, 2015; https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?id=P140018.

Almeida

Min

Raabe

et al . Cyanoacrylate adhesive for the closure of truncal veins: 60-day swine model results. Vasc Endovasc Surg 2011; 45: 631–635.

Almeida

Javier

Mackay

et al . First human use of cyanoacrylate adhesive for treatment of saphenous vein incompetence. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2013; 1: 1174–1180.

Almeida

Javier

Mackay

et al . Thirty-six month follow-up of first human use of cyanoacrylate adhesive for treatment of saphenous vein incompetence. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2017; 5: 658–666.

Proebstle

Alm

Dimitri

et al . The European multicenter cohort study on cyanoacrylate embolization of refluxing great saphenous veins. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2015; 3: 2–7.

Morrison

Gibson

Vasquez

et al . VeClose trial 12-month outcomes of cyanoacrylate closure versus radiofrequency ablation for incompetent saphenous veins. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2017; 5: 321–330.

Gibson

Morrison

Kolluri

et al . Twenty four month results from a randomized trial of cyanoacrylate versus radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of incompetent great saphenous veins. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2018; 6(5): 606–613.

Gibson

VenaSeal sapheon closure system vs. radiofrequency ablation for incompetent great saphenous veins (VeClose) 36 month results. In: Presented at the Charing X Meeting, London, UK, 2017.

10.

Gibson

Ferris

Cyanoacrylate closure of incompetent great, small and accessory saphenous veins without the use of post-procedure compression: initial outcomes of a post-market evaluation of the venaseal system (the WAVES study). Vascular 2017; 25: 149–156.

11.

Vasquez

Rabe

McLafferty

et al . Revision of the venous clinical severity score: venous outcomes consensus statement: special communication of the American Venous Forum Ad Hoc Outcomes Working Group. J Vasc Surg 2010; 52: 1387–1396.

12.

Garratt

Macdonald

Ruta

et al . Towards measurement of outcome for patients with varicose veins. Qual Health Care 1993; 2: 5–10.

13.

EuroQol

EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life.

Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208.

14.

Hjermstad

Fayers

Haugen

et al . Studies comparing numerical rating scales, verbal rating scales, and visual analogue scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage 2011; 41: 1073–1093.

15.

VenaSeal closure system instructions for use , 2015, pp.1–24.

16.

Agresti

Coull

BA.

Order-restricted tests for stratified comparisons of binomial proportions.

Biometrics 1996; 52: 1103–1111.

17.

Willenberg

Schumacher

Amann-Vesti B et al . Impact of obesity on venous hemodynamics of the lower limbs. J Vasc Surg 2010; 52: 664–668.

18.

Monahan

Can phlebectomy be deferred in the treatment of varicose veins?

J Vasc Surg 2005; 42: 1145–1149.

19.

Welch

, Endovenous ablation of the great saphenous vein may avert phlebectomy for branch varicose veins. J Vasc Surg 2006; 44: 601–605.

20.

Lane

Kelleher

Shepherd

et al . Ambulatory varicosity avulsion later or synchronized (AVULS): a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg 2015; 26: 654–661.

21.

Lane

Onida

Gohel

et al . A systematic review and meta-analysis on the role of varicosity treatment in the context of truncal vein ablation. Phlebology 2015; 30: 516–524.