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
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2023
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
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.
KluzekSDeanBWartolowskaKA. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as proof of treatment efficacy. BMJ Evid Based Med2021; 4: 153–155.
2.
KunduSLurieFMillwardSF, et al.Recommended reporting standards for endovenous ablation for the treatment of venous insufficiency: joint statement of the American venous forum and the society of interventional radiology. J Vasc Surg2007; 46(3): 582–589.
3.
KlemTMSybrandyJEWittensCH, et al.Reliability and validity of the dutch translated aberdeen varicose vein questionnaire. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2009; 37(2): 232–238.
4.
GarrattAMRutaDAAbdallaMI, et al.Responsiveness of the SF-36 and a condition-specific measure of health for patients with varicose veins. Qual Life Res1996; 5(2): 223–234.
5.
BakerDMTurnbullNBPearsonJC, et al.How successful is varicose vein surgery? A patient outcome study following varicose vein surgery using the SF-36 health assessment questionnaire. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg1995; 9(3): 299–304.
6.
BrittendenJCooperDDimitrovaM, et al.Five-year outcomes of a randomized trial of treatments for varicose veins. N Engl J Med. 2019; 381(10): 912–922. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805186.
7.
RasmussenLHLawaetzMBjoernL, et al.Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, foam sclerotherapy and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg2011; 98(8): 1079–1087.
8.
EggenCAMAlozaiTPronkP, et al.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. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord2021; 21: 646–653.
9.
LamYLAlozaiTSchreveMA, et al.A multicenter, randomized, dose-finding study of mechanochemical ablation using ClariVein and liquid polidocanol for great saphenous vein incompetence. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord2022; 10(4): 856–864.e2.
10.
EklöfBRutherfordRBBerganJJ, et al.Revision of the CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders: consensus statement. J Vasc Surg2004; 40(6): 1248–1252.
11.
TheivacumarNSDellagrammaticasDBealeRJ, et al.Factors influencing the effectiveness of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) in the treatment of great saphenous vein reflux. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2008; 35(1): 119–123.
12.
EliasSLamYLWittensCH. Mechanochemical ablation: status and results. Phlebology2013; 28(Suppl 1): 10–14.
13.
DuffyDM. Sclerosants: a comparative review. Dermatol Surg2010; 36(Suppl 2): 1010–1025.
14.
GoldmanMP. Treatment of varicose and telangiectatic leg veins: double-blind prospective comparative trial between aethoxyskerol and sotradecol. Dermatol Surg2002; 28(1): 52–55.
15.
JinHYOheHJHwangJK, et al.Radiofrequency ablation of varicose veins improves venous clinical severity score despite failure of complete closure of the saphenous vein after 1 year. Asian J Surg2017; 40(1): 48–54.
16.
BiemansAAvan den BosRRHollesteinLM, et al.The effect of single phlebectomies of a large varicose tributary on great saphenous vein reflux. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord2014; 2(2): 179–187.
17.
VasquezMARabeEMcLaffertyRB, et al.American venous forum Ad Hoc outcomes working group. 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 Surg2010; 52(5): 1387–1396.
18.
MohamedALeungCHitchmanL, et al.A prospective observational cohort study of concomitant versus sequential phlebectomy for tributary varicosities following axial mechanochemical ablation. Phlebology2019; 34(9): 627–635.
19.
MackenzieRKLeeAJPaisleyA, et al.Patient, operative, and surgeon factors that influence the effect of superficial venous surgery on disease-specific quality of life. J Vasc Surg2002; 36(5): 896–902.
20.
LattimerCRKalodikiEAzzamM, et al.Responsiveness of individual questions from the venous clinical severity score and the aberdeen varicose vein questionnaire. Phlebology2014; 29(1): 43–51.
21.
Van der VeldenSKLawaetzMDe MaeseneerMG, et al.Predictors of recanalization of the great saphenous vein in randomized controlled trials 1 year after endovenous thermal ablation. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2016; 52(2): 234–241.
22.
MerchantRFPichotOClosure Study Group. Long-term outcomes of endovenous radiofrequency obliteration of saphenous reflux as a treatment for superficial venous insufficiency. J Vasc Surg2005; 42(3): 502–509.
23.
BissaccoDMalloggiCLomazziC, et al.Quality-of-life assessment in patients treated with radiofrequency ablation with or without great saphenous vein recanalization. Phlebology2022; 4: 2683555211060622.
24.
SmithJJGarrattAMGuestM, et al.Evaluating and improving health-related quality of life in patients with varicose veins. J Vasc Surg1999; 30(4): 710–719.
25.
EngelhornCEngelhornASalles-CunhaS, et al.Relationship between reflux and greater saphenous vein diameter. J Vasc Technol1997; 21: 167–171.
