Mechanochemical tumescentless endovenous ablation: final results of the initial clinical trial
S Elias, J K Raines, S Elias, J K Raines
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of the ClariVein(®) system that employs mechanochemical ablation of the great saphenous vein (GSV).
Method: Patients eligible for ablation of the GSV underwent micropuncture access with only local anaesthesia to insert a 4 or 5 Fr sheath. The ClariVein(®) catheter was placed through the sheath, the wire was extruded, and the distal tip of the wire positioned 2 cm from the saphenofemoral junction under ultrasound guidance. Catheter wire rotation was then activated for 2-3 seconds at approximately 3500 rpm. With the wire rotating, infusion of the sclerosant was started simultaneously with catheter pullback. The sclerosant used was 1.5% liquid sodium tetradecyl sulphate (Sotradecol(©), Bioniche Pharma Group, Geneva, Switzerland).
Results: Thirty GSVs in 29 patients were treated. All patients have reached six-month follow-up; the average number of postoperative days is 260. No adverse events have been reported. The Primary Closure Rate is 96.7%.
Conclusion: Mechanochemical ablation appears to be safe and efficacious. The ClariVein(®) technique eliminates the need for tumescent anaesthesia. The great majority of incompetent GSVs can be treated with this technique.
Figures
References
- Merchant RF, DePalma RG, Kabnick LS. Endovascular obliteration of saphenous reflux: a multicenter study. J Vasc Surg 2002;35:1280–92
- Cavezzi A, Frullini A, Ricci S, Tessari L. Treatment of varicose veins by foam sclerotherapy: two clinical series. Phlebology 2002;17:13–8
- Almeida JI, Kaufman J, Gockeritz O, et al. Radiofrequency endovenous closureFAST versus laser ablation for the treatment of great saphenous reflux: a multicenter single-blinded randomized study (RECOVERY). J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009;20:752–9
- Proebstle TM, Vago B, Alm J, et al. Treatment of the incompetent great saphenous vein by endovenous radiofrequency powered segmental thermal ablation: first clinical experience. J Vasc Surg 2008;47:151–6
- Brar R, Nordon IM, Hinchliffe RJ, et al. Surgical management of varicose veins: meta-analysis. Vascular 2010;18:205–20
- Blaise S, Bosson JL, Diamond JM. Ultrasound guided sclerotherapy of the great saphenous vein with 1% versus 3% polidocanol foam: a multicentre double-blind randomized trial with three-year follow-up. Eur J Vasc Surg 2010;39:774–8
- Hamel Desnos C, Ouvry P, Benigni JP, et al. Comparison of 1% and 3% polidocanol foam in ultrasound guided sclerotherapy of the great saphenous vein: a randomized double blind trial with two year follow-up.'The 3/1 study'. Eur J Vasc Surg 2007;34:723–9
- Ceulen RPM, Bullens-Goessens Y, Pi-Van de V, et al. Outcomes and side effects of duplex guided sclerotherapy in the treatment of great saphenous veins with 1% versus 3% polidocanol foam: Results of a randomized controlled trial with one year follow up. Dermatol Surg 2007;33:276–81
- Rutherford RB, Padberg FT Jr, Comerota AJ, Kistner RL, Meissner MH, Moneta GL. Venous severity scoring: an adjunct to venous outcome assessment. J Vasc Surg 2000;31:1307–12
- Eklof B, Rutherford RB, Bergan JJ, et al. Revision of the CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders: consensus statement. J Vasc Surg 2004;40:1248
- Elias S. Tumescentless endovenous ablation: where are we and where are we going? International Vein Congress (Oral Presentation, May 2010, Miami, FL, USA)
Source: PubMed