Department of Surgery, Division of Vascular Surgery, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
J Vasc Surg. 2012 Apr;55(4):1048-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2011.11.050. Epub 2012 Mar 2.
Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a widely accepted alternative to high ligation with proximal stripping of the great saphenous vein (GSV) in the treatment of lower extremity venous insufficiency. This study compared short-term outcomes of two generations of (VNUS Closure) RFA catheters, ClosurePlus (CP) and ClosureFast (CF).
From February 2005 to April 2009, a total of 667 consecutive office-based RFA procedures were performed in our institution. CP catheters were used in the initial 312 lower extremity cases and CF catheters in the 355 cases that followed. The technique used for both catheters were as per the manufacturer's recommendations. Postoperative duplex scans were completed to document the following endpoints: GSV obliteration; incidence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT); superficial venous thrombosis (SVT); and presence of loose or floating thrombus proximal to the treated GSV segment.
Of the 667 cases, 98% had available duplex scan studies within 1 week from completion of the procedure. Complete obliteration of the GSV on duplex scan studies was noted in 98% of 343 cases using the CF catheter and 88% of 312 cases using the CP catheter (P < .001). No case of DVT was detected in those treated with the CF catheter, whereas DVT occurred in 3.5% of cases treated with the CP catheter (P < .001). Incidence of SVT was 10% and 15%, respectively, for CF and CP (P < .08). Loose thrombus proximal to the GSV was identified in 7% of cases using CF and 6% of cases using CP (P = .80). No embolic episodes were observed clinically.
CF catheters are superior to CP catheters in terms of GSV obliteration and nonincidence of postoperative DVT. The absence of DVT may likely be due to the commencement of ablation at 2 cm from the GSV-common femoral vein junction.
射频消融术(RFA)是治疗下肢静脉功能不全的大隐静脉(GSV)高位结扎并近端剥脱的一种广泛认可的替代方法。本研究比较了两代(VNUS Closure)RFA 导管,ClosurePlus(CP)和 ClosureFast(CF)的短期疗效。
从 2005 年 2 月至 2009 年 4 月,我们机构共进行了 667 例门诊 RFA 手术。CP 导管用于前 312 例下肢病例,CF 导管用于随后的 355 例病例。两种导管均按照制造商的建议使用。术后进行了双功能超声扫描以记录以下终点:GSV 闭塞;深静脉血栓形成(DVT)的发生率;浅静脉血栓形成(SVT);以及治疗 GSV 段近端是否存在松动或漂浮血栓。
在 667 例病例中,98%的病例在术后 1 周内完成了双功能超声扫描研究。在使用 CF 导管的 343 例病例中,98%的病例在双功能超声扫描上观察到 GSV 完全闭塞,而在使用 CP 导管的 312 例病例中,88%的病例观察到 GSV 完全闭塞(P<.001)。在使用 CF 导管治疗的病例中未发现 DVT,而在使用 CP 导管治疗的病例中 3.5%的病例发生 DVT(P<.001)。CF 和 CP 的 SVT 发生率分别为 10%和 15%(P<.08)。使用 CF 导管发现 7%的病例近端有松动血栓,而使用 CP 导管发现 6%的病例近端有松动血栓(P=.80)。临床上未观察到栓塞事件。
CF 导管在 GSV 闭塞和术后 DVT 发生率方面优于 CP 导管。术后 DVT 可能是由于消融起始于 GSV-股总静脉交界处 2cm 处。