Lattimer C R, Kalodiki E, Azzam M, Makris G C, Somiayajulu S, Geroulakos G
Department of Medicine, Science and Technology, Imperial College, London, UK.
Int Angiol. 2013 Aug;32(4):394-403.
The early results of a randomised clinical trial comparing local anaesthesia endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) with concurrent phlebectomies versus ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) into the great saphenous vein (GSV) revealed that laser was more expensive but the results on abolition of reflux were similar. The interim results at 15 month follow-up are reported.
Evaluations included ultrasound, the venous clinical severity score (VCSS), the Aberdeen varicose vein questionnaire (AVVQ) and the saphenous treatment score (STS). The global absence of reflux defined technical success. Adjuvant sclerotherapy to areas of reflux was administered on patient choice.
Occlusion of the GSV was more effective with EVLA at 42/44 (95.5%) versus 31/46 (67.4%) for UGFS. However both techniques were equally effective at abolishing global venous reflux. The number of legs (N.=100) with total reflux abolition, above-knee, below-knee or combined reflux and loss to follow-up was 18, 6, 12, 8, 6 with EVLA and 20, 8, 11, 7, 4 with UGFS, respectively. The VCSS, AVVQ and STS reduced compared to baseline (P<0.0005), but there was no statistical difference between the groups. The AVVQ remained unchanged between 3-15 months (P=0.601). Also during this time, 19/46(41%) UGFS versus 9/44(20%) EVLA legs received adjuvant treatment (2.1 times increase). However, overall, adjuvant foam was given 4.7 times more frequently in the UGFS patients.
EVLA and UGFS are equally effective at abolishing global venous reflux with overall success of 41% and 43%, respectively. The high reflux rate was not related to deterioration in quality of life indicating that this reflux was largely asymptomatic.
一项随机临床试验的早期结果比较了局部麻醉下大隐静脉腔内激光消融术(EVLA)联合同期静脉切除术与超声引导下泡沫硬化疗法(UGFS)治疗大隐静脉(GSV)的效果,结果显示激光治疗费用更高,但消除反流的效果相似。本文报告了15个月随访时的中期结果。
评估内容包括超声检查、静脉临床严重程度评分(VCSS)、阿伯丁静脉曲张问卷(AVVQ)和隐静脉治疗评分(STS)。完全无反流定义为技术成功。根据患者选择,对反流区域进行辅助硬化治疗。
EVLA治疗大隐静脉闭塞的效果更显著,44例患者中有42例(95.5%)成功,而UGFS组46例患者中有31例(67.4%)成功。然而,两种技术在消除整体静脉反流方面同样有效。大隐静脉反流完全消除、膝上反流消除、膝下反流消除、联合反流消除及失访的腿数(N.=100),EVLA组分别为18、6、12、8、6条,UGFS组分别为20、8、11、7、4条。与基线相比,VCSS、AVVQ和STS均有所降低(P<0.0005),但两组之间无统计学差异。AVVQ在3至15个月期间保持不变(P=0.601)。在此期间,UGFS组46条腿中有19条(41%)接受了辅助治疗,而EVLA组44条腿中有9条(20%)接受了辅助治疗(增加了2.1倍)。然而,总体而言,UGFS患者接受辅助泡沫治疗的频率是EVLA患者的4.7倍。
EVLA和UGFS在消除整体静脉反流方面同样有效,总体成功率分别为41%和43%。高反流率与生活质量恶化无关,表明这种反流大多无症状。