Bootun R, Lane T R A, Dharmarajah B, Lim C S, Najem M, Renton S, Sritharan K, Davies A H
Academic Section of Vascular Surgery, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Academic Section of Vascular Surgery, Imperial College London, London, UK Department of Vascular Surgery, North West London Hospitals NHS Trust, Harrow, UK.
Phlebology. 2016 Feb;31(1):61-5. doi: 10.1177/0268355514551085. Epub 2014 Sep 5.
Endovenous techniques are, at present, the recommended choice for truncal vein treatment. However, the thermal techniques require tumescent anaesthesia, which can be uncomfortable during administration. Non-tumescent, non-thermal techniques would, therefore, have potential benefits. This randomised controlled trial is being carried out to compare the degree of pain that patients experience while receiving mechanochemical ablation or radiofrequency ablation. The early results of this randomised controlled trial are reported here.
Patients attending for the treatment of primary varicose veins were randomised to receive mechanochemical ablation (ClariVein®) or radiofrequency ablation (Covidien® Venefit™). The most symptomatic limb was randomised. The primary outcome measure was intra-procedural pain using a validated visual analogue scale. The secondary outcome measures were change in quality of life and clinical scores, time to return to normal activities and work as well as the occlusion rate.
One-hundred and nineteen patients have been randomised (60 in the mechanochemical ablation group). Baseline characteristics were similar. Maximum pain score was significantly lower in the mechanochemical ablation group (19.3 mm, standard deviation ±19 mm) compared to the radiofrequency ablation group (34.5 mm ± 23 mm; p < 0.001). Average pain score was also significantly lower in the mechanochemical ablation group (13.4 mm ± 16 mm) compared to the radiofrequency ablation group (24.4 mm ± 18 mm; p = 0.001). Sixty-six percent attended follow-up at one month, and the complete or proximal occlusion rates were 92% for both groups. At one month, the clinical and quality of life scores for both groups had similar improvements.
Early results show that the mechanochemical ablation is less painful than the radiofrequency ablation procedure. Clinical and quality of life scores were similarly improved at one month. The long-term data including occlusion rates at six months and quality of life scores are being collected.
目前,腔内技术是治疗主干静脉的推荐选择。然而,热消融技术需要肿胀麻醉,给药过程中会让人不适。因此,非肿胀、非热消融技术可能具有潜在优势。本随机对照试验旨在比较患者接受机械化学消融或射频消融时的疼痛程度。本文报告了该随机对照试验的早期结果。
因原发性静脉曲张前来治疗的患者被随机分为接受机械化学消融(ClariVein®)组或射频消融(Covidien® Venefit™)组。将症状最明显的肢体进行随机分组。主要结局指标是使用经过验证的视觉模拟量表评估的术中疼痛。次要结局指标包括生活质量和临床评分的变化、恢复正常活动和工作的时间以及闭塞率。
119例患者已被随机分组(机械化学消融组60例)。基线特征相似。与射频消融组(34.5 mm±23 mm;p<0.001)相比,机械化学消融组的最大疼痛评分显著更低(19.3 mm,标准差±19 mm)。与射频消融组(24.4 mm±18 mm;p = 0.001)相比,机械化学消融组的平均疼痛评分也显著更低(13.4 mm±16 mm)。66%的患者在1个月时接受了随访,两组的完全或近端闭塞率均为92%。1个月时,两组的临床和生活质量评分改善情况相似。
早期结果表明,机械化学消融比射频消融手术的疼痛程度更低。1个月时,两组的临床和生活质量评分改善情况相似。目前正在收集包括6个月时的闭塞率和生活质量评分在内的长期数据。