Suppr超能文献

多中心随机对照临床试验的两年结果比较了机械化学静脉内消融与 RADiOfrequeNcy 消融治疗原发性大隐静脉功能不全的疗效(MARADONA 试验)。

Two-year results of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing Mechanochemical endovenous Ablation to RADiOfrequeNcy Ablation in the treatment of primary great saphenous vein incompetence (MARADONA trial).

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Rijnstate, Arnhem, The Netherlands.

Department of Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Surgery, BovenIJ Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2019 May;7(3):364-374. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2018.12.014.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Endothermal techniques have proved to be effective for treatment of incompetent truncal veins. The tumescentless mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) technique has become an alternative treatment modality, but its outcome with regard to endothermal techniques is still unclear.

METHODS

A multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial was designed comparing MOCA with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to treat great saphenous vein incompetence with the hypothesis that MOCA is associated with less postprocedural pain and a comparable anatomic and clinical success rate at 1-year follow-up. Disease-specific quality of life and general health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were measured using questionnaires. Inclusion was terminated prematurely because reimbursement was suspended.

RESULTS

A total of 213 patients (46.3% of intended number of patients) were randomized, of whom 209 were treated (105 in the MOCA group and 104 in the RFA group). Overall median pain scores during the first 14 days were lower after MOCA (0.2 vs 0.5 after RFA; P = .010), although the absolute difference was small. At 30 days, similar complication numbers (MOCA, n = 62; RFA, n = 63) and HRQoL scores (Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire: MOCA, 8.9; RFA, 7.6; P = .233) were observed. Hyperpigmentation was reported in seven patients in the MOCA group and two patients in the RFA group (P = .038). In the MOCA group, there were four complete failures (3.8%) compared with none in the RFA group (P = .045), although in one patient at 1 year, the vein showed occlusion. Median 30-day Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) was significantly lower at 30 days after MOCA (1.0 vs 2.0 in the RFA group; P = .001), whereas VCSS was comparable at baseline (MOCA, 4.0; RFA, 5.0; P = .155). The 1- and 2-year anatomic success rate was lower after MOCA (83.5% and 80.0%) compared with RFA (94.2% and 88.3%; P = .025 and .066), mainly driven by partial recanalizations. After 2 years of follow-up, no differences were observed in the number of complete failures. Similar clinical success rates at 1 year (MOCA, 88.7%; RFA, 93.2%; P = .315) and 2 years (MOCA, 93.0%; RFA, 90.4%; P = .699) and no differences in HRQoL scores on the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire at 1 year (MOCA, 7.5; RFA, 7.0; P = .753) and 2 years (MOCA, 5.0%; RFA, 4.8%; P = .573) were observed. There were two cardiac serious adverse events, a ventricular fibrillation in the MOCA group (1 year) and an unstable angina in the RFA group (2 years). One deep venous thrombosis occurred in the RFA group on 1-year duplex ultrasound, without clinical sequelae.

CONCLUSIONS

Unilateral treatment with MOCA in the short term resulted in less postoperative pain but more hyperpigmentation compared with RFA and a faster improvement in VCSS. More anatomic failures were reported after MOCA, mostly driven by partial recanalizations, but both techniques were associated with similar clinical outcomes at 1 year and 2 years.

摘要

目的

内热技术已被证明对治疗功能不全的主干静脉有效。非肿胀性机械化学消融(MOCA)技术已成为一种替代治疗方法,但它在内热技术方面的效果尚不清楚。

方法

设计了一项多中心前瞻性随机对照试验,比较 MOCA 与射频消融(RFA)治疗大隐静脉功能不全,假设 MOCA 与术后疼痛较少和 1 年随访时相似的解剖学和临床成功率相关。使用问卷测量疾病特异性生活质量和一般健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)。由于报销暂停,提前终止了纳入。

结果

共纳入 213 例患者(计划患者数量的 46.3%),随机分为 2 组,其中 209 例接受治疗(MOCA 组 105 例,RFA 组 104 例)。MOCA 后第 14 天的中位数疼痛评分较低(0.2 与 RFA 后 0.5;P =.010),尽管绝对差异较小。在 30 天时,观察到相似的并发症数量(MOCA 组 62 例,RFA 组 63 例)和 HRQoL 评分(阿伯丁静脉曲张问卷:MOCA 组 8.9,RFA 组 7.6;P =.233)。MOCA 组报告 7 例患者出现色素沉着,RFA 组报告 2 例患者出现色素沉着(P =.038)。MOCA 组有 4 例完全失败(3.8%),RFA 组无完全失败(P =.045),尽管在 1 例患者中,1 年后静脉闭塞。MOCA 后 30 天的中位数 30 天静脉临床严重程度评分(VCSS)显著降低(MOCA 组 1.0,RFA 组 2.0;P =.001),而基线时 VCSS 相似(MOCA 组 4.0,RFA 组 5.0;P =.155)。MOCA 后 1 年和 2 年的解剖成功率较低(83.5%和 80.0%),低于 RFA(94.2%和 88.3%;P =.025 和.066),主要是由于部分再通。在 2 年随访时,完全失败的数量没有差异。1 年(MOCA 组 88.7%,RFA 组 93.2%;P =.315)和 2 年(MOCA 组 93.0%,RFA 组 90.4%;P =.699)临床成功率相似,1 年(MOCA 组 7.5,RFA 组 7.0;P =.753)和 2 年(MOCA 组 5.0%,RFA 组 4.8%;P =.573)的 HRQoL 评分也无差异。MOCA 组有 2 例心脏严重不良事件,1 例为心室颤动(1 年),RFA 组有 1 例不稳定型心绞痛(2 年)。1 例深静脉血栓形成发生在 RFA 组,1 年的双功超声检查无临床后遗症。

结论

与 RFA 相比,MOCA 单侧治疗短期内可减轻术后疼痛,但色素沉着较多,VCSS 改善较快。MOCA 后报告的解剖学失败较多,主要是由于部分再通,但两种技术在 1 年和 2 年的临床结果相似。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验