Blebea John, Fukaya Eri, Moore Keith S, Lurie Fedor
Department of Surgery, Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Saginaw, MI, USA.
Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Phlebology. 2025 Mar;40(2):104-109. doi: 10.1177/02683555241276554. Epub 2024 Aug 21.
Mechanical occlusion chemically assisted ablation (MOCA) of incompetent saphenous veins has been utilized since its FDA approval in 2008. However, only recently have longer-term three and 5 year clinical follow up data become available. This updated information necessitates a societal update to guide treatment and ensure optimal patient outcomes. The American Vein and Lymphatic Society convened an expert panel to write a Position Statement with explanations and recommendations for the appropriate use of MOCA for patients with venous insufficiency. This Position Statement was produced by the expert panel with recommendations for appropriate use, treatment technique, outcomes review, and potential adverse events. These recommendations were reviewed, edited, and approved by the Guidelines Committee of the Society. MOCA is effective in alleviating symptoms and a safe treatment option for venous insufficiency. It obviates the need for tumescent anesthesia, has less procedural discomfort and lower risk of thermal nerve or skin injury. It may be used in both the below knee distal GSV as well as the SSV. However, it is associated with significantly lower rates of vessel closure and higher recanalization rates compared to both RFA and EVLA and is less cost effective than thermal techniques. It is an available option for those in whom thermal ablation is not suitable.
自2008年获得美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)批准以来,机械闭塞化学辅助消融术(MOCA)已被用于治疗大隐静脉功能不全。然而,直到最近才有了3年和5年的长期临床随访数据。这些更新的信息需要进行一次行业更新,以指导治疗并确保患者获得最佳治疗效果。美国静脉和淋巴学会召集了一个专家小组,撰写了一份立场声明,对MOCA在静脉功能不全患者中的合理应用进行解释并提出建议。该立场声明由专家小组制定,内容包括合理应用建议、治疗技术、疗效评估以及潜在不良事件。这些建议经过学会指南委员会的审查、编辑和批准。MOCA对于缓解症状有效,是治疗静脉功能不全的一种安全选择。它无需肿胀麻醉,手术不适感较小,热神经或皮肤损伤风险较低。它可用于膝下远端大隐静脉以及小隐静脉。然而,与射频消融(RFA)和腔内激光消融术(EVLA)相比,它的血管闭合率显著较低,再通率较高,且成本效益低于热消融技术。对于不适合热消融的患者,它是一种可行的选择。