Ahmet Kürşat Bozkurt1, Muhammet Fatih Yılmaz2. 1. Istanbul University Cerrahpaşa Medical Faculty, Istanbul, Turkey akbozkurt@yahoo.com. 2. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Kayseri Research and Training Hospital, Kayseri, Turkey.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cyanoacrylate ablation is the newest nonthermal vein ablation technique. The one-year results of a prospective comparative study of a new cyanoacrylate glue versus endovenous laser ablation for the treatment of venous insufficiency is presented. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 310 adult subjects were treated with cyanoacrylate ablation or endovenous laser ablation. The primary endpoint of this study was complete occlusion of the great saphenous vein. Secondary endpoints were procedure time, procedural pain, ecchymosis at day 3, adverse events, changes from baseline in Venous Clinical Severity Score, and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire. RESULTS: Operative time was shorter (15 ± 2.5 versus 33.2 ± 5.7, <0.001), and periprocedural pain was less (3.1 ± 1.6 versus 6.5 ± 2.3, <0.001) in cyanoacrylate ablation group compared to the endovenous laser ablation group. Ecchymosis at the third day was also significantly less in cyanoacrylate ablation group (<0.001). Temporary or permanent paresthesia developed in seven patients in endovenous laser ablation group and none in cyanoacrylate ablation group (p = 0.015). One, three, and 12 months closure rates were 87.1, 91.7, and 92.2% for endovenous laser ablation and 96.7, 96.6, and 95.8% for cyanoacrylate ablation groups. Closure rate at first month was significantly better in cyanoacrylate ablation group (<0.001). Although there is a trend of better closure rates in cyanoacrylate ablation patients, this difference did not reach to the statistical difference at sixth and 12th month (p = 0.127 and 0.138, respectively). Both groups had significant improvement in Venous Clinical Severity Score and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire postoperatively (<0.001), but there was no significant difference in Venous Clinical Severity Score and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire scores between the groups at first, sixth, and 12 months. Only a slightly better well-being trend was noted in cyanoacrylate ablation group in terms of Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire scores (p = 0.062). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety analysis shows that cyanoacrylate ablation is a safe, simple method which can be recommended as an effective endovenous ablation technique. The follow-up data more than one year will clarify the future role of cyanoacrylate ablation for the treatment incompetent great saphenous veins.
INTRODUCTION:Cyanoacrylate ablation is the newest nonthermal vein ablation technique. The one-year results of a prospective comparative study of a new cyanoacrylate glue versus endovenous laser ablation for the treatment of venous insufficiency is presented. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 310 adult subjects were treated with cyanoacrylate ablation or endovenous laser ablation. The primary endpoint of this study was complete occlusion of the great saphenous vein. Secondary endpoints were procedure time, procedural pain, ecchymosis at day 3, adverse events, changes from baseline in Venous Clinical Severity Score, and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire. RESULTS: Operative time was shorter (15 ± 2.5 versus 33.2 ± 5.7, <0.001), and periprocedural pain was less (3.1 ± 1.6 versus 6.5 ± 2.3, <0.001) in cyanoacrylate ablation group compared to the endovenous laser ablation group. Ecchymosis at the third day was also significantly less in cyanoacrylate ablation group (<0.001). Temporary or permanent paresthesia developed in seven patients in endovenous laser ablation group and none in cyanoacrylate ablation group (p = 0.015). One, three, and 12 months closure rates were 87.1, 91.7, and 92.2% for endovenous laser ablation and 96.7, 96.6, and 95.8% for cyanoacrylate ablation groups. Closure rate at first month was significantly better in cyanoacrylate ablation group (<0.001). Although there is a trend of better closure rates in cyanoacrylate ablation patients, this difference did not reach to the statistical difference at sixth and 12th month (p = 0.127 and 0.138, respectively). Both groups had significant improvement in Venous Clinical Severity Score and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire postoperatively (<0.001), but there was no significant difference in Venous Clinical Severity Score and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire scores between the groups at first, sixth, and 12 months. Only a slightly better well-being trend was noted in cyanoacrylate ablation group in terms of Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire scores (p = 0.062). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety analysis shows that cyanoacrylate ablation is a safe, simple method which can be recommended as an effective endovenous ablation technique. The follow-up data more than one year will clarify the future role of cyanoacrylate ablation for the treatment incompetent great saphenous veins.
Authors: Cezary Szary; Justyna Wilczko; Dominika Plucinska; Anna Pachuta; Marcin Napierala; Anna Bodziony; Michal Zawadzki; Jerzy Leszczynski; Zbigniew Galazka; Tomasz Grzela Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-01-25 Impact factor: 4.241