Raghu Kolluri1, Kathleen Gibson2, Daniel Cher3, Monte Madsen4, Robert Weiss5, Nick Morrison6. 1. OhioHealth, Riverside Methodist Hospital, Columbus, Ohio. Electronic address: raghu.kolluri@ohiohealth.com. 2. The Lake Washington Vascular, Bellevue, Wash. 3. Wild Iris Consulting LLC, Palo Alto, Calif. 4. Medtronic, EndoVenous Division, Plymouth, Minn. 5. The Maryland Laser, Skin, and Vein Institute, Hunt Valley, Md. 6. The Morrison Vein Institute, Scottsdale, Ariz.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:Cyanoacrylate closure (CAC) was shown in the recently published VenaSeal Sapheon Closure System vs Radiofrequency Ablation for Incompetent Great Saphenous Veins (VeClose) randomized clinical study to be an effective and noninferior option (in terms of both safety and effectiveness) to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the treatment of incompetent great saphenous veins. The objectives of this analysis were to report the efficacy and safety outcomes of the VeClose roll-in (training) group treated with CAC by physicians who had received device use training but had no prior treatment experience with the technique and to compare the outcomes with those from the randomized RFA and CAC groups. METHODS: The first two subjects at each participating site (n = 20) were roll-in cases (ie, not randomized but instead treated with CAC) to ensure the physician's familiarity with the procedure. Subsequent eligible subjects were randomized to either CAC or RFA. After treatment, all subjects returned for assessment on day 3 and months 1, 3, 6, and 12. The study's primary end point was complete closure of the target vein at month 3. Secondary analyses included patient-reported intraprocedural pain and investigator-rated ecchymosis at day 3. Additional assessments included procedure time, quality of life surveys, and adverse events. RESULTS:Mean procedure time was longer in the roll-in group (31 minutes) compared with the randomized groups (24 minutes for CAC and 19 minutes for RFA; P < .0001). Procedure time decreased in both the CAC and RFA groups over time, plateauing at about 22 minutes for CAC and 15 minutes for RFA. In the roll-in group, the 3-month complete occlusion rate was 100%. Reported intraprocedural pain ratings were similar between the roll-in and randomized groups. Other clinical assessments, including quality of life improvement and adverse events, were similar between the roll-in and randomized groups. Increasing procedure number did not affect clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The results from the VeClose study roll-in group demonstrate that despite the physician's lack of prior experience, initial treatment with CAC leads to comparable efficacy and safety results to RFA and is associated with a relatively short learning period.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE:Cyanoacrylate closure (CAC) was shown in the recently published VenaSeal Sapheon Closure System vs Radiofrequency Ablation for Incompetent Great Saphenous Veins (VeClose) randomized clinical study to be an effective and noninferior option (in terms of both safety and effectiveness) to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the treatment of incompetent great saphenous veins. The objectives of this analysis were to report the efficacy and safety outcomes of the VeClose roll-in (training) group treated with CAC by physicians who had received device use training but had no prior treatment experience with the technique and to compare the outcomes with those from the randomized RFA and CAC groups. METHODS: The first two subjects at each participating site (n = 20) were roll-in cases (ie, not randomized but instead treated with CAC) to ensure the physician's familiarity with the procedure. Subsequent eligible subjects were randomized to either CAC or RFA. After treatment, all subjects returned for assessment on day 3 and months 1, 3, 6, and 12. The study's primary end point was complete closure of the target vein at month 3. Secondary analyses included patient-reported intraprocedural pain and investigator-rated ecchymosis at day 3. Additional assessments included procedure time, quality of life surveys, and adverse events. RESULTS: Mean procedure time was longer in the roll-in group (31 minutes) compared with the randomized groups (24 minutes for CAC and 19 minutes for RFA; P < .0001). Procedure time decreased in both the CAC and RFA groups over time, plateauing at about 22 minutes for CAC and 15 minutes for RFA. In the roll-in group, the 3-month complete occlusion rate was 100%. Reported intraprocedural pain ratings were similar between the roll-in and randomized groups. Other clinical assessments, including quality of life improvement and adverse events, were similar between the roll-in and randomized groups. Increasing procedure number did not affect clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The results from the VeClose study roll-in group demonstrate that despite the physician's lack of prior experience, initial treatment with CAC leads to comparable efficacy and safety results to RFA and is associated with a relatively short learning period.