OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarise available randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of EVLA efficacy, and to define the differences in success rate of variations in wavelength, administered energy, outcome definition, and follow up period. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in Embase, Medline (Ovid-SP), Cochrane Central Database, and Web of Science from inception to November 2017. RCTs with follow up of more than three months were included. The studied outcome was the proportion of patients with EVLA treatment success, defined as absence of reflux or occlusion of the great saphenous vein (GSV). Pooled proportions of anatomical success were compared. Subgroup and meta-regression analysis included wavelengths (short [810, 940, and 980 nm], long [1470, 1500, and 1920 nm]), amount of energy (≤50 J/cm, > 50 J/cm), follow up (≤1 year, > 1 year), outcome definition (occlusion, no reflux), and quality of the studies (low risk of bias, unclear/high risk of bias). RESULTS: Twenty-eight RCTs, with a total of 2829 GSVs were included. The overall success rate of EVLA was 92% (95% CI 90-94%, I2 = 68%). In subgroup analysis, no statistically significant differences were found for long or short wavelengths (95% [95% CI 91-97%] vs. 92% [95% CI 89-94%], p = .15), high or low administered energy (93% [95% CI 89-95%] vs. 92% [95% CI 90-94%], p = .99), long or short follow up (89% [95% CI 84-93%] vs. 93% [95% CI 91-95%], p = .13) and outcome definition (occlusion group 94% [95% CI 91-96%] vs. absence of reflux group 91% [95% CI 87-94%], p = .26). Studies with low risk of bias reported a significantly higher success rate than high or unclear risk of bias (93% [95% CI 90-95%] vs. 89% [95% CI 83-93%], p = .04). CONCLUSIONS: The overall success rate of EVLA is high (92%), even with increasing follow up. Commonly used parameters of EVLA (wavelength, administered energy, and outcome definition) have no influence on the treatment success rate.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarise available randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of EVLA efficacy, and to define the differences in success rate of variations in wavelength, administered energy, outcome definition, and follow up period. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in Embase, Medline (Ovid-SP), Cochrane Central Database, and Web of Science from inception to November 2017. RCTs with follow up of more than three months were included. The studied outcome was the proportion of patients with EVLA treatment success, defined as absence of reflux or occlusion of the great saphenous vein (GSV). Pooled proportions of anatomical success were compared. Subgroup and meta-regression analysis included wavelengths (short [810, 940, and 980 nm], long [1470, 1500, and 1920 nm]), amount of energy (≤50 J/cm, > 50 J/cm), follow up (≤1 year, > 1 year), outcome definition (occlusion, no reflux), and quality of the studies (low risk of bias, unclear/high risk of bias). RESULTS: Twenty-eight RCTs, with a total of 2829 GSVs were included. The overall success rate of EVLA was 92% (95% CI 90-94%, I2 = 68%). In subgroup analysis, no statistically significant differences were found for long or short wavelengths (95% [95% CI 91-97%] vs. 92% [95% CI 89-94%], p = .15), high or low administered energy (93% [95% CI 89-95%] vs. 92% [95% CI 90-94%], p = .99), long or short follow up (89% [95% CI 84-93%] vs. 93% [95% CI 91-95%], p = .13) and outcome definition (occlusion group 94% [95% CI 91-96%] vs. absence of reflux group 91% [95% CI 87-94%], p = .26). Studies with low risk of bias reported a significantly higher success rate than high or unclear risk of bias (93% [95% CI 90-95%] vs. 89% [95% CI 83-93%], p = .04). CONCLUSIONS: The overall success rate of EVLA is high (92%), even with increasing follow up. Commonly used parameters of EVLA (wavelength, administered energy, and outcome definition) have no influence on the treatment success rate.
Authors: Manuella Bernardo Ferreira; Gilberto do Nascimento Galego; Nazaré Otília Nazário; Rafael Narciso Franklin; Pierre Galvagni Silveira; Cristiano Torres Bortoluzzi; Daniel Ishikawa; Fernando Wolf Journal: J Vasc Bras Date: 2021-06-25