BACKGROUND: Great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence, causing varicose veins and venous insufficiency, makes up the majority of lower-limb superficial venous diseases. Treatment options for GSV incompetence include surgery (also known as high ligation and stripping), laser and radiofrequency ablation, and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy. Newer treatments include cyanoacrylate glue, mechanochemical ablation, and endovenous steam ablation. These techniques avoid the need for a general anaesthetic, and may result in fewer complications and improved quality of life (QoL). These treatments should be compared to inform decisions on treatment for varicosities in the GSV. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), endovenous steam ablation (EVSA), ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), cyanoacrylate glue, mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) and high ligation and stripping (HL/S) for the treatment of varicosities of the great saphenous vein (GSV). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 2 November 2020. We undertook reference checking to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) treating participants for varicosities of the GSV using EVLA, RFA, EVSA, UGFS, cyanoacrylate glue, MOCA or HL/S. Key outcomes of interest are technical success, recurrence, complications and QoL. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, applied Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 new RCTs for this update. Therefore, we included 24 RCTs with 5135 participants. Duration of follow-up ranged from five weeks to eight years. Five comparisons included single trials. For comparisons with more than one trial, we could only pool data for 'technical success' and 'recurrence' due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and time points reported. All trials had some risk of bias concerns. Here we report the clinically most relevant comparisons. EVLA versus RFA Technical success was comparable up to five years (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.38; 5 studies, 780 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); over five years, there was no evidence of a difference (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.41; 1 study, 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported recurrence, showing no clear difference at three years (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.99; 291 participants; low-certainty evidence), but a benefit for RFA may be seen at five years (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.52 to 5.06; 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). EVLA versus UGFS Technical success may be better in EVLA participants up to five years (OR 6.13, 95% CI 0.98 to 38.27; 3 studies, 588 participants; low-certainty evidence), and over five years (OR 6.47, 95% CI 2.60 to 16.10; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in recurrence up to three years and at five years (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.36; 2 studies, 443 participants; and OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.87; 2 studies, 418 participants; very low-certainty evidence, respectively). EVLA versus HL/S Technical success may be better in EVLA participants up to five years (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.23; 6 studies, 1051 participants; low-certainty evidence). No clear difference in technical success was seen at five years and beyond (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.50; 5 studies, 874 participants; low-certainty evidence). Recurrence was comparable within three years and at 5 years (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.29; 7 studies, 1459 participants; and OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.76; 7 studies, 1267 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). RFA versus MOCA There was no clear difference in technical success (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.06 to 54.15; 3 studies, 435 participants; low-certainty evidence), or recurrence (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.81; 3 studies, 389 participants; low-certainty evidence). Long-term data are not available. RFA versus HL/S No clear difference in technical success was detected up to five years (OR 5.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 50.81; 2 studies, 318 participants; low-certainty evidence); over five years, there was no evidence of a difference (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.69; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence). No clear difference in recurrence was detected up to three years (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.51; 4 studies, 546 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but a possible long-term benefit for RFA was seen (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.75; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence). UGFS versus HL/S Meta-analysis showed a possible benefit for HL/S compared with UGFS in technical success up to five years (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.94; 4 studies, 954 participants; low-certainty evidence), and over five years (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.30; 3 studies, 525 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No clear difference was detected in recurrence up to three years (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.77; 3 studies, 822 participants; low-certainty evidence), and after five years (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.71; 3 studies, 639 participants; low-certainty evidence). Complications were generally low for all interventions, but due to different definitions and time points, we were unable to draw conclusions (very-low certainty evidence). Similarly, most studies evaluated QoL but used different questionnaires at variable time points. Rates of QoL improvement were comparable between interventions at follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our conclusions are limited due to the relatively small number of studies for each comparison and differences in outcome definitions and time points reported. Technical success was comparable between most modalities. EVLA may offer improved technical success compared to UGFS or HL/S. HL/S may have improved technical success compared to UGFS. No evidence of a difference was detected in recurrence, except for a possible long-term benefit for RFA compared to EVLA or HL/S. Studies which provide more evidence on the breadth of treatments are needed. Future trials should seek to standardise clinical terminology of outcome measures and the time points at which they are measured.
BACKGROUND: Great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence, causing varicose veins and venous insufficiency, makes up the majority of lower-limb superficial venous diseases. Treatment options for GSV incompetence include surgery (also known as high ligation and stripping), laser and radiofrequency ablation, and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy. Newer treatments include cyanoacrylate glue, mechanochemical ablation, and endovenous steam ablation. These techniques avoid the need for a general anaesthetic, and may result in fewer complications and improved quality of life (QoL). These treatments should be compared to inform decisions on treatment for varicosities in the GSV. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), endovenous steam ablation (EVSA), ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), cyanoacrylate glue, mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) and high ligation and stripping (HL/S) for the treatment of varicosities of the great saphenous vein (GSV). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 2 November 2020. We undertook reference checking to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) treating participants for varicosities of the GSV using EVLA, RFA, EVSA, UGFS, cyanoacrylate glue, MOCA or HL/S. Key outcomes of interest are technical success, recurrence, complications and QoL. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, applied Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 new RCTs for this update. Therefore, we included 24 RCTs with 5135 participants. Duration of follow-up ranged from five weeks to eight years. Five comparisons included single trials. For comparisons with more than one trial, we could only pool data for 'technical success' and 'recurrence' due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and time points reported. All trials had some risk of bias concerns. Here we report the clinically most relevant comparisons. EVLA versus RFA Technical success was comparable up to five years (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.38; 5 studies, 780 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); over five years, there was no evidence of a difference (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.41; 1 study, 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported recurrence, showing no clear difference at three years (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.99; 291 participants; low-certainty evidence), but a benefit for RFA may be seen at five years (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.52 to 5.06; 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). EVLA versus UGFS Technical success may be better in EVLA participants up to five years (OR 6.13, 95% CI 0.98 to 38.27; 3 studies, 588 participants; low-certainty evidence), and over five years (OR 6.47, 95% CI 2.60 to 16.10; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in recurrence up to three years and at five years (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.36; 2 studies, 443 participants; and OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.87; 2 studies, 418 participants; very low-certainty evidence, respectively). EVLA versus HL/S Technical success may be better in EVLA participants up to five years (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.23; 6 studies, 1051 participants; low-certainty evidence). No clear difference in technical success was seen at five years and beyond (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.50; 5 studies, 874 participants; low-certainty evidence). Recurrence was comparable within three years and at 5 years (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.29; 7 studies, 1459 participants; and OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.76; 7 studies, 1267 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). RFA versus MOCA There was no clear difference in technical success (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.06 to 54.15; 3 studies, 435 participants; low-certainty evidence), or recurrence (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.81; 3 studies, 389 participants; low-certainty evidence). Long-term data are not available. RFA versus HL/S No clear difference in technical success was detected up to five years (OR 5.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 50.81; 2 studies, 318 participants; low-certainty evidence); over five years, there was no evidence of a difference (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.69; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence). No clear difference in recurrence was detected up to three years (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.51; 4 studies, 546 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but a possible long-term benefit for RFA was seen (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.75; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence). UGFS versus HL/S Meta-analysis showed a possible benefit for HL/S compared with UGFS in technical success up to five years (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.94; 4 studies, 954 participants; low-certainty evidence), and over five years (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.30; 3 studies, 525 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No clear difference was detected in recurrence up to three years (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.77; 3 studies, 822 participants; low-certainty evidence), and after five years (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.71; 3 studies, 639 participants; low-certainty evidence). Complications were generally low for all interventions, but due to different definitions and time points, we were unable to draw conclusions (very-low certainty evidence). Similarly, most studies evaluated QoL but used different questionnaires at variable time points. Rates of QoL improvement were comparable between interventions at follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our conclusions are limited due to the relatively small number of studies for each comparison and differences in outcome definitions and time points reported. Technical success was comparable between most modalities. EVLA may offer improved technical success compared to UGFS or HL/S. HL/S may have improved technical success compared to UGFS. No evidence of a difference was detected in recurrence, except for a possible long-term benefit for RFA compared to EVLA or HL/S. Studies which provide more evidence on the breadth of treatments are needed. Future trials should seek to standardise clinical terminology of outcome measures and the time points at which they are measured.
Authors: S D Goode; A Chowdhury; M Crockett; A Beech; R Simpson; T Richards; B D Braithwaite Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 7.069
Authors: Jose I Almeida; John Kaufman; Oliver Göckeritz; Paramjit Chopra; Martin T Evans; Daniel F Hoheim; Raymond G Makhoul; Tim Richards; Christian Wenzel; Jeffrey K Raines Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2009-04-22 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-04-26
Authors: Walter Campos; Inez Ohashi Torres; Erasmo Simão da Silva; Ivan Benaduce Casella; Pedro Puech-Leão Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: S K van der Velden; A A M Biemans; M G R De Maeseneer; M A Kockaert; P W Cuypers; L M Hollestein; H A M Neumann; T Nijsten; R R van den Bos Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Nick Morrison; Kathleen Gibson; Scott McEnroe; Mitchel Goldman; Ted King; Robert Weiss; Daniel Cher; Andrew Jones Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2015-01-31 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Malcolm Sydnor; John Mavropoulos; Natalia Slobodnik; Luke Wolfe; Brian Strife; Daniel Komorowski Journal: Phlebology Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 1.740