Skip to content

Surgery or Noninvasive Therapy for Varicose Veins

Randomized Single Center Comparative Study of the Treatment of Insufficient Greater Saphenous Vein: Surgery vs Ultrasound Guided Sclerotherapy With Foam and Endovenous Laser Therapy

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00529672
Acronym
Magna
Enrollment
240
Registered
2007-09-14
Start date
2007-05-31
Completion date
2011-05-31
Last updated
2010-11-16

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Varicose Vein

Keywords

endovenous laser therapy, sclerotherapy, crossectomy and stripping, surgery, treatment, varicose veins

Brief summary

For more than 100 years, surgery has been the standard of care of varicose veins of the legs. The down side of surgery is that it requires anesthesia, leaves scars, and has a relatively high recurrence rate in the long term (up to 40%). In the last decade, several new techniques have become available but they have not yet been compared to surgery. This trail will evaluate the effectiveness, patients' perspective and cost effectiveness of surgery and non-invasive techniques such as ultrasound guided sclerotherapy with foam and endovenous laser therapy.

Detailed description

Inclusion criteria: * Ultrasound confirmed GSV insufficiency (reflux time \>0.5 second and vein diameter ≥0.5 cm) * non-treated GSV varicosis * CEAP -classification \> C2 and As2 * \>18 years old * Informed consent. Exclusion criteria: * Acute venous thrombosis / phlebitis * Absence of deep venous system * Vascular syndromes * Post-thrombotic syndrome of occlusive type * Contra-indications for surgery * use of anticoagulants Primary outcomes: 1\. anatomical success using US (absence of GSV or flow) (at 3 months, 1 and 5 year) Secondary outcomes: 1. treatment induced adverse events and complications (after 3 months) 2. patient reported outcomes (HRQOL and treatment satisfaction)(after 3 months) 3. cost effectiveness analyses (after 1 and 5 years) Included patients: total of 240 (80 per arm) Study start: May 2007 (recruitment ongoing) Study completion: May 2011 Follow up after 3 months, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years Location: department of dermatology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands Principle investigators: M. Kockaert, T. Nijsten & M. Neumann Publications: Rasmussen LH, Bjoern L, Lawaetz M, Blemings A, Lawaetz B, Eklof B. Randomized trial comparing endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein with high ligation and stripping in patients with varicose veins: short-term results. J Vasc Surg. 2007 Aug;46(2):308-15. Epub 2007 Jun 27. Sharif MA, Lau LL, Lee B, Hannon RJ, Soong CV. Role of endovenous laser treatment in the management of chronic venous insufficiency. Ann Vasc Surg. 2007 Sep;21(5):551-5. Mundy L, Merlin TL, Fitridge RA, Hiller JE. Systematic review of endovenous laser treatment for varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2005 Oct;92(10):1189-94. Jia X, Mowatt G, Burr JM, Cassar K, Cook J, Fraser C.Systematic review of foam sclerotherapy for varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2007 Aug;94(8):925-36. Subramonia S, Lees TA.The treatment of varicose veins.Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2007 Mar;89(2):96-100. Bohler K. Varicose veins: disfigurement or disease? Herz. 2007 Feb;32(1):18-25. Bamigboye AA, Smyth R. Interventions for varicose veins and leg oedema in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jan 24;(1):CD001066. van den Bos R, Arends L, Kockaert M, Neumann M, Nijsten T. New endovenous therapies of truncal varicosities are more effective than surgical stripping and sclerotherapy: meta-analysis and meta-regression. Lancet, Submitted

Interventions

PROCEDUREcrossectomy and short stripping

under spinal or complete anaesthesia

PROCEDUREultrasound guided sclerotherapy with foam

1 part 3% polidocanol mixed with 3 parts of air. Between 3cc - 12 cc per varicose vein\>

PROCEDUREendovenous laser therapy

940 nm Diode laser. About 70 J/cm will be administered. Disposables from Angiocare (registered) will be used.

Sponsors

Erasmus Medical Center
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 80 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* primary insufficient GSV confirmed by US: reflux\>0.5 sec and diameter\>0.5cm. * non-treated insufficient GSV * \>18 years * informed consent

Exclusion criteria

* acute thrombosis or phlebitis * absence of deep venous system * vascular syndromes * use of anticoagulants * contraindications surgery

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
anatomical success rate (absence or obliteration of GSV on US examination)3 months, 1 and 5 years

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
treatment related adverse events and complications3 months, 1 and 5 years
patient reported outcomes (HRQOL and treatment satisfaction)3 months, 1 and 5 years
cost effectiveness analysis3 months, 1 and 5 years

Countries

Netherlands

Contacts

Primary ContactMichael Kockaert, MD
M.KOCKAERT@ERASMUSMC.NL31 10 4634580
Backup ContactTamar Nijsten, MD, PhD
t.nijsten@erasmusmc.nl31 10 4631019

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 4, 2026