Skip to content

Radiofrequency Ablation vs. Laser Ablation of the Incompetent Small Saphenous Vein

Radiofrequency Ablation vs. Laser Ablation of the Incompetent Small Saphenous Vein: A Prospective Randomized Trial

Status
Terminated
Phases
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02248740
Enrollment
36
Registered
2014-09-25
Start date
2008-09-30
Completion date
2017-03-29
Last updated
2019-02-07

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

Conditions

Chronic Venous Insufficiency

Keywords

chronic venous insufficiency, varicose vein, small saphenous vein

Brief summary

The aim of this study is to perform a randomized, prospective trial comparing the two current methods of treatment for chronic venous insufficiency related to the Small Saphenous Vein (SSV) to evaluate complications and outcomes for each method, and ultimately, to see if one is superior to the other.

Detailed description

Chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) is estimated to affect 25 million Americans. This condition leads to varicose veins, aching, fatigue, swelling, ulcerations, and bleeding in the lower extremities. The second most common cause is a refluxing or incompetent Small Saphenous Vein (SSV). This condition results in pooling of deoxygenated blood in the lower extremities rather than successful transport of the blood back to the heart and lungs. The historical treatment has been to surgically remove or 'strip' the SSV so that blood is rerouted through the healthier deep veins. A less invasive treatment option, Endovenous Thermal Ablation, has emerged over the last decade and has virtually replaced stripping. This involves advancing a catheter under ultrasound guidance through the SSV and then advancing a laser fiber or radiofrequency probe through the catheter. These devices then produce the energy to destroy the vein as the catheters are slowly pulled back. While both radiofrequency ablation and laser ablation are accepted treatments, neither technology has been definitively proved to have fewer complications or superior results. This is in part because very few practices have the ability to make a head to head comparison between the two technologies and must choose one or the other secondary to financial constraints. The aim of this study is to perform a randomized prospective trial comparing the two modalities so that more definitive information to evaluate complications and outcome can be obtained and then recommendations on which, if either, technology is superior can be made.

Interventions

PROCEDUREAblation of the incompetent small saphenous vein

For each patient, the Small Saphenous Vein (SSV) will be accessed from the midcalf. After liberal use of tumescent anesthesia, ablation of the incompetent small saphenous vein will be performed. Half the patients will have this procedure performed using the Laser Ablation device and half will be performed using the Radiofrequency Ablation device. They will be randomly assigned to treatment.

Sponsors

Virginia Commonwealth University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

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

Inclusion criteria

* Patients with symptomatic chronic venous insufficiency. * Patients in whom endovenous thermal ablation is clinically indicated. * Have previously undergone at least 6 weeks of conservative treatment with compression stockings (unless they have venous ulcers, recurrent phlebitis, or bleeding varices). * Have symptoms secondary to Small Saphenous Vein insufficiency defined as reverse flow in the saphenous vein \>0.5 seconds after calf compression or while standing.

Exclusion criteria

* Have previously undergone surgery, EVTA, or phlebectomy in that extremity (exclusive of spider vein injections or other cosmetic surface procedures). * Have a history of Deep Venous Thrombosis (DVT). * Have a history of hypercoaguability disorder. * Are pregnant or breastfeeding. * Are nonambulatory.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Number of Participants With Recurrent Clinical Symptoms of an Incompetent Small Saphenous Vein After Treatment.At 10 years after treatment.

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Incidence Rate of Acute Complications1 and 6 weeks post intervention.

Other

MeasureTime frameDescription
Incidence of Pain and BruisingDuring Intervention and post procedure recovery period in clinic, an expected average of 2 hours.Measurement of pain will be performed by patient solicitation of pain rating on a scale of 0 to 10. Bruising will be measured on a scale of 0-10, determined by a consensus of all study investigators.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Radiofrequency Ablation
Device: ClosureFast radiofrequency catheter (VNUS Medical Technologies Inc, San Jose, CA). Patients will have the intervention, ablation of the incompetent small saphenous vein, using this device. Ablation of the incompetent small saphenous vein: For each patient, the Small Saphenous Vein (SSV) will be accessed from the midcalf. After liberal use of tumescent anesthesia, ablation of the incompetent small saphenous vein will be performed. Half the patients will have this procedure performed using the Laser Ablation device and half will be performed using the Radiofrequency Ablation device. They will be randomly assigned to treatment.
18
Laser Ablation
Device: EVLT 980nm diode laser system (Angiodynamics, Queensbury, NY). Patients will have the intervention, ablation of the incompetent small saphenous vein, using this device. Ablation of the incompetent small saphenous vein: For each patient, the Small Saphenous Vein (SSV) will be accessed from the midcalf. After liberal use of tumescent anesthesia, ablation of the incompetent small saphenous vein will be performed. Half the patients will have this procedure performed using the Laser Ablation device and half will be performed using the Radiofrequency Ablation device. They will be randomly assigned to treatment.
18
Total36

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicRadiofrequency AblationLaser AblationTotal
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
18 Participants18 Participants36 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
18 Participants18 Participants36 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
18 participants18 participants36 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
12 Participants10 Participants22 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
6 Participants8 Participants14 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 180 / 18
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 180 / 18
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 180 / 18

Outcome results

Primary

Number of Participants With Recurrent Clinical Symptoms of an Incompetent Small Saphenous Vein After Treatment.

Time frame: At 10 years after treatment.

Population: No study data was collected prior to study termination.

Secondary

Incidence Rate of Acute Complications

Time frame: 1 and 6 weeks post intervention.

Population: No study data was collected prior to study termination.

Other Pre-specified

Incidence of Pain and Bruising

Measurement of pain will be performed by patient solicitation of pain rating on a scale of 0 to 10. Bruising will be measured on a scale of 0-10, determined by a consensus of all study investigators.

Time frame: During Intervention and post procedure recovery period in clinic, an expected average of 2 hours.

Population: No study data was collected prior to study termination.

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