Skip to content

Comparison of minimally invasive techniques in the treatment of severe varices

Comparison of efficacy and safety in the treatment of severe chronic venous insufficiency: endovenous radiofrequency ablation versus endovenous laser ablation versus foam sclerotherapy versus elastic compression

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
REBEC
Registry ID
RBR-6yppv3
Enrollment
Unknown
Registered
2017-04-03
Start date
2016-01-25
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2025-10-27

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

Conditions

Varicose veins, venous insufficiency,varicose ulcer

Interventions

E02.594
Intervention Groups: 03 groups Control group: 01 group 1) Sclerotherapy by foam (polidocanol 3% + air - Tessari method) + dressing with elastic compression. 2) Endovenous Laser Ablation (EVLA) + dress
Procedure/surgery

Sponsors

Unidade de Pesquisa Clínica-Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu - Unesp
Lead Sponsor
Unidade de Pesquisa Clínica-Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu - Unesp
Collaborator

Eligibility

Age
18 Years to No maximum

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: The study will include male and female patients 18 years old or older, with no limits on the maximum age,with active venous ulcers (CEAP 6),primary varicose veins documented by ultrasound,and who agreed to the terms of the studyand signed the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC).

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Patients under 18 years of age; with venous anomalies (e.g. angiodysplasia); with history of deep venous thrombosis and post-thrombotic syndrome; in use of anticoagulants; varicose veins classified as CEAP 5 or less; who had previous saphenectomy in the affected limb; without surgical or anesthetic conditions; with ulcers with signs of active infection; pregnant, postpartum or breastfeeding women; patients with history of migraine; history of interatrial or arteriovenous communication; with active cellulitis or erysipelas; abnormal laboratory liver or kidney function (creatinine clearance below 30ml/m); with signs of active skin mycosis; with previously known retinal changes; history of alcohol or drug abuse; signs of arterial insufficiencyclinically present; signs of clinically decompensated comorbidities; who do not agree with the terms of the study or refuse to sign the free and informed consent (FPIC).

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Efficacy endpoints The efficacy endpoints to be considered will be wound healing, monthly healing rate - assessed by the proportion of healing speed as evaluated by the analyzes of area reduction - edema progression, non recanalization of the saphenous vein, evaluation of the impact on quality of life, and subjective evaluation by the analysis of the photo examiners.

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Safety endpoints The safety endpoints that will be studied are: complications as pigmented stains over the venous segment treated, hematomas, paresthesia, thrombophlebitis ,heat-induced endovenous thrombosis, patient-reported pain,as well as major events such as burns, areas of skin necrosis, DVT and pulmonary embolism, syncope, amaurosis fugax, cardiac events.

Countries

Brazil

Contacts

Public ContactRafael Elias Pimenta

Universidade Estadual Paulista - Julio de Mesquita Filho

pimentamed36@yahoo.com.br55-14-38116305

Outcome results

None listed

Source: REBEC (via WHO ICTRP)