A comparison of duplex ultrasound findings after cyanoacrylate embolization versus endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein

McGuinness, Brandon; Elias, Fadi; Ali, Khatija Pinky; Ahmad, Mirza Shahzaib; Namburi, James; Chan, Benjamin T.B.; Szalay, David; Rapanos, Theodore

doi:10.1016/j.jvsv.2019.05.013

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The main exclusion criteria for the ESVETIS study comprised previous interventions in the veins to be treated, C5 and C6 CEAP stages, primary or secondary deep vein disease, acute or subacute venous thrombosis, known allergy to cyanoacrylates, severe systemic disease, pregnancy or breastfeeding and active cancer or any oncologic treatment within the last 5 years. Neither patients nor investigators were blinded to the treatment, as it was impossible to effectively maintain them blinded due to substantial differences in both methods: the procedure itself, the use (or not) of tumescence and compression, and especially the characteristic hyperechogenic deposit of cyanoacrylate, visible in the ultrasound scan of the obliterated vein [16].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-Year Follow-Up after Endovenous Closure with Short-Chain Cyanoacrylate versus Laser Ablation in Venous Insufficiency

Wilczko¹,

Szary

Plucińska³

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The current treatment of venous disease is focused on the minimally invasive exclusion of the affected vein. Besides widely used thermal ablation, chemical ablation with cyanoacrylate, reported as safe and highly effective, has been gaining increasing interest. Patients and methods: In the current report, we present data from a two-year observation in 89 patients (61 female/28 male, mean age 44.3 ± 13.5) suffering from venous insufficiency (C2–C4), treated either using short-chain cyanoacrylate, the VenaBlock system (n = 43) or laser thermoablation with ELVeS 1470 (n = 46). The assessment comprised the occurrence of venous disease-related symptoms and the ultrasound examination of the leg venous system. Results: The frequency of recanalization after 2 years from the VenaBlock procedure was significantly higher than after laser treatment (37.2 vs. 8.7%). Apart from recanalization, in some individuals from both groups, the symptoms of recurrence and/or disease progression, including the development of insufficiency in other veins of treated or contralateral legs (9.3 vs. 15.2% and 9.3 vs. 17.4%, respectively), were observed. Unexpectedly, the general prevalence of the disease progression did not differ significantly between the VenaBlock and ELVeS groups (44.2 vs. 34.8%, respectively). Conclusions: Despite the higher recanalization rate of VenaBlock compared to ELVeS, the overall effectiveness of cyanoacrylate and laser thermoablation after two years was similar. Therefore, both methods similarly failed to prevent recurrence and disease progression, which seem to be method-independent.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-Year Follow-Up after Endovenous Closure with Short-Chain Cyanoacrylate versus Laser Ablation in Venous Insufficiency

Wilczko¹,

Szary

Plucińska³

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because experimental evidence demonstrates a possible resorption of glue over time, further follow-up of sustained pain improvement must be pursued before CAE can be definitively recommended as a first-line therapy. [ 240 , 241 ].…”

Section: Advances In Minimally Invasive Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of Lower Extremity Pain from Chronic Venous Insufficiency: A Comprehensive Review

Orhurhu

Chu²,

Xie

et al. 2021

Cardiol Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review: Chronic venous insufficiency is found to some extent in a large proportion of the world's population, especially in the elderly and obese. Despite its prevalence, little research has been pursued into this pathology when compared to similarly common conditions. Pain is often the presenting symptom of chronic venous insufficiency and has significant deleterious effects on quality of life. This manuscript will describe the development of pain in chronic venous insufficiency, and will also review both traditional methods of pain management and novel advances in both medical and surgical therapy for this disease. Recent Findings: Pain in chronic venous insufficiency is a common complication which remains poorly correlated in recent studies with the clinically observable extent of disease. Although lifestyle modification remains the foundation of treatment for pain associated

show abstract

“…They also pose a potential risk of thermal damage to super cial nerves that may result in permanent paresthesia and skin burns 10 . It requires compression stockings after the procedure [11][12][13] . As an alternative to EVTA, cyanoacrylate closure was introduced as a non-thermal non-tumescent technique (NTNT) that does not require tumescent in ltration [14][15][16][17][18] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Catheter-guided endovenous cyanoacrylate closure is effective and safe in chronic venous insufficiency of the lower extremity: A Comparative Analysis

Bozkurt,

Balkanay,

Dinc

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Cyanoacrylate adhesive closure (CAC) systems have become widely used in the treatment of varicose veins. In terms of efficacy and safety, these non-thermal non-tumescent methods have been reported to be noninferior to endovenous thermal ablation techniques. There are no known published studies that compare products using CAC. VenaSeal® (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, Ca, USA) and VenaBlockⓇ (Invamed, Ankara, Turkey) are among the most commonly used CAC-based products worldwide. This review article focuses on the efficacy and safety of these two different commonly used products.Methods Published full-text research articles regarding the VenaBlock® System or the VenaSealⓇ System was searched. Data for each product were evaluated by comparing them with each other in terms of effectiveness and safety.Results A total of 1882 extremities from 11 studies with VenaBlock® and 524 extremities from 8 studies with VenaSealⓇ were included and compared. Both devices were observed to be effective and cumulative recanalization-free survival rates were similar (p = 0.188) at the 6th, 12th, 24th, 36th and 60th month follow-ups. Both products were found to improve VCSS and QoL scores.Conclusion Both devices were effective in terms of cumulative recanalization-free survival rates. Both significantly improved the venous clinical severity score and the quality of life scores. Cyanoacrylate adhesive closure is feasible in varicose vein treatment.

show abstract

A comparison of duplex ultrasound findings after cyanoacrylate embolization versus endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein

Cited by 8 publications

References 27 publications

Two-Year Follow-Up after Endovenous Closure with Short-Chain Cyanoacrylate versus Laser Ablation in Venous Insufficiency

Two-Year Follow-Up after Endovenous Closure with Short-Chain Cyanoacrylate versus Laser Ablation in Venous Insufficiency

Management of Lower Extremity Pain from Chronic Venous Insufficiency: A Comprehensive Review

Catheter-guided endovenous cyanoacrylate closure is effective and safe in chronic venous insufficiency of the lower extremity: A Comparative Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About