Cargando…

Endovenous laser ablation versus mechanochemical ablation with ClariVein(®) in the management of superficial venous insufficiency (LAMA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Endovenous thermal techniques, such as endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), are the recommended treatment for truncal varicose veins. However, a disadvantage of thermal techniques is that it requires the administration of tumescent anaesthesia, which can be uncomfortable. Non-thermal, non-t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Leung, Clement C. M., Carradice, Daniel, Wallace, Tom, Chetter, Ian C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4995808/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27552990
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1548-1
_version_ 1782449546851254272
author Leung, Clement C. M.
Carradice, Daniel
Wallace, Tom
Chetter, Ian C.
author_facet Leung, Clement C. M.
Carradice, Daniel
Wallace, Tom
Chetter, Ian C.
author_sort Leung, Clement C. M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Endovenous thermal techniques, such as endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), are the recommended treatment for truncal varicose veins. However, a disadvantage of thermal techniques is that it requires the administration of tumescent anaesthesia, which can be uncomfortable. Non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques, such as mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) have potential benefits. MOCA combines physical damage to endothelium using a rotating wire, with the infusion of a liquid sclerosant. Preliminary experiences with MOCA showed good results and less post-procedural pain. METHODS/DESIGN: The Laser Ablation versus Mechanochemical Ablation (LAMA) trial is a single-centre randomised controlled trial in which 140 patients will be randomly allocated to EVLA or MOCA. All patients with primary truncal superficial venous insufficiency (SVI) who meet the eligibility criteria will be invited to participate in this trial. The primary outcomes are intra-procedural pain and technical efficacy at 1 year, defined as complete occlusion of target vein segment and assessed using duplex ultrasound. Secondary outcomes are post-procedural pain, analgesia use, procedure time, clinical severity, generic and disease-specific quality of life, bruising, complications, satisfaction, cosmesis, time taken to return to daily activities and/or work, and cost-effectiveness analysis following EVLA or MOCA. Both groups will be evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis. DISCUSSION: The aim of the LAMA trial is to establish whether MOCA is superior to the current first-line treatment, EVLA. The two main hypotheses are that MOCA may cause less initial pain and disability allowing a more acceptable treatment with an enhanced recovery. The second hypothesis is that this may come at a cost of decreased efficacy, which may lead to increased recurrence and affect longer term quality of life, increasing the requirement for secondary procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02627846, registered 8 December 2015 EudraCT number: 2015-000730-30 REC ref: 15/YH/0207 R&D ref: R1788
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4995808
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49958082016-08-25 Endovenous laser ablation versus mechanochemical ablation with ClariVein(®) in the management of superficial venous insufficiency (LAMA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial Leung, Clement C. M. Carradice, Daniel Wallace, Tom Chetter, Ian C. Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Endovenous thermal techniques, such as endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), are the recommended treatment for truncal varicose veins. However, a disadvantage of thermal techniques is that it requires the administration of tumescent anaesthesia, which can be uncomfortable. Non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques, such as mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) have potential benefits. MOCA combines physical damage to endothelium using a rotating wire, with the infusion of a liquid sclerosant. Preliminary experiences with MOCA showed good results and less post-procedural pain. METHODS/DESIGN: The Laser Ablation versus Mechanochemical Ablation (LAMA) trial is a single-centre randomised controlled trial in which 140 patients will be randomly allocated to EVLA or MOCA. All patients with primary truncal superficial venous insufficiency (SVI) who meet the eligibility criteria will be invited to participate in this trial. The primary outcomes are intra-procedural pain and technical efficacy at 1 year, defined as complete occlusion of target vein segment and assessed using duplex ultrasound. Secondary outcomes are post-procedural pain, analgesia use, procedure time, clinical severity, generic and disease-specific quality of life, bruising, complications, satisfaction, cosmesis, time taken to return to daily activities and/or work, and cost-effectiveness analysis following EVLA or MOCA. Both groups will be evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis. DISCUSSION: The aim of the LAMA trial is to establish whether MOCA is superior to the current first-line treatment, EVLA. The two main hypotheses are that MOCA may cause less initial pain and disability allowing a more acceptable treatment with an enhanced recovery. The second hypothesis is that this may come at a cost of decreased efficacy, which may lead to increased recurrence and affect longer term quality of life, increasing the requirement for secondary procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02627846, registered 8 December 2015 EudraCT number: 2015-000730-30 REC ref: 15/YH/0207 R&D ref: R1788 BioMed Central 2016-08-24 /pmc/articles/PMC4995808/ /pubmed/27552990 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1548-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Leung, Clement C. M.
Carradice, Daniel
Wallace, Tom
Chetter, Ian C.
Endovenous laser ablation versus mechanochemical ablation with ClariVein(®) in the management of superficial venous insufficiency (LAMA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title Endovenous laser ablation versus mechanochemical ablation with ClariVein(®) in the management of superficial venous insufficiency (LAMA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title_full Endovenous laser ablation versus mechanochemical ablation with ClariVein(®) in the management of superficial venous insufficiency (LAMA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title_fullStr Endovenous laser ablation versus mechanochemical ablation with ClariVein(®) in the management of superficial venous insufficiency (LAMA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Endovenous laser ablation versus mechanochemical ablation with ClariVein(®) in the management of superficial venous insufficiency (LAMA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title_short Endovenous laser ablation versus mechanochemical ablation with ClariVein(®) in the management of superficial venous insufficiency (LAMA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title_sort endovenous laser ablation versus mechanochemical ablation with clarivein(®) in the management of superficial venous insufficiency (lama trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4995808/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27552990
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1548-1
work_keys_str_mv AT leungclementcm endovenouslaserablationversusmechanochemicalablationwithclariveininthemanagementofsuperficialvenousinsufficiencylamatrialstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT carradicedaniel endovenouslaserablationversusmechanochemicalablationwithclariveininthemanagementofsuperficialvenousinsufficiencylamatrialstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT wallacetom endovenouslaserablationversusmechanochemicalablationwithclariveininthemanagementofsuperficialvenousinsufficiencylamatrialstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT chetterianc endovenouslaserablationversusmechanochemicalablationwithclariveininthemanagementofsuperficialvenousinsufficiencylamatrialstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial