TY - JOUR
T1 - A randomized trial comparing treatments for varicose veins
AU - Brittenden, Julie
AU - Cotton, Seonaidh C
AU - Elders, Andrew
AU - Ramsay, Craig R
AU - Norrie, John
AU - Burr, Jennifer
AU - Campbell, Bruce
AU - Bachoo, Paul
AU - Chetter, Ian
AU - Gough, Michael
AU - Earnshaw, Jonothan
AU - Lees, Tim
AU - Scott, Julian
AU - Baker, Sara A
AU - Francis, Jill
AU - Tassie, Emma
AU - Scotland, Graham
AU - Wileman, Samantha
AU - Campbell, Marion Kay
N1 - Supported by a grant from the Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute for Health Research (06/45/02). The Health Services Research Unit is funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorate.
We thank Janice Cruden for her secretarial support and data management; Gladys McPherson and the programming team at the Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials; Tracey Davidson, Lynda Constable, Jackie Ellington, Laura Elliott, and Yvonne Fernie for help with scoring the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire; Luke Vale and Laura Ternent, our original economists in the group; members of the Project Management Group for their ongoing advice and support of the trial; members of the study team (Graeme MacLennan, Maria Prior, and Denise Bolsover) who contributed to the behavioral recovery component of the trial; the independent members of the trial steering committee (Alun Davies [chair], Ian Loftus, and Jane Nixon) and the data and safety monitoring committee (Gerry Stansby [chair], Winston Banya, and Marcus Flather); and the staff members at recruitment sites (see the Supplementary Appendix) who facilitated recruitment, treatment, and follow-up of trial participants.
PY - 2014/9/25
Y1 - 2014/9/25
N2 - BACKGROUND: Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy and endovenous laser ablation are widely used alternatives to surgery for the treatment of varicose veins, but their comparative effectiveness and safety remain uncertain.
METHODS: In a randomized trial involving 798 participants with primary varicose veins at 11 centers in the United Kingdom, we compared the outcomes of foam, laser, and surgical treatments. Primary outcomes at 6 months were disease-specific quality of life and generic quality of life, as measured on several scales. Secondary outcomes included complications and measures of clinical success.
RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline scores and other covariates, the mean disease-specific quality of life was slightly worse after treatment with foam than after surgery (P=0.006) but was similar in the laser and surgery groups. There were no significant differences between the surgery group and the foam or the laser group in measures of generic quality of life. The frequency of procedural complications was similar in the foam group (6%) and the surgery group (7%) but was lower in the laser group (1%) than in the surgery group (P<0.001); the frequency of serious adverse events (approximately 3%) was similar among the groups. Measures of clinical success were similar among the groups, but successful ablation of the main trunks of the saphenous vein was less common in the foam group than in the surgery group (P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Quality-of-life measures were generally similar among the study groups, with the exception of a slightly worse disease-specific quality of life in the foam group than in the surgery group. All treatments had similar clinical efficacy, but complications were less frequent after laser treatment and ablation rates were lower after foam treatment. (Funded by the Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute for Health Research; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN51995477. opens in new tab.)
AB - BACKGROUND: Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy and endovenous laser ablation are widely used alternatives to surgery for the treatment of varicose veins, but their comparative effectiveness and safety remain uncertain.
METHODS: In a randomized trial involving 798 participants with primary varicose veins at 11 centers in the United Kingdom, we compared the outcomes of foam, laser, and surgical treatments. Primary outcomes at 6 months were disease-specific quality of life and generic quality of life, as measured on several scales. Secondary outcomes included complications and measures of clinical success.
RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline scores and other covariates, the mean disease-specific quality of life was slightly worse after treatment with foam than after surgery (P=0.006) but was similar in the laser and surgery groups. There were no significant differences between the surgery group and the foam or the laser group in measures of generic quality of life. The frequency of procedural complications was similar in the foam group (6%) and the surgery group (7%) but was lower in the laser group (1%) than in the surgery group (P<0.001); the frequency of serious adverse events (approximately 3%) was similar among the groups. Measures of clinical success were similar among the groups, but successful ablation of the main trunks of the saphenous vein was less common in the foam group than in the surgery group (P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Quality-of-life measures were generally similar among the study groups, with the exception of a slightly worse disease-specific quality of life in the foam group than in the surgery group. All treatments had similar clinical efficacy, but complications were less frequent after laser treatment and ablation rates were lower after foam treatment. (Funded by the Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute for Health Research; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN51995477. opens in new tab.)
U2 - 10.1056/NEJMoa1400781
DO - 10.1056/NEJMoa1400781
M3 - Article
C2 - 25251616
VL - 371
SP - 1218
EP - 1227
JO - The New England Journal of Medicine
JF - The New England Journal of Medicine
SN - 0028-4793
IS - 13
ER -