Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
Phase 4 Completed N=69 Randomized Single-blind Treatment

ClosureFAST vs. Laser Ablation for the Treatment of GSV Disease: A Multicenter, Single-Blinded, Randomized Study.

Venous Reflux
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00509392 ↗
Enrolled (actual)
69
Serious AEs
1.2%
Results posted
Jul 2017
Primary outcomePrimary: Pain — 0.7; 1.9 units on a scale — p=<0.0001
◆ Published Evidence
Highly cited
287citations · ~17 / year
Radiofrequency endovenous ClosureFAST versus laser ablation for the treatment of great saphenous reflux: a multicenter, single-blinded, randomized study (RECOVERY study).
Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2009 · High-confidence link

Summary

The objective of this post-market study is to compare the post-procedure recovery between two types of minimally invasive catheter treatments for venous disease in the Great Saphenous Vein.

Linked Publications

  • Radiofrequency endovenous ClosureFAST versus laser ablation for the treatment of great saphenous reflux: a multicenter, single-blinded, randomized study (RECOVERY study).
    Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2009 · 287 citations · High-confidence link

Outcome Measures

OutcomeResultp-value
PRIMARY
Pain
0.2; 0.4 0.2962
PRIMARY
Tenderness
0.3; 0.5 0.5761
PRIMARY
Ecchymosis
45; 31; 1; 9; 0; 0 0.0050 sig
PRIMARY
Complications
1; 0; 0; 8; 2; 3
SECONDARY
VCSS
2.7; 3.2 0.2825
SECONDARY
Change in CIVIQ QOL
-17.8; -17.5 0.9463

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • All subjects must provide written informed consent.
  • Must be a candidate for either treatment with Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) or endovenous laser.

Exclusion Criteria

  • Subjects who require additional treatments in either leg within 30 days before or after the study procedure.
  • Subjects who are participating in another investigational study.
View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00509392) and the linked publication. Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication. Informational only — not medical advice.

Back to search