Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
Phase 4 Completed N=200 Randomized Treatment

Radiofrequency Ablation vs Laser Ablation of the Incompetent Greater Saphenous Vein

Chronic Venous Insufficiency
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02236338 ↗
Enrolled (actual)
200
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
May 2018
Primary outcomePrimary: Percentage of Participants Without Recurrent Clinical Symptoms of an Incompetent Greater Saphenous Vein After Treatment. — 79.3; 77.5 percentage of total participants
◆ Published Evidence
No publication linked

No peer-reviewed publication reporting this trial's results has been linked yet. This can indicate results are unpublished — a known publication-bias signal. We re-check periodically.

Summary

The aim of this study is to perform a randomized, prospective trial comparing the two current methods of treatment for chronic venous insufficiency, in an effort to evaluate complications and outcomes for each method, and ultimately, to see if one is superior to the other.

Outcome Measures

OutcomeResultp-value
PRIMARY
Percentage of Participants Without Recurrent Clinical Symptoms of an Incompetent Greater Saphenous Vein After Treatment.
79.3; 77.5
SECONDARY
Incidence Rate of Acute Complications
0; 0

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • Patients with symptomatic chronic venous insufficiency.
  • Patients in whom endovenous thermal ablation is clinically indicate.
  • Have previously undergone at least 6 weeks of conservative treatment with compression stockings (unless they have venous ulcers, recurrent phlebitis, or bleeding varices).
  • Have venous disease that meets CEAP clinical class 2 through 6.
  • Have symptoms secondary to Greater Saphenous Vein insufficiency defined as reverse flow in the saphenous vein >0.5 seconds after calf compression or while standing.

Exclusion Criteria

  • Have previously undergone surgery, EVTA, or phlebectomy in that extremity (exclusive of spider vein injections or other cosmetic surface procedures).
  • Have a history of DVT.
  • Have a history of hypercoaguability disorder.
  • Are pregnant or breastfeeding.
  • Are nonambulatory.
View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02236338). 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