Comparative analysis of VenaBlock and VenaSeal Systems for catheter-guided endovenous cyanoacrylate closure in treating chronic venous insufficiency of the lower extremity: effectiveness and feasibility.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE International Angiology Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-23 DOI:10.23736/S0392-9590.24.05143-5
Ahmet K Bozkurt, Ozan O Balkanay, Rasit Dinc
{"title":"Comparative analysis of VenaBlock and VenaSeal Systems for catheter-guided endovenous cyanoacrylate closure in treating chronic venous insufficiency of the lower extremity: effectiveness and feasibility.","authors":"Ahmet K Bozkurt, Ozan O Balkanay, Rasit Dinc","doi":"10.23736/S0392-9590.24.05143-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cyanoacrylate adhesive closure (CAC) systems are widely used to treat varicose veins. In terms of efficacy and safety, these nonthermal, non-tumescent methods are noninferior to endovenous thermal ablation techniques. However, no published studies have compared products that use CAC systems. VenaSeal<sup>®</sup> (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) and VenaBlock<sup>®</sup> (Invamed) are the most commonly used CAC-based products worldwide. This study aimed to focus on the efficacy of these two commonly used products, with little emphasis on safety. Published full-text articles on the VenaBlock<sup>®</sup> and VenaSeal<sup>®</sup> systems were searched. Data for each product were evaluated by comparing them with each other in terms of effectiveness. In total, 1882 extremities from 11 studies using VenaBlock<sup>®</sup> and 524 extremities from eight studies using VenaSeal<sup>®</sup> were included and compared. Both devices were effective, and their cumulative recanalization-free survival rates were similar (P=0.188) at the 6-, 12-, 24-, 36-, and 60-month follow-ups. Both products improved the venous clinical severity score (VCSS) and quality of life (QoL) scores. VenaBlock<sup>®</sup> and VenaSeal<sup>®</sup> are effective in terms of cumulative recanalization-free survival rates, and no significant difference was found between the two groups (P=0.188). Both significantly improve the VCSS and QoL scores. CAC is feasible for the treatment of varicose veins.</p>","PeriodicalId":13709,"journal":{"name":"International Angiology","volume":" ","pages":"331-341"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Angiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0392-9590.24.05143-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cyanoacrylate adhesive closure (CAC) systems are widely used to treat varicose veins. In terms of efficacy and safety, these nonthermal, non-tumescent methods are noninferior to endovenous thermal ablation techniques. However, no published studies have compared products that use CAC systems. VenaSeal® (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) and VenaBlock® (Invamed) are the most commonly used CAC-based products worldwide. This study aimed to focus on the efficacy of these two commonly used products, with little emphasis on safety. Published full-text articles on the VenaBlock® and VenaSeal® systems were searched. Data for each product were evaluated by comparing them with each other in terms of effectiveness. In total, 1882 extremities from 11 studies using VenaBlock® and 524 extremities from eight studies using VenaSeal® were included and compared. Both devices were effective, and their cumulative recanalization-free survival rates were similar (P=0.188) at the 6-, 12-, 24-, 36-, and 60-month follow-ups. Both products improved the venous clinical severity score (VCSS) and quality of life (QoL) scores. VenaBlock® and VenaSeal® are effective in terms of cumulative recanalization-free survival rates, and no significant difference was found between the two groups (P=0.188). Both significantly improve the VCSS and QoL scores. CAC is feasible for the treatment of varicose veins.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
导管引导下静脉腔内氰基丙烯酸酯闭合术治疗下肢慢性静脉功能不全的 VenaBlock 和 VenaSeal 系统比较分析:有效性和可行性。
氰基丙烯酸酯粘合剂闭合(CAC)系统被广泛用于治疗静脉曲张。就疗效和安全性而言,这些非热、非熏蒸方法并不比静脉腔内热消融技术差。不过,目前还没有公开发表的研究对使用 CAC 系统的产品进行比较。VenaSeal®(美敦力,美国加利福尼亚州圣罗莎)和VenaBlock®(Invamed)是全球最常用的基于CAC的产品。本研究旨在关注这两种常用产品的疗效,而很少强调安全性。研究人员检索了已发表的关于 VenaBlock® 和 VenaSeal® 系统的全文文章。通过比较两种产品的有效性,对每种产品的数据进行了评估。共纳入并比较了 11 项研究中使用 VenaBlock® 的 1882 例肢体和 8 项研究中使用 VenaSeal® 的 524 例肢体。两种器械都很有效,在6个月、12个月、24个月、36个月和60个月的随访中,它们的累积无再狭窄存活率相似(P=0.188)。两种产品都提高了静脉临床严重程度评分(VCSS)和生活质量评分(QoL)。VenaBlock®和VenaSeal®在累积无再狭窄存活率方面效果显著,两组之间无显著差异(P=0.188)。两者都能明显改善 VCSS 和 QoL 评分。CAC治疗静脉曲张是可行的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Angiology
International Angiology 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
28.60%
发文量
89
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Angiology publishes scientific papers on angiology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of editorials, original articles, review articles, special articles, letters to the Editor and guidelines. The journal aims to provide its readers with papers of the highest quality and impact through a process of careful peer review and editorial work. Duties and responsibilities of all the subjects involved in the editorial process are summarized at Publication ethics. Manuscripts are expected to comply with the instructions to authors which conform to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Editors by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
期刊最新文献
The rheolytic thrombectomy AngioJet™ is a safe and technically feasible method for treating acute and sub-acute occluding lesions in the visceral arteries. Midterm results after FEVAR and open surgery for infrarenal aortic aneurysms with short proximal necks: systematic review with meta-analysis of comparative studies. Saphenous vein versus synthetic graft in arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis in patient with inaccessible veins. Characteristics and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty treatment outcomes of superior vena cava obstruction in patients undergoing hemodialysis. Glycocalyx disruption, endothelial dysfunction and vascular remodeling as underlying mechanisms and treatment targets of chronic venous disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1