A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of transluminal injection of foam sclerotherapy compared with ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy during endovenous catheter ablation in patients with varicose veins

Objective We compared the safety, need for additional foam sclerotherapy, and 1-year venous clinical severity score (VCSS) improvement in the limbs of patients with chronic venous disease and great saphenous vein (GSV) reflux. These patients had undergone endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) using a 1470-nm diode laser and concurrent foam sclerotherapy (1% polidocanol) through the access sheath (transluminal injection of foam sclerotherapy [TLFS]) or EVLA and concurrent direct-puncture ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS). Methods In the present study, we screened 467 patients (577 legs) with symptomatic primary GSV reflux for randomization to either TLFS with EVLA (n = 103 legs; TLFS group) or UGFS with EVLA (n = 94 legs; UGFS group). The exclusion criteria were (1) recurrent varicose veins after previous intervention; (2) hypersensitivity reaction to sclerotherapy; (3) acute deep vein thrombosis; (4) serious lower limb ischemic disease; (5) a coagulation disorder; and (6) simultaneous EVLA of both GSVs and small saphenous veins. The correlations of the VCSS changes with the clinical features, such as age, sex, CEAP (clinical, etiologic, anatomic, pathophysiologic) classification, total amount of sclerosant used at the original procedure, multiple punctures (more than two) for sclerotherapy at the original procedure, the use of TLFS, and linear endovenous energy density, were estimated using logistic regression. Results No significant differences in the distribution of the CEAP classification were observed between the two groups. After 12 months of follow-up, all truncal veins were occluded. The VCSS had significantly improved in the TLFS group compared with the UGFS group (UGFS, −7.4 ± 1.8; TLFS, −8.7 ± 1.5; P < .0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that TLFS was the only significant factor for an improved VCSS (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.96; P < .0001). The need for additional second-stage sclerotherapy was significantly avoided in the TLFS group (n = 10; 10%) compared with the UGFS group (n = 51; 54%; P < .0001). Conclusions TLFS combined with EVLA is a safe and feasible procedure that improves the VCSS and reduces the need for additional second-stage interventions compared with UGFS combined with EVLA.