A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials Comparing Thermal Versus Non-Thermal Endovenous Ablation in Superficial Venous Incompetence

Objective The objective was to compare technical success, complications, and quality of life after thermal vs. non-thermal endovenous ablation for the treatment of superficial venous incompetence. Data sources Electronic bibliographic sources (Google Scholar, Pubmed, Cochrane Database, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase). Review methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was conducted using terms to identify relevant studies to be included. The primary outcome was vein occlusion rate at up to four weeks and one to two years from procedure. Secondary outcome measures included peri-procedural pain, nerve injury, endothermal heat induced thrombosis, and quality of life. Results Eight randomised controlled trials met the selection criteria. These comprised a total of 1 956 patients, of whom 1 042 underwent endovenous thermal ablation and 915 underwent endovenous non-thermal ablation. There was no statistically significant difference in occlusion rate at all time points. Relative risk at four weeks and one to two years was 0.99 (95% CI 0.96 – 1.02) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 – 1.01), respectively. Non-thermal ablation was tolerated better and had less risk of nerve injury. There was no statistically significant difference in risk of endothermal heat induced thrombosis (EHIT). There was improvement in quality of life scores post-procedure but there was no statistically significant difference in thermal vs. non-thermal ablation. The quality of evidence assessed using GRADE methodology showed high quality for occlusion rate at four weeks and one to two years, moderate quality for nerve injury and peri-procedural pain, and low quality for EHIT. Conclusion Vein occlusion rates after thermal vs. non-thermal endovenous ablation are similar. In the early post-operative period, non-thermal endovenous ablation demonstrated the advantages of less pain and less risk of nerve injury. Improvement in quality of life after both thermal and non-thermal endovenous ablation is similar. The objective was to compare technical success, complications, and quality of life after thermal vs. non-thermal endovenous ablation for the treatment of superficial venous incompetence. Electronic bibliographic sources (Google Scholar, Pubmed, Cochrane Database, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase). A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was conducted using terms to identify relevant studies to be included. The primary outcome was vein occlusion rate at up to four weeks and one to two years from procedure. Secondary outcome measures included peri-procedural pain, nerve injury, endothermal heat induced thrombosis, and quality of life. Eight randomised controlled trials met the selection criteria. These comprised a total of 1 956 patients, of whom 1 042 underwent endovenous thermal ablation and 915 underwent endovenous non-thermal ablation. There was no statistically significant difference in occlusion rate at all time points. Relative risk at four weeks and one to two years was 0.99 (95% CI 0.96 – 1.02) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 – 1.01), respectively. Non-thermal ablation was tolerated better and had less risk of nerve injury. There was no statistically significant difference in risk of endothermal heat induced thrombosis (EHIT). There was improvement in quality of life scores post-procedure but there was no statistically significant difference in thermal vs. non-thermal ablation. The quality of evidence assessed using GRADE methodology showed high quality for occlusion rate at four weeks and one to two years, moderate quality for nerve injury and peri-procedural pain, and low quality for EHIT. Vein occlusion rates after thermal vs. non-thermal endovenous ablation are similar. In the early post-operative period, non-thermal endovenous ablation demonstrated the advantages of less pain and less risk of nerve injury. Improvement in quality of life after both thermal and non-thermal endovenous ablation is similar.