- Book学术

发布求助

文献互助智能选刊最新文献

IF 1.5 4区医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE

International Angiology Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.23736/S0392-9590.25.05284-8

Rodrigo Rial, Megha Garg, Nick Pooley, Guillermo M Ducaju, Alissa Doth, Ines Joaquim

{"title":"A review of clinical efficacy, safety, and quality of life of ClosureFast™ radiofrequency ablation of saphenous vein insufficiency.","authors":"Rodrigo Rial, Megha Garg, Nick Pooley, Guillermo M Ducaju, Alissa Doth, Ines Joaquim","doi":"10.23736/S0392-9590.25.05284-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: This review aimed to systematically identify the efficacy, safety, and quality of life of ClosureFast™ radio frequency ablation (RFA) compared with other treatments for saphenous vein insufficiency.Evidence acquisition: A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization-International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov from the time of their inception to June 2021. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ClosureFast™ to surgery, endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), mechanochemical ablation (MOCA), foam sclerotherapy, or cyanoacrylate closure (CAC) were eligible for inclusion.Evidence synthesis: Thirty-two publications, representing 21 RCTs were included. Clinical efficacy (procedure success/failure) for ClosureFast™ was significantly better compared to Foam, MOCA, and other RFA devices, significantly poorer than CAC; and similar to high ligation and division, stripping, and EVLA. Symptom alleviation was similar between therapies; however, one study reported significantly worse symptom scores for ClosureFast™ compared to CAC. Compared with ClosureFast™, patients receiving EVLA treatment exhibited significantly higher pain scores, whereas CAC, MOCA, and other RFA groups reported lower pain scores. ClosureFast™ showed significantly lower rates of minor complications compared with EVLA in three studies, with rates of complication comparable with other treatments. ClosureFast™ patients returned to work or normal activity faster than surgical but slower than CAC patients. There was no difference in health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction between treatments.Conclusions: ClosureFast™ has overall higher safety than EVLA and surgery, with better clinical efficacy than Foam, MOCA, and other RFA devices. Efficacy and safety of ClosureFast™ is comparable to or lower than CAC.","PeriodicalId":13709,"journal":{"name":"International Angiology","volume":"44 1","pages":"14-23"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","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/S0392-9590.25.05284-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

简介：本综述旨在系统地确定 ClosureFast™ 射频消融术 (RFA) 与其他治疗隐静脉瓣膜功能不全的方法相比的疗效、安全性和生活质量：我们使用 MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials、World Health Organization-International Clinical Trials Registry Platform 和 ClinicalTrials.gov 进行了系统的文献检索，检索时间从开始检索到 2021 年 6 月。将 ClosureFast™ 与手术、静脉腔内激光消融术 (EVLA)、机械化学消融术 (MOCA)、泡沫硬化疗法或氰基丙烯酸酯闭合术 (CAC) 进行比较的随机对照试验 (RCT) 符合纳入条件：共纳入 32 篇文献，代表 21 项 RCT。ClosureFast™的临床疗效（手术成功/失败）明显优于泡沫、MOCA和其他RFA设备，明显差于CAC；与高位结扎和分割、剥离和EVLA相似。不同疗法的症状缓解情况相似；但有一项研究报告称，与 CAC 相比，ClosureFast™ 的症状评分明显更差。与 ClosureFast™ 相比，接受 EVLA 治疗的患者疼痛评分明显较高，而 CAC、MOCA 和其他 RFA 组的疼痛评分较低。在三项研究中，ClosureFast™ 的轻微并发症发生率明显低于 EVLA，并发症发生率与其他治疗方法相当。ClosureFast™ 患者恢复工作或正常活动的速度比手术患者快，但比 CAC 患者慢。不同治疗方法在健康相关生活质量和患者满意度方面没有差异：ClosureFast™ 的总体安全性高于 EVLA 和手术，临床疗效优于 Foam、MOCA 和其他 RFA 设备。ClosureFast™ 的疗效和安全性与 CAC 相当或更低。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

A review of clinical efficacy, safety, and quality of life of ClosureFast™ radiofrequency ablation of saphenous vein insufficiency.

Introduction: This review aimed to systematically identify the efficacy, safety, and quality of life of ClosureFast^™ radio frequency ablation (RFA) compared with other treatments for saphenous vein insufficiency.

Evidence acquisition: A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization-International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov from the time of their inception to June 2021. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ClosureFast^™ to surgery, endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), mechanochemical ablation (MOCA), foam sclerotherapy, or cyanoacrylate closure (CAC) were eligible for inclusion.

Evidence synthesis: Thirty-two publications, representing 21 RCTs were included. Clinical efficacy (procedure success/failure) for ClosureFast^™ was significantly better compared to Foam, MOCA, and other RFA devices, significantly poorer than CAC; and similar to high ligation and division, stripping, and EVLA. Symptom alleviation was similar between therapies; however, one study reported significantly worse symptom scores for ClosureFast^™ compared to CAC. Compared with ClosureFast^™, patients receiving EVLA treatment exhibited significantly higher pain scores, whereas CAC, MOCA, and other RFA groups reported lower pain scores. ClosureFast^™ showed significantly lower rates of minor complications compared with EVLA in three studies, with rates of complication comparable with other treatments. ClosureFast^™ patients returned to work or normal activity faster than surgical but slower than CAC patients. There was no difference in health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction between treatments.

Conclusions: ClosureFast^™ has overall higher safety than EVLA and surgery, with better clinical efficacy than Foam, MOCA, and other RFA devices. Efficacy and safety of ClosureFast^™ is comparable to or lower than CAC.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

International Angiology 医学-外周血管病

CiteScore

2.80

自引率

28.60%

发文量

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).