Percutaneous Electrocoagulation Versus Sclerosing Foam for Patients With Incompetent Perforating Veins (PESIV)
Status
Conditions
Treatments
Details and patient eligibility
About
This study aimed to compare the efficacy of punctured electrocoagulation and sclerotherapy in the treatment of incompetent perforator veins.
Full description
Background: Incompetent perforating vein (IPV) is one of the important causes of persistent venous ulcers of lower extremities and recurrence after operation of varices which is a hot button issue worth discussing in clinical practice. Minimally invasive surgery has become the trend of IPVs' treatment. Currently, sclerotherapy can be performed to treat incompetent perforating veins, which showed a 90% occlusion rate after three or fewer sessions, the recurrence was present nearly 1/3 of cases. While electrocoagulation has a reliable effect on the closure of incompetent perforating veins and simplify treatment. No comparative studies of different PAPS modalities are currently available. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the efficacy of punctured electrocoagulation and sclerotherapy in the treatment of incompetent perforating veins. Methods:This study is a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. We will recruit 84 patients with IPVs from five hospitals. Moreover, these patients will be randomized to either the experimental group (electrocoagulation) or the control group (sclerotherapy). The primary outcome is incompetent perforating veins occlusion rate in the 12th month. Secondary outcomes are quality of life scale survey results (CEAP classification, VCSS score, CIVIQ-14 score), skin ulcer recurrence rate, deep venous Thrombosis, hemorrhage, all-cause mortality, and other vascular events and serious complications.Discussion:This study will provide reliable, evidence-based clinical evidence for the efficacy of electrocoagulation therapy for incompetent perforating veins.
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
(1) outward flow of less than 500 ms duration, with a diameter of >3.5 mm; (2) According to the CEAP classification method specified by the International Venous Federation, patients with C4b~C6 grades are included.
Exclusion criteria
(1)age < 18 years or age > 80 years; (2)with malignant tumors and life expectancy < 1 year; (3)with past or current history of deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism in the lower extremities; (4)with congenital venous malformations (K-T syndrome, arteriovenous fistula and etc.; (5)inability to walk, long-term braking, restrictive bed rest; severe ischemia of lower extremities or diagnosed severity of peripheral artery occlusive disease; (6)according to the researcher's judgment, it is not suitable for foam hardener and puncture coagulation treatment; (7)allergic to the drugs and equipment materials involved in the research; (8)with inferior vena cava and/or iliac vein stenosis or occlusion; (9)with autoimmune disease, receiving chemotherapy, hormone therapy or immunomodulatory treatment; (10)other underlying severe diseases; women who are pregnant, breastfeeding or have pregnancy plans during the study period; (11)the patient cannot cooperate to complete the inspection and follow-up required by the study.
Trial design
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
84 participants in 2 patient groups
Trial contacts and locations
Loading...
Central trial contact
Zhen jie Liu
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal