Journal Home
Search for

Volume 20, Issue 6, Pages 752-759 (June 2009)


View previous. 13 of 32 View next.

Radiofrequency Endovenous ClosureFAST versus Laser Ablation for the Treatment of Great Saphenous Reflux: A Multicenter, Single-blinded, Randomized Study (RECOVERY Study)

Jose I. Almeida, MD, RVTa, John Kaufman, MDb, Oliver Göckeritz, MDc, Paramjit Chopra, MDd, Martin T. Evans, MDe, Daniel F. Hoheim, MDf, Raymond G. Makhoul, MDe, Tim Richards, MDf, Christian Wenzel, MDc, Jeffrey K. Raines, PhD, RVTaCorresponding Author Informationemail address

Received 25 October 2008; received in revised form 26 February 2009; accepted 2 March 2009. published online 22 April 2009.

Purpose

The present study was designed to address the hypothesis that radiofrequency (RF) thermal ablation, as represented by the ClosureFAST system, is associated with improved recovery and quality-of-life (QOL) parameters compared with 980-nm endovenous laser (EVL) thermal ablation of the great saphenous vein (GSV).

Materials and Methods

Eighty-seven veins in 69 patients were randomized to ClosureFAST or 980-nm EVL treatment of the GSV. The study was prospective, randomized, single-blinded, and carried out at five American sites and one European site. Primary endpoints (postoperative pain, ecchymosis, tenderness, and adverse procedural sequelae) and secondary endpoints (venous clinical severity scores and QOL issues) were measured at 48 hours, 1 week, 2 weeks, and 1 month after treatment.

Results

All scores referable to pain, ecchymosis, and tenderness were statistically lower in the ClosureFAST group at 48 hours, 1 week, and 2 weeks. Minor complications were more prevalent in the EVL group (P = .0210); there were no major complications. Venous clinical severity scores and QOL measures were statistically lower in the ClosureFAST group at 48 hours, 1 week, and 2 weeks.

Conclusions

RF thermal ablation was significantly superior to EVL as measured by a comprehensive array of postprocedural recovery and QOL parameters in a randomized prospective comparison between these two thermal ablation modalities for closure of the GSV.

a Miami Vein Center, 1501 South Miami Avenue, Miami, FL 33129

b Dotter Interventional Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon

c Venenzentrum Elsterpark, Leipzig, Germany

d Midwest Institute for Minimally Invasive Therapies, Melrose Park, Illinois

e Vein Solutions, Richmond, Virginia

f Community Surgical Associates, Missoula, Montana

Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to J.K.R.

 None of the authors have identified a conflict of interest.

 This work was supported by VNUS Medical Technologies (San Jose, California).

PII: S1051-0443(09)00214-0

doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2009.03.008


View previous. 13 of 32 View next.