Comparing mechanochemical endovenous ablation using Flebogrif with endovenous laser ablation in the treatment of primary great saphenous vein incompetence: protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, observer-blinded, randomised controlled trial (REBORN trial).
Surgical dermatology
VASCULAR SURGERY
Vascular surgery
Journal
BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Aug 2024
07 Aug 2024
Historique:
medline:
9
8
2024
pubmed:
9
8
2024
entrez:
8
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) is associated with an excellent outcome in the treatment of great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence. However, the use of thermal ablation requires tumescent anaesthesia and is associated with a risk of thermal damage. Mechanochemical endovenous ablation (MOCA) is a non-thermal ablation (NTA) alternative, which combines mechanical endothelial damage with the infusion of a sclerosant liquid or foam. Tumescent anaesthesia is not required. Preliminary experiences with MOCA using the Clarivein device show less intraprocedural and postprocedural pain and a faster clinical improvement compared with EVLA. Flebogrif (Balton, Poland) is a relatively new MOCA device. To determine the role of MOCA using Flebogrif, a well-designed, randomised controlled clinical trial of sufficient sample size and follow-up time is required. In this article, we provide the study protocol for the REBORN trial, aiming to demonstrate that MOCA using Flebogrif is not inferior to EVLA for the outcome of anatomical success in the treatment of GSV incompetence. This multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, observer-blinded, randomised controlled trial randomises patients who are diagnosed with GSV incompetence and aged 18-80 years between Flebogrif and EVLA. 310 patients in 3 participating centres (Northwest Clinics Alkmaar, Skin and Vein Clinic Oosterwal Alkmaar and Red Cross Hospital Beverwijk) will be included. The primary outcome is anatomical success at 12 months. Secondary outcomes are intraprocedural pain, operation time, technical success, postprocedural pain, safety, anatomical success during other follow-up moments, complications, clinical success, aesthetic result, disease-specific quality of life, reinterventions, anterior accessory saphenous vein reflux and neovascularisation. Patients will be followed up at 1 week, 1, 6, 12, 24 and 60 month(s) after treatment. The institutional review board (Medical Ethical Review Committee of the Vrije Universiteit Medical Center) approved this study on 17 May 2021 under case number 2020.0740. Written informed consent is obtained by the coordinating investigator from all participants prior to study enrolment. After completion of the trial, the results will be submitted to an international scientific journal for peer-reviewed publication. Overzicht van Medisch-wetenschappelijk Onderzoek in Nederland, NL-OMON25145, previously NL9527; Centrale Commissie Mensgebonden Onderzoek, NL74491.029.20.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39117408
pii: bmjopen-2024-087490
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087490
doi:
Substances chimiques
Sclerosing Solutions
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Clinical Trial Protocol
Multicenter Study
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e087490Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.