Twelve-month efficacy and complications of cyanoacrylate embolization compared with radiofrequency ablation for incompetent great saphenous veins.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, the clinical results of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and n-butyl-cyanoacrylate embolization (CAE) methods were compared in the treatment of incompetent great saphenous veins (GSVs).

METHODS: We analyzed retrospectively 244 patients (128 patients in the RFA group, 116 patients in the CAE group) with incompetent GSVs who were treated with RFA and CAE according to the patients' choice between June 2013 and June 2016. All patients were thoroughly examined preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the operation, and the clinical results and the quality of life were evaluated. Color Doppler ultrasound (CDUS) results were compared between two groups after the operation and at 12 months. Complete vein occlusion was defined as the success of the treatment.

RESULTS: There was no significant difference between patients treated with RFA or CAE in terms of demographic and clinical features. In CDUS after operation, total occlusion was detected in the saphenous vein in both groups. At the 12-month CDUS, complete occlusion of the GSV was observed in 99.5% of the CAE group and 96.6% of the RFA group (P = .072). Skin burn, which we consider a major complication, occurred only in one patient. No other major complications were seen in either group. Severe pain, ecchymosis, and sensitivity were the most common of the side effects, and these were significantly higher in RFA group than in CAE group. Severe pain occurred in 12.5% of the RFA patients and 4.3% of the CAE patients (P = .042), ecchymosis occurred in 20.3% of the RFA patients and 12% of the CAE patients (P = .044), and sensitivity occurred in 21.9% of the RFA patients and 12.1% of the CAE patients (P = .038), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: Based on the present data, our findings suggest that CAE is as effective as RFA ablation with similar rates of successful occlusion and can be associated with less pain and fewer complications than RFA; it also may yield better patient comfort. The current results should be verified with further randomized, controlled trials with longer term follow-up and larger patient groups.