Publication:
Systematic review and meta-analysis of endovenous cyanoacrylate adhesive ablation for incompetent saphenous veins

dc.contributor.authorGarcia-Carpintero, Esther Elena
dc.contributor.authorCarmona, Montserrat
dc.contributor.authorChalco-Orrego, Juan Pablo
dc.contributor.authorGonzalez-Enriquez, Jesus
dc.contributor.authorImaz-Iglesia, Iñaki
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-17T12:57:11Z
dc.date.available2020-11-17T12:57:11Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.description.abstractObjective: The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness, safety, and quality of care afforded by cyanoacrylate ablation (CA) vs existing options in treating great saphenous vein incompetence. Methods: We conducted a systematic review; used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework; assessed the quality of randomized clinical trials using the Cochrane risk of bias tool; and performed a meta-analysis on the available comparative measurements. Results: Three comparative studies, two randomized controlled trials and one observational study comprising 1057 participants, were included for effectiveness assessment purposes. The safety assessment also included 10 case series. Available evidence allowed comparison of CA with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) but not with other treatments. The comparative effectiveness analysis showed that whereas all three treatments reduced disease severity, none was significantly better than any other in terms of effectiveness. In terms of safety, however, CA devices gave rise to fewer adverse events and less severity at 12 months of follow-up than did EVLA or RFA. Other important advantages of CA over EVLA or RFA were linked to quality of care; patients reported less pain during intervention with CA than with RFA or EVLA devices and registered shorter intervention and recovery times. Furthermore, tumescent anesthesia and compression bandages were not necessary, making this technique more comfortable for the patients than endothermal techniques. Conclusions: Compared with EVLA and RFA, CA treatments yield comparable effectiveness outcomes and lead to less frequent and fewer mild adverse events, without difference in major adverse events. Furthermore, CA devices have advantages in terms of quality of care indicators, such as pain during intervention, treatment and recovery times, lower use of anesthesia, and zero use of compression bandages after treatment.es_ES
dc.description.peerreviewedes_ES
dc.format.number2es_ES
dc.format.page287-296es_ES
dc.format.volume8es_ES
dc.identifier.citationJ Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord . 2020 Mar;8(2):287-296.es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jvsv.2019.09.01031917181es_ES
dc.identifier.e-issn2213-3348
dc.identifier.journalJournal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorderses_ES
dc.identifier.pubmedID31917181es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12105/11354
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvsv.2019.09.010es_ES
dc.repisalud.centroISCIII::Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (AETS)es_ES
dc.repisalud.institucionISCIIIes_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsopen accesses_ES
dc.rights.licenseAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectCyanoacrylate ablationes_ES
dc.subjectGreat saphenouses_ES
dc.subjectMeta-analysises_ES
dc.subjectNontumescent endovenous ablationes_ES
dc.subjectVaricose veinses_ES
dc.subject.meshEmbolization, Therapeutices_ES
dc.subject.meshEndovascular Procedureses_ES
dc.subject.meshLaser Therapyes_ES
dc.subject.meshRadiofrequency Ablationes_ES
dc.subject.meshCyanoacrylateses_ES
dc.subject.meshHumanses_ES
dc.subject.meshPostoperative Complicationses_ES
dc.subject.meshQuality Indicators, Health Carees_ES
dc.subject.meshRisk Factorses_ES
dc.subject.meshSaphenous Veines_ES
dc.subject.meshTreatment Outcomees_ES
dc.subject.meshVenous Insufficiencyes_ES
dc.titleSystematic review and meta-analysis of endovenous cyanoacrylate adhesive ablation for incompetent saphenous veinses_ES
dc.typereview articlees_ES
dc.type.hasVersionAMes_ES
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationefdfd120-9c1a-4763-a660-b1b0f60e83ec
relation.isAuthorOfPublication7704ab5a-2baf-4d0f-b098-0f4de8f8d95a
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationbf1377b8-d702-4f38-b6c9-f36643b77b6a
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationb21a9249-53ef-4cd6-b700-56908ef9fa77
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryefdfd120-9c1a-4763-a660-b1b0f60e83ec
relation.isPublisherOfPublication7d471502-7bd5-4f7a-90a4-8274382509ef
relation.isPublisherOfPublication.latestForDiscovery7d471502-7bd5-4f7a-90a4-8274382509ef

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
SystematicReviewAndMeta_2020.pdf
Size:
507.53 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description: