04.01.2013 Views

Diagnostic et traitement des varices des membres inférieurs - KCE

Diagnostic et traitement des varices des membres inférieurs - KCE

Diagnostic et traitement des varices des membres inférieurs - KCE

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

28 Varicose Veins <strong>KCE</strong> Reports 164<br />

5.2.2.1 RFA versus EVLT (3 RCTs)<br />

Efficacy<br />

Similar rates of occlusion b<strong>et</strong>ween RFA and EVLT were reported at 6 months by DUS<br />

in one trial 88 . The other two RFA versus EVLT trials had short follow-up periods and<br />

did not report efficacy as they were <strong>des</strong>igned to measure differences in pain,<br />

complications and QoL outcomes 78 94 .<br />

Quality of life<br />

Quality of life measurements were recorded in the three trials comparing RFA to EVLT.<br />

The trial by Almeida <strong>et</strong> al. (2009) reported that the changes in global QoL scores<br />

(CIVIQ tool) were significantly higher with RFA treatment at day 7 and day 14 after<br />

treatment compared with the EVLT arm 78 . The other two trials found no significant<br />

difference in QoL scores b<strong>et</strong>ween the treatment groups88 94.<br />

Pain<br />

In the trials comparing RFA with EVLT, RFA (Closure FAST) patients reported<br />

significantly lower pain levels than the EVLT group at 48 hours (0.7 versus 1.9), 1 week<br />

(0.2 versus 1.8) and 2 weeks (0.2 versus 1.2); p < 0.00178. Similar results were reported<br />

in the other two RCTs showing RFA to be associated with less pain up to 11 days post<br />

procedure88 94.<br />

Complications<br />

The Almeida <strong>et</strong> al. (2009) 78 trial found that minor complications were more prevalent in<br />

the EVLT group than the RFA group (22% versus 4.4%, p=0.0210). They also reported<br />

significantly greater overall rates of phlebitis in EVLT patients compared with RFA<br />

patients (14.6% versus 0%, p=0.009), and significantly greater rates of erythema in EVLT<br />

compared with RFA (9.8% versus 0%, p=0.045).<br />

However the Shepherd at al. (2010) trial found similar rates of complications across the<br />

groups. One patient in the RFA group suffered a pulmonary embolus 2 weeks postprocedure<br />

94 .<br />

5.2.2.2 RFA versus surgery (2 RCTs)<br />

Efficacy<br />

Only one of the two trials 95, 99 that compared RFA to surgery reported efficacy results.<br />

This study showed a primary occlusion rate of 94% for RFA and 100% for surgery<br />

assessed by DUS over a follow-up range of six to 20 months 99 .<br />

Quality of life and patient satisfaction<br />

The trial by Subramonia and Lees (2010) showed that RFA performed significantly<br />

b<strong>et</strong>ter than conventional surgery in the short term outcomes of patient satisfaction,<br />

quality of life improvement and pain. In this trial all patients received a general<br />

anaesth<strong>et</strong>ic.<br />

Pain<br />

One RCT reported (n=88) that postoperative pain scores in the first week postprocedure<br />

favoured RFA over surgery (1.70 versus 4.00; p=0.001) 95 .<br />

Complications<br />

A high rate of severe haematomas (n=30), three cases of serious infections and one<br />

deep venous thrombosis occurred in the surgical group (n=90) of the Helmy ElKaffas <strong>et</strong><br />

al. (2011) 99 trial. In the RFA group, one patient had a severe haematoma and 6<br />

developed thrombophlebitis in the postoperative period.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!