Comparative analysis of the results of cyanoacrylate ablation and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of venous insufficiency.

Background: Varicose vein treatment has shifted to less invasive techniques owing to the complications associated with traditional treatment. The present study was designed to compare the effectiveness of cyanoacrylate ablation (CAA) with radiofrequency ablation (RFA).

Methods: Patients who had undergone RFA vs CAA (634 vs 246 patients) to treat great saphenous vein (GSV) insufficiency during a 5-year period were included in the present study. The preoperative and postoperative CEAP (clinical, etiologic, anatomic, pathophysiologic) class, symptoms, recurrence, and Doppler ultrasound findings were compared.

Results: All the veins in both groups were occluded at day 5. The 1-month closure rates were 97.3% and 98.7% for RFA and CAA, respectively. The overall postoperative closure rates at 5 years were 93.1% and 91.1% for RFA and CAA, respectively. The postoperative symptoms, CEAP class, and Doppler ultrasound findings were similar in both groups. The 5-year symptom-free survival rates were 73.5% and 72.0% in the RFA and CAA groups, respectively. The venous clinical severity scores had decreased from 5.9 ± 1.2 to 0.9 ± 0.8 and 5.8 ± 0.9 to 0.8 ± 0.6 in the RFA and CAA groups, respectively. The Aberdeen varicose vein questionnaire scores had decreased from 19.7 ± 5.5 to 4.8 ± 1.5 in the RFA group and from 18.9 ± 5.8 to 4.9 ± 1.4 in the CAA group.

Conclusions: CAA seems to be the ideal treatment for GSV insufficiency because it is suitable for most patients and is nonthermal and nontumescent, with satisfactory results comparable to those with RFA. Long-term outcomes and cost analyses from larger series are required to confirm our findings.