RCT Comparing EVLA Versus Polidocanol Foam in the Treatment of SSV Insufficiency (FOVELASS)
Primary Purpose
Varicose Veins of Lower Limb
Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Ultrasound-guided-foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) using Polidocanol sclerosant
Endovenous Laser Ablation (EVLA)
Sponsored by
About this trial
This is an interventional treatment trial for Varicose Veins of Lower Limb focused on measuring small saphenous veins, varicose veins, ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy, endovenous laser ablation
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
- symptomatic varicose veins (CEAP C2s-C6)
- underlying isolated SSV incompetence (SSV reflux time>0.5sec on duplex ultrasound (DUS))
- reflux involving at least 15 cm of proximal SSV
- minimal SSV diameter of 4 mm at mid-calf (luminal diameter in standing position)
Exclusion Criteria:
- SSV treatment in the preceding 3 months
- post-thrombotic disease
- deep or superficial vein thrombosis of less than 3 months duration
- coexistent ipsilateral GSV insufficiency
- morbid obesity (BMI>40)
- presence of significant arterial disease (ABPI<0.5)
Sites / Locations
Arms of the Study
Arm 1
Arm 2
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Active Comparator
Arm Label
Ultrasound-guided-foam sclerotherapy (UGFS)
Endovenous Laser Ablation (EVLA)
Arm Description
Injection of Polidocanol foam into SSV
Ablation of SSV using laser energy
Outcomes
Primary Outcome Measures
Absence of reflux in the treated SSV segment
closed veins or patent veins with no reflux (>0.5sec)
Secondary Outcome Measures
Treatment time
Time (in minutes) spent in undertaking each treatment
Procedure related complications
Any related complications arising from the procedure
Periprocedural pain score
assessed on a visual analogue score (zero = no pain, 100 = maximum pain)
Presence of visible varices
Reported recurrence of varicose veins
Venous symptoms questionnaire
Validated questionnaire scores
Revised Venous Clinical Severity Score -rVCSS
Validated questionnaire scores
Quality of Life questionnaire (CIVIQ)
Validated questionnaire scores
Full Information
NCT ID
NCT05468450
First Posted
July 13, 2022
Last Updated
July 19, 2022
Sponsor
Societe Francaise de Phlebologie
1. Study Identification
Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT05468450
Brief Title
RCT Comparing EVLA Versus Polidocanol Foam in the Treatment of SSV Insufficiency
Acronym
FOVELASS
Official Title
Three-year Outcomes of a RCT Comparing EVLA Versus Polidocanol Foam in the Treatment of SSV Insufficiency (FOVELASS Study, by the French Society of Phlebology)
Study Type
Interventional
2. Study Status
Record Verification Date
July 2022
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
July 1, 2015 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
August 31, 2016 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
August 31, 2016 (Actual)
3. Sponsor/Collaborators
Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
Societe Francaise de Phlebologie
4. Oversight
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
No
5. Study Description
Brief Summary
FOVELASS is a multicentre-RCT (11 centres) comparing ultrasound-guided-foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) and Endovenous Laser Ablation (EVLA) for treating SSV insufficiency, conducted by the French Society of Phlebology.
Detailed Description
Saphenous vein insufficiency is a common finding in varicose veins cases. International guidelines currently recommend endovenous thermal ablation using laser (EVLA) or radiofrequency as first line treatment for truncal Great Saphenous Vein (GSV) incompetence in preference to Ultrasound Guided Foam Sclerotherapy (UGFS) (1,2). This GSV-based recommendation has tended to be used for treating Small Saphenous Vein (SSV) incompetence.
To date, no RCTs have directly compared UGFS and EVLA for SSV treatment. The French Society of Phlebology (SFP) decided to compare these two most utilised endovenous treatments in France in a controlled study called the FOam VErsus LAser in the SSv (FOVELASS) study, involving 13 investigators in 11 vascular medical centres.
6. Conditions and Keywords
Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Varicose Veins of Lower Limb
Keywords
small saphenous veins, varicose veins, ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy, endovenous laser ablation
7. Study Design
Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Model Description
multicentre-RCT (11 centres) comparing ultrasound-guided-foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) and Endovenous Laser Ablation (EVLA) for treating small saphenous veins (SSV) insufficiency
Masking
None (Open Label)
Masking Description
Blinding of participants and investigators is not possible because of the obvious differences between the two treatments (a single mid-calf injection versus multiple injections for tumescent anaesthesia/laser precautions etc…).
A blind third-party check was carried out, only at 3 years, and those assessors were completely independent of the study and blinded.
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
161 (Actual)
8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions
Arm Title
Ultrasound-guided-foam sclerotherapy (UGFS)
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Injection of Polidocanol foam into SSV
Arm Title
Endovenous Laser Ablation (EVLA)
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Ablation of SSV using laser energy
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
Ultrasound-guided-foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) using Polidocanol sclerosant
Other Intervention Name(s)
Foam sclerotherapy
Intervention Description
Direct injection Foam sclerotherapy
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
Endovenous Laser Ablation (EVLA)
Other Intervention Name(s)
Laser therapy
Intervention Description
EVLA using a 1470nm generator and 600-micron radial fibres (Biolitec® Biomedical Technology, Jena, Germany), under tumescent local anaesthesia (TLA)
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Absence of reflux in the treated SSV segment
Description
closed veins or patent veins with no reflux (>0.5sec)
Time Frame
3Assessed at years
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Treatment time
Description
Time (in minutes) spent in undertaking each treatment
Time Frame
Assessed on day of treatment
Title
Procedure related complications
Description
Any related complications arising from the procedure
Time Frame
Assessed through study completion, an average of 3 years
Title
Periprocedural pain score
Description
assessed on a visual analogue score (zero = no pain, 100 = maximum pain)
Time Frame
up to four weeks
Title
Presence of visible varices
Description
Reported recurrence of varicose veins
Time Frame
Through study completion, average of 3 years
Title
Venous symptoms questionnaire
Description
Validated questionnaire scores
Time Frame
Through study completion, average of 3 years
Title
Revised Venous Clinical Severity Score -rVCSS
Description
Validated questionnaire scores
Time Frame
Through study completion, average of 3 years
Title
Quality of Life questionnaire (CIVIQ)
Description
Validated questionnaire scores
Time Frame
Through study completion, average of 3 years
10. Eligibility
Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
symptomatic varicose veins (CEAP C2s-C6)
underlying isolated SSV incompetence (SSV reflux time>0.5sec on duplex ultrasound (DUS))
reflux involving at least 15 cm of proximal SSV
minimal SSV diameter of 4 mm at mid-calf (luminal diameter in standing position)
Exclusion Criteria:
SSV treatment in the preceding 3 months
post-thrombotic disease
deep or superficial vein thrombosis of less than 3 months duration
coexistent ipsilateral GSV insufficiency
morbid obesity (BMI>40)
presence of significant arterial disease (ABPI<0.5)
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Claudine Hamel-Desnos
Organizational Affiliation
Institut des Varices- GHPJS Groupe Hospitalier
Official's Role
Study Director
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Matthieu Josnin
Organizational Affiliation
Société Française de Phlébologie
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
12. IPD Sharing Statement
Plan to Share IPD
No
IPD Sharing Plan Description
Randomised is provided by the independent statistics centre (Cenbiotech; Dijon-France), who also analysed IPD. Investigators cannot access other centres' data.
Citations:
Citation
9) Hamel-Desnos C., Josnin M., Allaert F.-A. Etude contrôlée randomisée de l'efficacité du laser endoveineux (1470 nm) versus échosclérothérapie à la mousse dans le traitement de l'insuffisance de la petite veine saphène. Phlébologie 2019 (72): 8-18
Results Reference
background
Learn more about this trial
RCT Comparing EVLA Versus Polidocanol Foam in the Treatment of SSV Insufficiency
We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs