RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) is an alternative method to endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA) for the treatment of superficial venous incompetence that does not require tumescent anaesthesia. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes from RCTs of MOCA versus EVTA. METHODS: A search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Meta-analysis inclusion was restricted to RCTs comparing MOCA against EVTA. Outcomes included anatomical occlusion rate, disease-specific quality of life using the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire, procedural and postprocedural pain, and rates of venous thromboembolism. RESULTS: Four RCTs were included in the meta-analysis comprising 654 patients. The anatomical occlusion rate at 1 year was lower after MOCA than EVTA (risk ratio 0.85, 95 per cent c.i. 0.78 to 0.91; P < 0.001). No significant differences were detected in procedural pain (mean difference -3.25, -14.25 to 7.74; P = 0.560) or postprocedural pain (mean difference -0.63, -2.15 to 0.89; P = 0.420). There were no significant differences in Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire score at 1 year (mean difference 0.06, -0.50 to 0.62; P = 0.830) or in incidence of venous thromboembolism (risk ratio 0.72, 95 per cent c.i. 0.14 to 3.61; P = 0.690). CONCLUSION: The rate of successful anatomical occlusion after MOCA is significantly lower than that after EVTA, but there is no difference in procedural and postprocedural pain between the two interventions. Long-term data are required to assess the impact of the reduced vein occlusion rate on clinical outcomes such as quality of life and reintervention.
The current first-line treatment for varicose veins uses heat to block the diseased veins and is called endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA). Mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) is an alternative method of treatment using a chemical and a fast-spinning wire to block the veins instead. The potential benefits of MOCA include less pain and fewer complications. The aim of this study was to identify high-quality clinical trials comparing MOCA with EVTA, and to assess any differences in the results of treatment. The results showed that MOCA was less successful in blocking the diseased veins than EVTA. There were no differences in the amount of pain or discomfort during or after the procedures (which was low). At 1 year, those treated with both techniques reported the same quality of life. Both techniques were effective over 1 year in terms of improving quality of life; however, the potential benefits of MOCA were not clearly proven in the trials, and the poorer rates of successfully blocking the veins may cause the varicose veins to come back sooner, or the quality-of-life improvement to be shorter lived. There was no evidence to support MOCA replacing EVTA as the first-line treatment in the majority of patients, but it is a viable treatment for selected people.
