Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T12:19:11.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF RADIOFREQUENCY ABLATION VERSUS LASER FOR VARICOSE VEINS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 December 2015

Amanda C. Shepherd ,
Marta Ortega-Ortega ,
Manj S. Gohel ,
David Epstein ,
Louise C. Brown  and
Alun H. Davies
Amanda C. Shepherd
Affiliation:
Academic Section of Vascular Surgery, Imperial College School of Medicine, Charing Cross Hospital
Marta Ortega-Ortega
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Economics, University of [email protected]
Manj S. Gohel
Affiliation:
Academic Section of Vascular Surgery, Imperial College School of Medicine, Charing Cross Hospital; and Department of Vascular Surgery, Addenbrooke's Hospital Cambridge
David Epstein
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Economics, University of Granada
Louise C. Brown
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council, Clinical Trials Unit, University College London
Alun H. Davies
Affiliation:
Academic Section of Vascular Surgery, Imperial College School of Medicine, Charing Cross Hospital
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Although the clinical benefits of endovenous thermal ablation are widely recognized, few studies have evaluated the health economic implications of different treatments. This study compares 6-month clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) compared with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the setting of a randomized clinical trial.

Methods: Patients with symptomatic primary varicose veins were randomized to EVLA or RFA and followed up for 6 months to evaluate clinical improvements, health related quality of life (HRQOL) and cost-effectiveness.

Results: A total of 131 patients were randomized, of which 110 attended 6-month follow-up (EVLA n = 54; RFA n = 56). Improvements in quality of life (AVVQ and SF-12v2) and Venous Clinical Severity Scores (VCSS) achieved at 6 weeks were maintained at 6 months, with no significant difference detected between treatment groups. There were no differences in treatment failure rates. There were small differences in favor of EVLA in terms of costs and 6-month HRQOL but these were not statistically significant. However, RFA is associated with less pain at up to 10 days.

Conclusions: EVLA and RFA result in comparable and significant gains in quality of life and clinical improvements at 6 months, compared with baseline values. EVLA is more likely to be cost-effective than RFA but absolute differences in costs and HRQOL are small.

Keywords

Radiofrecuency ablationEndovenous laser ablationCost-effectivenessQuality of life
Type
Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 31 , Issue 5 , 2015 , pp. 289 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. MacKenzie, RK, Paisley, A, Allan, PL, et al. The effect of long saphenous vein stripping on quality of life. J Vasc Surg. 2002;35:1197–1203.Google Scholar
2. Michaels, JA, Brazier, JE, Campbell, WB, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing surgery with conservative treatment for uncomplicated varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2006;93:175–181.Google Scholar
3. Ratcliffe, J, Brazier, JE, Campbell, WB, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of surgery versus conservative treatment for uncomplicated varicose veins in a randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg. 2006;93:182–186.Google Scholar
4. Van den Bos, R, Arends, L, Kockaert, M, Neumann, M, Nijsten, T. Endovenous therapies of lower extremity varicosities: A meta-analysis. J Vasc Surg. 2009;49:230–239.Google Scholar
5. Main Procedures and Interventions. http://www.hesonline.nhs.uk (accessed January 30, 2015).Google Scholar
6. Creton, D, Pichot, O, Sessa, C, Proebstle, TM. Radiofrequency-powered segmental thermal obliteration carried out with the ClosureFast procedure: Results at 1 year. Ann Vasc Surg. 2010;24:360–366.Google Scholar
7. Almeida, JI, Kaufman, J, Gockeritz, O, et al. Radiofrequency endovenous ClosureFAST versus laser ablation for the treatment of great saphenous reflux: A multicenter, single-blinded, randomized study (RECOVERY study). J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009;20:752–759.Google Scholar
8. Shepherd, AC, Gohel, MS, Brown, LC, et al. Randomized clinical trial of VNUS ClosureFAST radiofrequency ablation versus laser for varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2010;97:810–818.Google Scholar
9. Shepherd, AC, Gohel, MS, Hamish, M, Lim, CS, Davies, AH. Endovenous treatments for varicose veins–over-taking or over-rated? Phlebology. 2010;25:38–43.Google Scholar
10. Lurie, F, Creton, D, Eklof, B, et al. Prospective randomised study of endovenous radiofrequency obliteration (closure) versus ligation and vein stripping (EVOLVeS): Two-year follow-up. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2005;29:67–73.Google Scholar
11. Rautio, T, Ohinmaa, A, Perala, J, et al. Endovenous obliteration versus conventional stripping operation in the treatment of primary varicose veins: A randomized controlled trial with comparison of the costs. J Vasc Surg. 2002;35:958–965.Google Scholar
12. Subramonia, S, Lees, T. Radiofrequency ablation vs conventional surgery for varicose veins - a comparison of treatment costs in a randomised trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;39:104–111.Google Scholar
13. Nordon, IM, Hinchliffe, RJ, Brar, R, et al. A prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial of radiofrequency versus laser treatment of the great saphenous vein in patients with varicose veins. Ann Surg. 2011;254:876–881.Google Scholar
14. Rutherford, RB, Padberg, FT Jr, Comerota, AJ, et al. Venous severity scoring: An adjunct to venous outcome assessment. J Vasc Surg. 2000;31:1307–1312.Google Scholar
15. Gohel, MS, Epstein, DM, Davies, AH. Cost-effectiveness of traditional and endovenous treatments for varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2010; 97:1815–1823.Google Scholar
16. DoHNSC. Department of Health London. NHS reference costs 2009–2010. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-reference-costs-2009-2010 (accessed January 25, 2015).Google Scholar
17. Curtis, L. Unit costs of health and social care 2009. Canterbury, United Kingdom; 2010. http://www.pssru.ac.uk/pdf/uc/uc2009/uc2009.pdf 2009 (accessed January 25, 2015).Google Scholar
18. Office for National Statistics. Average weekly earnings by sector 2009. www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market.../table-earn02.xls (accessed January 25. 2015).Google Scholar
19. Brazier, JE, Roberts, J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42:851–859.Google Scholar
20. Faria, R, Gomes, M, Epstein, D, White, IR. A guide to handling missing data in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:1157–1170.Google Scholar
21. Rubin, DB. Multiple imputation for non response in surveys. New York: Wiley; 1987.Google Scholar
22. Goode, SD, Chowdhury, A, Crockett, M, et al. Laser and Radiofrequency Ablation Study (LARA study): A randomised study comparing radiofrequency ablation and endovenous laser ablation (810 nm). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;40:246–253.Google Scholar
23. Rasmussen, LH, Lawaetz, M, Bjoern, L, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, foam sclerotherapy and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2011;98:1079–1087.Google Scholar
24. Theivacumar, NS, Dellagrammaticas, D, Beale, RJ, Mavor, AI, Gough, MJ. Factors influencing the effectiveness of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) in the treatment of great saphenous vein reflux. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2008;35:119–123.Google Scholar
25. Rasmussen, LH, Bjoern, L, Lawaetz, M, et al. Randomised clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation with stripping of the great saphenous vein: Clinical outcome and recurrence after 2 years. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;39:630–635.Google Scholar
26. Theivacumar, NS, Darwood, R, Gough, MJ. Neovascularisation and recurrence 2 years after varicose vein treatment for sapheno-femoral and great saphenous vein reflux: A comparison of surgery and endovenous laser ablation. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2009;38:203–207.Google Scholar
27. Proebstle, TM, Moehler, T, Herdemann, S. Reduced recanalization rates of the great saphenous vein after endovenous laser treatment with increased energy dosing: Definition of a threshold for the endovenous fluence equivalent. J Vasc Surg. 2006;44:834–839.Google Scholar
28. Theivacumar, NS, Dellagrammaticas, D, Mavor, AI, Gough, MJ. Endovenous laser ablation: Does standard above-knee great saphenous vein ablation provide optimum results in patients with both above- and below-knee reflux? A randomized controlled trial. J Vasc Surg. 2008;48:173–178.Google Scholar
29. Shepherd, AC, Gohel, MS, Lim, CS, Davies, AH. A study to compare disease-specific quality of life with clinical anatomical and hemodynamic assessments in patients with varicose veins. J Vasc Surg. 2011;53:374–382.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Shepherd supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Shepherd supplementary material(File)
File 269.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Shepherd supplementary material

Figure S2

Download Shepherd supplementary material(File)
File 34.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Shepherd supplementary material

Figure S3

Download Shepherd supplementary material(File)
File 57.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Shepherd supplementary material

Figure S4

Download Shepherd supplementary material(File)
File 59.4 KB