Table 15:
Characteristics of Included Studies—Cyanoacrylate Adhesive Closure
| Sample Size, N | CVI Severity, CEAP C Class, % | Age, Mean (SD), Y | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author, Year | Study Design, (Country) | Vein(s) Treated, Mean Diameter, mm (± SD) | CAC | Comparator(s) | CAC | Comparator(s) | CAC | Comparator(s) |
| Compared With RFA, EVLA, and Surgical Vein Stripping (HLS) | ||||||||
| Kubat et al, 202082 | Retrospective chart analysis (Turkey) | SSV only CAC 5.83 (± 1.44) HLS 7.07 (± 1.99) EVLA 980 nm 6.5 (± 1.68) EVLA 1470 nm 6.98 (± 1.97) RFA 6.65 (± 2.13) |
28 |
HLS 44 EVLA 980 nm 39 EVLA 1470 nm 36 RFA 28 |
C2: 53.6 C3: 28.6 ≥ C4: 17.9 < C2 and > C5 excluded |
HLS C2: 52.3 C3: 29.5 C4: 18.2 EVLA 980 nm C2: 66.7 C3: 28.2 C4: 5.1 EVLA 1470 nm C2: 66.7 C3: 13.9 C4: 19.4 RFA C2: 47.1 C3: 30.6 C4: 22.3 |
42.96 (± 14.04) |
HLS 44.98 (± 10.88) EVLA 980 nm 44.54 (± 13.62) EVLA 1470 nm 44 (± 12.97) RFA 45.79 (± 12.16) |
| Kubat et al, 201962 | Retrospective chart analysis (Turkey) | GSV, AASV CAC 11.6 (2.5) HLS 11.7 (2.1) EVLA 980 nm 11.9 (2) RFA 11.7 (2) RFA 11.5 (2.1) |
79 |
HLS 94 EVLA 980 nm 151 EVLA 1470 nm 109 RFA 264 |
C2: 59.5 C3: 29.1 C4: 7.6 C5: 17.7 |
HLS C2: 55.8 C3: 33.7 C4: 7 C5: 3.5 EVLA 980 nm C2: 58.1 C3: 27 C4: 12.2 C5: 4.7 EVLA 1470 nm C2: 63.2 C3: 25.7 C4: 6.4 C5: 4.6 RFA C2: 57 C3: 27.7 C4: 12.9 C5: 2.4 |
50.6 (11.68) |
HLS 49.6 (13) EVLA 980 nm 48.8 (10.4) EVLA 1470 nm 47.4 (11.4) RFA 49.5 (11.4) |
| Compared With RFA and HLS | ||||||||
| Ay et al, 2020 | Prospective Comparative Cohort (Turkey) | GSV CAC 7.9 (1.6) RFA 7.6 (1.6) HLS 8.1 (2.0) |
85 |
RFA 70 HLS 62 |
C2–4: 78.8 C5–6: 21.1 |
RFA C2–4: 81.4 C5–6: 18.5 HLS C2–4: 77.4 C5–6: 22.5 |
40.0 (13.1) |
RFA 38.2 (11.7) HLS 37.8 (12.8) |
| Compared With RFA and EVLA | ||||||||
| Eroglu and Yasim, 201865 | RCT (Turkey) | GSV, SSVa CAC 7.6 (1.9) RFA 7.8 (1.9) EVLA 8.0 (1.9) |
168 |
RFA 149 EVLA 139 |
C2: 2.4 C3: 55.4 C4: 42.3b C5: 0b C6: 0b |
RFA C2: 1.3 C3: 57.7 C4: 38.3 C5: 2 C6: 0.7 EVLA C2: 2.9 C3: 55.4 C4: 41.7 C5: 0 C6: 0 |
47.7 (11.9) |
RFA 44.9 (10.5) EVLA 45.9 (10.4) |
| Compared With EVLA | ||||||||
| McGuinness et al, 201967 | Retrospective chart analysis (Canada) | GSV CAC 9.3 (2.1) EVLA 9.3 (2.2) |
62 | 57 | NR | NR | MD 49 (IQR 44–62) | MD 53 (IQR 43–65) |
| Koramaz et al, 201768 | Retrospective chart analysis (Turkey) | GSV CAC 6.88 (1.8) EVLA 7.15 (1.77) |
150 | 189 | C2: 13.3 C3: 44 C4: 36 C5: 6.7 |
C2: 11.6 C3: 49.2 C4: 33.9 C5: 5.3 |
45.09 (12) | 47.08 (11) |
| Bozkurt and Yilmaz, 201648 | Prospective Comparative Cohort (Turkey) | GSV CAC 7.2 (1.8) EVLA 7.1 (1.6) |
154 Hispanic 4% Nonwhite 6% | 156 Hispanic 8% Nonwhite 8% | C2: 67.5 C3: 24.7 C4a: 5.8 C4b: 1.9 |
C2: 76.3 C3: 21.2 C4a: 1.3 C4b: 1.3 |
42.5 (13.1) | 40.2 (11.2) |
| Compared With RFA | ||||||||
| VeClose69–72,81 | RCT (United States) | GSV CAC 4.9 (range 0–9) RFA 5.1 (range 2.4–11) |
108 | 114 | C2: 57 C3: 30 C4a: 12 C4b: 2 |
C2: 56 C3: 32 C4a: 11 C4b: 2 |
49 (range 26.6– 70.6) | 50.5 (range 25.6–70.1) |
| Ovali and Sevin, 201971, 2019 #77 | Prospective comparative cohort (Turkey) | GSV CAC 7.0 (4.23) RFA 7.2 (2.31) |
116 | 128 | C2–C4: 102 C4–C6: 14 | C2–C4: 115 C4–C6: 13 | 49.21 (13.1) | 47.3 (13.75) |
| Yang et al, 201963 | Retrospective chart analysis (Canada) | GSV, SSV, AASV, PV Mean diameter NR | 148 | 317 | C2:39 C3: 28 C4a: 22 C4b: 5 C5: 1 |
C2: 53 C3: 21 C4a: 21 C4b: 3 C5: 1 |
57 (1) | 57 (1) |
| Bademci et al, 201964 | Prospective comparative cohort (Turkey) | GSVc CAC MD 7 (min 5.5, max 9) RFA MD 7.25 (min 5.5, max 9.5) |
75 | 84 | C2: 65.3 C3: 25.3 C4: 9.3d |
C2: 64.3 C3: 23.8 C4: 11.9 |
46.33 (14.4) | 48.09 (13.25) |
Abbreviations: AASV, anterior accessory saphenous vein; CAC, cyanoacrylate adhesive closure; CEAP, Clinical-Etiologic-Anatomic-Pathophysiologic classification; CVI, chronic venous insufficiency; EVLA, endovenous laser ablation; GSV, great saphenous vein; HLS, high ligation and stripping; IQR, interquartile range; MA, meta-analysis; MD, median; NR, not reported; PV, perforator vein; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RFA, radiofrequency ablation; SSV, small saphenous vein; Y, years.
a
Significant difference in the vessels treated, with more SSV treated in EVLA group (P = .003).65
b
C4, 5, 6 combined in statistical analyses.65
c
Isolated GSV insufficiency.64
d
C1,5,6 excluded.64