DOI: 10.25881/BPNMSC.2019.86.13.022

Авторы

Маркин C.М.1, Мазайшвили К.В.2, Агаларов Р.М.2, Мордовин А.И.1, Гицук Я.В.1, Манджикян О.П.3, Густелев Ю.А.2

1 ФГБУЗ Санкт-Петербургская клиническая больница РАН, Санкт-Петербург

2 БУ ВО «Сургутский государственный университет», Сургут
Флебологический центр «Антирефлюкс», Сургут

3 ГБУЗ ГКБ им. А.К. Ерамишанцева ДЗМ, Москва

Аннотация

Цель исследования-выяснить, на каких этапах жизненного цикла медицинских инноваций, согласно модели Маккинли, находятся методы механохимической (МОКа) и цианакрилатной облитерации (САО) и ответить на вопрос: не пора ли большинству флебологов начать использовать их в своей практике? Обзор литературы с использованием базы данных PubMed проводился в том числе с января 2010 года по декабрь 2018 года. Критерием включения была возможность отнести публикацию к любому этапу жизненного цикла. Каждая статья была связана только с одним этапом. Из нашего исследования были исключены экспериментальные исследования на животных, оценивающие безопасность методов, а также статьи, имеющие характер рандомизированных клинических исследований. Исследование включало 93 публикации, 48 из которых были посвящены механохимической абляции, 57-цианоакрилатной облитерации. Распределение статей, описывающих этапы жизненного цикла: Первый этап включал 3 исследования MOCA и 2 исследования CAO; второй этап-14 докладов о механохимической облитерации и 12 публикаций о цианоакрилатной облитерации; третий этап-7 и 14 публикаций соответственно; четвертый этап — 21 для МОКа и 24 для ЦАО; Пятый этап — 3 статьи о МОКа и 5 статей о ЦАО. Никаких публикаций, связанных с шестым и седьмым этапами, не было. Большое количество публикаций, посвященных облитерации цианакрилата, связано с использованием в практике трех видов клея: Вариклозного, Венаблокового и Веназеального. Катетер с режущей кромкой (система Flebogrif) как вариация механохимической облитерации не был представлен в базе данных PubMed, поэтому мы не включили его в наше исследование. Таким образом, нетепловые нетумесцентные методы получили общественное признание и одобрение, а также приобретают черты стандартной процедуры лечения варикозного расширения вен.

Ключевые слова: механохимическая облитерация, цианакрилатная облитерация, нетермальные методы, нетумесцентные методы.

Список литературы

1. Mckinlay JB. From “Promising Report” to “Standard Procedure”: Seven Stages in the Career of a Medical Innovation. Source Milbank Meml Fund Q Heal Soc. 1981; 59:374–411. doi:10.2307.

2. Elias S, Raines JK. Mechanochemical tumescentless endovenous ablation: final results of the initial clinical trial. Phlebology. 2012;27(2):67-72. doi:10.1258/ phleb.2011.010100

3. van Eekeren RRJP, Boersma D, de Vries JPPM, Reijnen MMPJ. [Endovenous mechanochemical ablation for varicose veins--a new endovenous technique without tumescent anaesthesia]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2011;155(33):A3177.

4. Eekeren RRJP van, Boersma D, Elias S, et al. Endovenous Mechanochemical Ablation of Great Saphenous Vein Incompetence Using the ClariVein Device: A Safety Study. 2011;18(3):328-334. doi:10.1583/11-3394.1

5. Almeida JI, Javier JJ, Mackay E, et al. First human use of cyanoacrylate adhesive for treatment of saphenous vein incompetence. 2013. doi:10.1016/j.jvsv.2012.09.010

6. Proebstle TM, Alm J, Rasmussen L, et al. The European Multicenter Study on Cyanoacrylate Embolization of Refluxing Great Saphenous Veins without Tumescent Anesthesia and without Compression Therapy. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2013;1(1):101. doi:10.1016/j.jvsv.2012.10.010

7. Bishawi M, Bernstein R, Boter M, et al. Mechanochemical ablation in patients with chronic venous disease: A prospective multicenter report. Phlebology. 2014. doi:10.1177/0268355513495830

8. Van Eekeren RRJP, Boersma D, Holewijn S, et al. Mechanochemical endovenous ablation for the treatment of great saphenous vein insufficiency. J Vasc Surg. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.jvsv.2014.01.001

9. Boersma D, van Eekeren RRJP, Werson DAB, et al. Mechanochemical Endovenous Ablation of Small Saphenous Vein Insufficiency Using the ClariVein® Device: One-year Results of a Prospective Series. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013;45(3): 299-303. doi:10.1016/J.EJVS.2012.12.004

10. Witte ME, Holewijn S, Eekeren RR van, et al. Midterm Outcome of Mechanochemical Endovenous Ablation for the Treatment of Great Saphenous Vein Insufficiency. 2016;24(1):149-155. doi:10.1177/1526602816674455

11. Elias S, Lam YL, Wittens CHA. Mechanochemical ablation: status and results. 2013;28(1_suppl):10-14. doi:10.1177/0268355513477787

12. van Eekeren RRJP, Boersma D, Konijn V,et al. Postoperative pain and early quality of life after radiofrequency ablation and mechanochemical endovenous ablation of incompetent great saphenous veins. J Vasc Surg. 2013;57(2):445-450. doi:10.1016/J.JVS.2012.07.049

13. Sadek M, Kabnick LS. Are Non-Tumescent Ablation Procedures Ready to Take Over? Phlebol J Venous Dis. 2014;29(1_suppl):55-60. doi:10.1177/0268355514526681

14. Vun S V, Rashid ST, Blest NC, et al. Lower pain and faster treatment with mechanico-chemical endovenous ablation using ClariVein. Phlebology. 2015;30(10): 688-692. doi:10.1177/0268355514553693

15. Tok M, Tüydeş O, Yüksel A, et al. Early-Term Outcomes for Treatment of Saphenous Vein Insufficiency with N-Butyl Cyanoacrylate: A Novel, Non-Thermal, and Non-Tumescent Percutaneous Embolization Technique. Heart Surg Forum. 2016;19(3):E118-22.

16. Eroglu E, Yasim A, Ari M, et al. Mid-term results in the treatment of varicose veins with N-butyl cyanoacrylate. Phlebology. 2017; Dec;32(10):665-669. doi:10.1177/ 0268355517718761

17. Almeida JI, Javier JJ, Mackay EG, et al. Two-year follow-up of first human use of cyanoacrylate adhesive for treatment of saphenous vein incompetence. Phlebology. 2015;Jul;30(6):397-404. doi:10.1177/0268355514532455

18. Proebstle TM, Alm J, Dimitri S, et al. The European multicenter cohort study on cyanoacrylate embolization of refluxing great saphenous veins. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2015;3(1):2-7. doi:10.1016/j.jvsv.2014.09.001

19. Park I. Initial Outcomes of Cyanoacrylate Closure, VenaSeal System, for the Treatment of the Incompetent Great and Small Saphenous Veins. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2017;51(8):545-549. doi:10.1177/1538574417729272

20. Sun JJ, Chowdhury MM, Sadat U, et al. Mechanochemical Ablation for Treatment of Truncal Venous Insufficiency: A Review of the Current Literature. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017;28(10):1422-1431. doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2017.07.002

21. Kugler NW, Brown KR. An update on the currently available nonthermal ablative options in the management of superficial venous disease. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2017;5(3):422-429. doi:10.1016/J.JVSV.2017.01.014

22. Sullivan LP, Quach G, Chapman T. Retrograde mechanico-chemical endovenous ablation of infrageniculate great saphenous vein for persistent venous stasis ulcers. Phlebol J Venous Dis. 2014;29(10):654-657. doi:10.1177/0268355513501301

23. Moore HM, Lane TR, Franklin IJ, et al. Retrograde mechanochemical ablation of the small saphenous vein for the treatment of a venous ulcer. Vascular. 2014;22(5): 375-377. doi:10.1177/1708538113516320

24. Toonder IM, Lam YL, Lawson J, et al. Cyanoacrylate adhesive perforator embolization (CAPE) of incompetent perforating veins of the leg, a feasibility study. Phlebology. 2014;May;29(1 suppl):49-54. doi:10.1177/0268355514529696

25. Prasad BP K, Joy B, Toms A, et al. Treatment of incompetent perforators in recurrent venous insufficiency with adhesive embolization and sclerotherapy. Phlebol J Venous Dis. 2018;33(4):242-250. doi:10.1177/0268355517696612

26. Gibson K, Ferris B. Cyanoacrylate closure of incompetent great, small and accessory saphenous veins without the use of post-procedure compression: Initial outcomes of a post-market evaluation of the VenaSeal System (the WAVES Study). Vascular. 2016. doi:10.1177/1708538116651014

27. Park I. Successful use of VenaSeal system for the treatment of large great saphenous vein of 2.84-cm diameter. doi:10.4174/astr.2018.94.4.219

28. Bellam Premnath KP, Joy B, Raghavendra VA, Toms A, et al. Cyanoacrylate adhesive embolization and sclerotherapy for primary varicose veins. Phlebol J Venous Dis. 2018;33(8):547-557. doi:10.1177/0268355517733339

29. Koramaz İ, El Kılıç H, Gökalp F, et al. Ablation of the great saphenous vein with nontumescent n-butyl cyanoacrylate versus endovenous laser therapy. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.jvsv.2016.09.007

30. Kolluri R, Gibson K, Cher D, et al. Roll-in phase analysis of clinical study of cyanoacrylate closure for incompetent great saphenous veins. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.jvsv.2016.06.017

31. Boersma D, Kornmann VNN, Eekeren RRJP van, et al. Treatment Modalities for Small Saphenous Vein Insufficiency: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. 2015;23(1):199-211. doi:10.1177/1526602815616375

32. Witte ME, Zeebregts CJ, de Borst GJ, et al. Reply to: Letter to Editor re: “Mechanochemical endovenous ablation of saphenous veins using the ClariVein: A systematic review” – MOCA data reporting needs to be tighter and standardized! Phlebol J Venous Dis. 2017;32(10):682-683. doi:10.1177/0268355517734953

33. Kiguchi MM, Dillavou ED. Thermal and Nonthermal Endovenous Ablation Options for Treatment of Superficial Venous Insufficiency. Surg Clin North Am. 2018;98(2):385-400. doi:10.1016/j.suc.2017.11.014

34. Bozkurt AK, Yılmaz MF. A prospective comparison of a new cyanoacrylate glue and laser ablation for the treatment of venous insufficiency. Phlebol J Venous Dis. 2016;31(1_suppl):106-113. doi:10.1177/0268355516632652

35. Chan YC, Law Y, Cheung GC, et al. Cyanoacrylate glue used to treat great saphenous reflux: Measures of outcome. Phlebol J Venous Dis. 2017;32(2):99-106. doi:10.1177/0268355516638200

36. Almeida JI, Javier JJ, Mackay EG, et al. Thirty-sixth-month follow-up
of first-in-human use of cyanoacrylate adhesive for treatment of saphenous vein incompetence. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2017; Sep;5(5):658-666.doi:10.1016/j.jvsv.2017.03.016

37. Kendler M, Averbeck M, Simon JC, et al. Histology of saphenous veins after treatment with the ClariVein® device - an ex-vivo experiment. JDDG J der Dtsch Dermatologischen Gesellschaft. 2013. doi:10.1111/ddg.12022

38. van Eekeren RRJP, Hillebrands JL, van der Sloot K, et al. Histological observations one year after mechanochemical endovenous ablation of the great saphenous vein. J Endovasc Ther. 2014;21(3):429-433.

39. Tal MG, Dos Santos SJ, Marano JP, et al. Histologic findings after mechanochemical ablation in a caprine model with use of ClariVein. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2015;3(1):81-85. doi:10.1016/J.JVSV.2014.07.002

40. Kendler M, Kratzsch J, Schmidt R, et al. Serum endothelin 1 levels before, during and after mechanochemical endovenous ablation with foam and surgical correction of incompetent great saphenous veins. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol. 2016;30(3):546-547. doi:10.1111/jdv.12944

41. Shaidakov E V, Mel’tsova AZ, Porembskaia OI, et al. [Experience with using cyanoacrylate glue in endovascular treatment of varicose veins]. Angiologia i Sosudistaya Khirurgia. 2017;23(4):62-67.

42. Epstein D, Onida S, Bootun R, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Current and Emerging Treatments of Varicose Veins. Value Heal. 2018;21(8):911-920. doi:10.1016/ J.JVAL.2018.01.012

43. Bootun R, Lane T, Dharmarajah B, et al. Intra-procedural pain score in a randomised controlled trial comparing mechanochemical ablation to radiofrequency ablation: The Multicentre VenefitTM versus ClariVein® for varicose veins trial. 2014;31(1):61-65. doi:10.1177/0268355514551085

44. Lane T, Bootun R, Dharmarajah B, et al. A multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing radiofrequency and mechanical occlusion chemically assisted ablation of varicose veins – Final results of the Venefit versus Clarivein for varicose veins trial. 2016;32(2):89-98. doi:10.1177/0268355516651026

45. Lam Y, Toonder IM, Wittens CH. Clarivein mechano-chemical ablation an interim analysis of a randomized controlled trial dose-finding study. 2015;31(3):170-176. doi:10.1177/0268355515599692

46. Eekeren RR van, Boersma D, Holewijn S, et al. Mechanochemical endovenous Ablation versus RADiOfrequeNcy Ablation in the treatment of primary great saphenous vein incompetence (MARADONA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2014 151. 2014;15(1):121. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-121

47. Boersma D, Eekeren RR van, Kelder HJ, et al. Mechanochemical endovenous ablation versus radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of primary small saphenous vein insufficiency (MESSI trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2014 151. 2014;15(1):421. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-421

48. Leung CCM, Carradice D, Wallace T, et al. Endovenous laser ablation versus mechanochemical ablation with ClariVein ® in the management of superficial venous insufficiency (LAMA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2016 171. 2016;17(1):421. doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1548-1

49. Morrison N, Gibson K, McEnroe S, et al. Randomized trial comparing cyanoacrylate embolization and radiofrequency ablation for incompetent great saphenous veins (VeClose). In: Journal of Vascular Surgery. ; 2015. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2014.11.071

50. Morrison N, Gibson K, Vasquez M, et al. VeClose trial 12-month outcomes of cyanoacrylate closure versus radiofrequency ablation for incompetent great saphenous veins. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2017;5(3):321-330. doi:10.1016/j.jvsv.2016.12.005