Objective This is the first randomized controlled trial with a 5-year follow-up comparing endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) with high ligation and pin-stripping in patients with great saphenous vein ...(GSV) incompetence. Methods One hundred twenty-one consecutive patients (137 legs) with GSV incompetence were randomized to EVLA (980 nm bare fiber) or high ligation and stripping using tumescent local anesthesia with light sedation. Mini-phlebectomies were performed in all patients. The patients were examined with duplex scanning before treatment and after 12 days, and then after 1, 3, and 6 months, and yearly thereafter for up to 5 years. The primary end point was open refluxing GSV. Secondary end points were recurrent varicose veins, frequency of reoperations, Venous Clinical Severity Score, and quality of life scores (Aberdeen Varicose Vein Symptoms Severity Score and Short Form-36). Results In the EVLA and stripping group, nine (Kaplan-Meier KM estimate, 17.9%) and four (KM estimate, 10.1%) of GSVs had open refluxing segments of 5 cm or more (ns). Clinical recurrence was recorded in 24 (KM estimate, 46.6%) and 25 (KM estimate, 54.6%), whereas reoperations were performed in 17 (KM estimate, 38.6%) and 15 (KM estimate, 37.7%) legs (ns). Venous Clinical Severity Score and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Symptoms Severity Score improved whereas Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 quality of life score improved in several domains in both groups with no difference between the groups. Conclusions Five-year follow-up of our randomized controlled trial comparing EVLA with open surgery in patients with GSV incompetence did not show any significant difference between the two groups in primary or secondary end points, perhaps because of the small sample size. EVLA seems to be a valid alternative to open surgery.
Background Endovenous laser (EVL) ablation of the great saphenous vein (GSV) is thought to minimize postoperative morbidity and reduce work loss compared with high ligation and stripping (HL/S). ...However, the procedures have not previously been compared in a randomized trial with parallel groups where both treatments were performed in tumescent anesthesia on an out-patient basis. Methods Patients with varicose veins due to GSV insufficiency were randomized to either EVL (980 nm) or HL/S in tumescent anesthesia. Miniphlebectomies were also performed. Patients were examined preoperatively and at 12 days, and 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Sick leave, time to normal physical activity, pain score, use of analgesics, Aberdeen score, Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 quality-of-life score, Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), and complication rates were investigated. The total cost of the procedures, including lost wages and equipment, was calculated. Cost calculations were based on the standard fee for HL/S with the addition of laser equipment and the standard salary and productivity level in Denmark. Results A follow-up of 6 months was achieved in 121 patients (137 legs). The groups were well matched for patient and GSV characteristics. Two HL/S procedures failed, and three GSVs recanalized in the EVL group. The groups experienced similar improvement in quality-of-life scores and VCSS score at 3 months. Only one patient in the HL/S group had a major complication, a wound infection that was treated successfully with antibiotics. The HL/S and EVL groups did not differ in mean time to resume normal physical activity (7.7 vs 6.9 calendar days) and work (7.6 vs 7.0 calendar days). Postoperative pain and bruising was higher in the HL/S group, but no difference in the use of analgesics was recorded. The total cost of the procedures, including lost wages, was €3084 ($3948 US) in the HL/S and €3396 ($4347 US) in the EVL group. Conclusions This study suggests that the short-term efficacy and safety of EVL and HL/S are similar. Except for slightly increased postoperative pain and bruising in the HL/S group, no differences were found between the two treatment modalities. The treatments were equally safe and efficient in eliminating GSV reflux, alleviating symptoms and signs of GSV varicosities, and improving quality of life. Long-term outcomes, particularly with respect to recurrence rates, shall be investigated in future studies, including the continuation of the present.
Introduction This study compares the outcome 3 years after treatment of varicose veins by endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation, ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), or ...surgery by assessing recurrence, Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), and quality of life (QOL). Methods A total of 500 patients (580 legs) were randomized to one of the three endovenous treatments or high ligation and stripping of the great saphenous vein (GSV). Follow-up included clinical and duplex ultrasound examinations and VCSS and QOL questionnaires. Kaplan-Meier (KM) life-table analysis was used. P values below .05 were considered statistically significant. Results At 3 years, eight (KM estimate, 7%), eight (KM estimate, 6.8%), 31 (KM estimate, 26.4%), and eight (KM estimate, 6.5%) of GSVs recanalized or had a failed stripping procedure (more than 10 cm open refluxing part of the treated GSV; CLF, EVLA, UGFS, and stripping, respectively; P < .01). Seventeen (KM estimate, 14.9%), 24 (KM estimate, 20%), 20 (KM estimate, 19.1%), and 22 (KM estimate, 20.2%) legs developed recurrent varicose veins ( P = NS). The patterns of reflux and location of recurrent varicose veins were not different between the groups. Within 3 years after treatment, 12 (KM estimate, 11.1%), 14 (KM estimate, 12.5%), 37 (KM estimate, 31.6%), and 18 (KM estimate, 15.5%) legs were retreated in the CLF, EVLA, UGFS, and stripping groups, respectively ( P < .01). VCSS, SF-36, and Aberdeen QOL scores improved significantly in all the groups with no difference between the groups. Conclusions All treatment modalities were efficacious and resulted in a similar improvement in VCSS and QOL. However, more recanalization and reoperations were seen after UGFS.
This study will compare the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) among men with advanced prostate cancer who are being treated with a ...gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist versus a GnRH agonist.
Treatment of advanced prostate cancer with ADT might increase the risk of subsequent cardiovascular events among men with known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but a recent meta-analysis suggested that this risk might be lower with ADT using a GnRH antagonist versus a GnRH agonist.
PRONOUNCE is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint trial that will enroll approximately 900 patients with advanced prostate cancer and pre-existing ASCVD who will be treated with ADT. Participants will be randomized to receive the GnRH antagonist degarelix or the GnRH agonist leuprolide as ADT for 12 months. The primary endpoint is time from randomization to first confirmed, adjudicated occurrence of a MACE, which is defined as a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke through 12 months of ADT treatment. Baseline cardiovascular biomarkers (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, high-sensitivity troponin T, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide), as well as serial inflammatory and immune biomarkers, will be evaluated in exploratory analyses.
As of October 1, 2019, a total of 364 patients have been enrolled. The mean age is 74 years, 90% are white, 80% have hypertension or dyslipidemia, 30% diabetes mellitus, 40% have had a previous myocardial infarction, and 65% have had previous revascularization. Regarding prostate cancer features at randomization, 48% of the patients had localized disease, 23% had locally advanced disease, and 18% had metastatic disease.
PRONOUNCE is the first prospective cardiovascular outcomes trial in advanced prostate cancer that will delineate whether the risk of subsequent cardiovascular events associated with ADT is lower with a GnRH antagonist versus a GnRH agonist for men with pre-existing ASCVD. (A Trial Comparing Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix Versus Leuprolide in Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease PRONOUNCE; NCT02663908)
Display omitted
PDF
