Dataset Information

Long-term Clinical and Cost-effectiveness of Early Endovenous Ablation in Venous Ulceration: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

One-year outcomes from the Early Venous Reflux Ablation (EVRA) randomized trial showed accelerated venous leg ulcer healing and greater ulcer-free time for participants who are treated with early endovenous ablation of lower extremity superficial reflux.

Objective

To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of early endovenous ablation of superficial venous reflux in patients with venous leg ulceration.

Design, setting, and participants

Between October 24, 2013, and September 27, 2016, the EVRA randomized clinical trial enrolled 450 participants (450 legs) with venous leg ulceration of less than 6 months' duration and superficial venous reflux. Initially, 6555 patients were assessed for eligibility, and 6105 were excluded for reasons including ulcer duration greater than 6 months, healed ulcer by the time of randomization, deep venous occlusive disease, and insufficient superficial venous reflux to warrant ablation therapy, among others. A total of 426 of 450 participants (94.7%) from the vascular surgery departments of 20 hospitals in the United Kingdom were included in the analysis for ulcer recurrence. Surgeons, participants, and follow-up assessors were not blinded to the treatment group. Data were analyzed from August 11 to November 4, 2019.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned to receive compression therapy with early endovenous ablation within 2 weeks of randomization (early intervention, n = 224) or compression with deferred endovenous treatment of superficial venous reflux (deferred intervention, n = 226). Endovenous modality and strategy were left to the preference of the treating clinical team.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome for the extended phase was time to first ulcer recurrence. Secondary outcomes included ulcer recurrence rate and cost-effectiveness.

Results

The early-intervention group consisted of 224 participants (mean [SD] age, 67.0 [15.5] years; 127 men [56.7%]; 206 White participants [92%]). The deferred-intervention group consisted of 226 participants (mean [SD] age, 68.9 [14.0] years; 120 men [53.1%]; 208 White participants [92%]). Of the 426 participants whose leg ulcer had healed, 121 (28.4%) experienced at least 1 recurrence during follow-up. There was no clear difference in time to first ulcer recurrence between the 2 groups (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.57-1.17; P = .28). Ulcers recurred at a lower rate of 0.11 per person-year in the early-intervention group compared with 0.16 per person-year in the deferred-intervention group (incidence rate ratio, 0.658; 95% CI, 0.480-0.898; P = .003). Time to ulcer healing was shorter in the early-intervention group for primary ulcers (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.12-1.64; P = .002). At 3 years, early intervention was 91.6% likely to be cost-effective at a willingness to pay of £20 000 ($26 283) per quality-adjusted life year and 90.8% likely at a threshold of £35 000 ($45 995) per quality-adjusted life year.

Conclusions and relevance

Early endovenous ablation of superficial venous reflux was highly likely to be cost-effective over a 3-year horizon compared with deferred intervention. Early intervention accelerated the healing of venous leg ulcers and reduced the overall incidence of ulcer recurrence.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ISRCTN02335796.

SUBMITTER: Gohel MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7512122 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveFew studies have investigated outcomes after truncal endovenous ablation in patients with combined deep and superficial reflux and no studies have evaluated patient-reported outcomes.MethodsWe investigated the short- and long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes among patients with and without deep venous reflux undergoing truncal endovenous ablation from 2015 to 2019 in the Vascular Quality Initiative. Preprocedural and postprocedural comparisons were performed using the t-test, χ2, or their nonparametric counterpart when appropriate. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess for confounding.ResultsA total of 4881 patients were included, of which 2254 (46.2%) had combined deep and superficial reflux. The median follow-up was 336.5 days. Patients with deep reflux were less likely to be female (65.9% vs 69.9%; P = .003), more likely to be Caucasian (90.2% vs 86.5%; P = .003) and had no difference in BMI (30.6 ± 7.5 vs 30.6 ± 7.2; P = .904). Additionally, no difference was seen in rates of prior varicose vein treatments, number of pregnancies, or history of deep venous thrombosis; however, patients without deep reflux were more likely to be on anticoagulation at the time of the procedure (10.9% vs 8.1%; P < .001). Patients without deep reflux had slightly higher median preprocedural Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) scores (8 [interquartile range (IQR), 6-10]) vs 7 [IQR, 6-10]; P = .005) as well as postprocedural VCSS scores (5 [IQR, 3-7] vs 4 [IQR, 2-6]; P < .001). The median change in VCSS from before to after the procedure was lower for patients without deep reflux (3 [IQR, 1.0-5.5] vs 3.5 [IQR, 1-6]; P = .006). Total symptom score was higher for patients without deep reflux both before (median, 14 [IQR, 10-19] vs median, 13.5 [IQR, 9.5-18]; P = .005) and postprocedurally (median, 4 [IQR, 1-9] vs median, 3.25 [IQR, 1-7]; P < .001), but no difference was seen in change in symptom score (median, 8 [IQR, 4-13] vs median, 9 [IQR, 4-13]; P = .172). Patients with deep reflux had substantially higher rates of complications (10.4% vs 3.0%; P < .001), with a particular increase in proximal thrombus extension (3.1% vs 1.1%; P < .001). After controlling for confounding, this estimate of effect size for any complication increased (odds ratio, 5.72; 95% confidence interval, 2.21-14.81; P < .001).ConclusionsNo significant difference is seen in total symptom improvement when patients undergo truncal endovenous ablation with concomitant deep venous reflux, although a greater improvement was seen in VCSS score in these patients. Patients with deep venous reflux had a significantly increased rate of complications, independent of confounding variables, and should be counseled appropriately before the decision for treatment.

Project description:BackgroundEndovenous thermal techniques, such as endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), are the recommended treatment for truncal varicose veins. However, a disadvantage of thermal techniques is that it requires the administration of tumescent anaesthesia, which can be uncomfortable. Non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques, such as mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) have potential benefits. MOCA combines physical damage to endothelium using a rotating wire, with the infusion of a liquid sclerosant. Preliminary experiences with MOCA showed good results and less post-procedural pain.Methods/designThe Laser Ablation versus Mechanochemical Ablation (LAMA) trial is a single-centre randomised controlled trial in which 140 patients will be randomly allocated to EVLA or MOCA. All patients with primary truncal superficial venous insufficiency (SVI) who meet the eligibility criteria will be invited to participate in this trial. The primary outcomes are intra-procedural pain and technical efficacy at 1 year, defined as complete occlusion of target vein segment and assessed using duplex ultrasound. Secondary outcomes are post-procedural pain, analgesia use, procedure time, clinical severity, generic and disease-specific quality of life, bruising, complications, satisfaction, cosmesis, time taken to return to daily activities and/or work, and cost-effectiveness analysis following EVLA or MOCA. Both groups will be evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis.DiscussionThe aim of the LAMA trial is to establish whether MOCA is superior to the current first-line treatment, EVLA. The two main hypotheses are that MOCA may cause less initial pain and disability allowing a more acceptable treatment with an enhanced recovery. The second hypothesis is that this may come at a cost of decreased efficacy, which may lead to increased recurrence and affect longer term quality of life, increasing the requirement for secondary procedures.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02627846 , registered 8 December 2015 EudraCT number: 2015-000730-30 REC ref: 15/YH/0207 R&D ref: R1788.

Project description:BackgroundThe prevalence of obesity has increased in the United Kingdom, and reliably measuring the impact on quality of life and the total healthcare cost from obesity is key to informing the cost-effectiveness of interventions that target obesity, and determining healthcare funding. Current methods for estimating cost-effectiveness of interventions for obesity may be subject to confounding and reverse causation. The aim of this study is to apply a new approach using mendelian randomisation for estimating the cost-effectiveness of interventions that target body mass index (BMI), which may be less affected by confounding and reverse causation than previous approaches.Methods and findingsWe estimated health-related quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and both primary and secondary healthcare costs for 310,913 men and women of white British ancestry aged between 39 and 72 years in UK Biobank between recruitment (2006 to 2010) and 31 March 2017. We then estimated the causal effect of differences in BMI on QALYs and total healthcare costs using mendelian randomisation. For this, we used instrumental variable regression with a polygenic risk score (PRS) for BMI, derived using a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of BMI, with age, sex, recruitment centre, and 40 genetic principal components as covariables to estimate the effect of a unit increase in BMI on QALYs and total healthcare costs. Finally, we used simulations to estimate the likely effect on BMI of policy relevant interventions for BMI, then used the mendelian randomisation estimates to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. A unit increase in BMI decreased QALYs by 0.65% of a QALY (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49% to 0.81%) per year and increased annual total healthcare costs by £42.23 (95% CI: £32.95 to £51.51) per person. When considering only health conditions usually considered in previous cost-effectiveness modelling studies (cancer, cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes), we estimated that a unit increase in BMI decreased QALYs by only 0.16% of a QALY (95% CI: 0.10% to 0.22%) per year. We estimated that both laparoscopic bariatric surgery among individuals with BMI greater than 35 kg/m2, and restricting volume promotions for high fat, salt, and sugar products, would increase QALYs and decrease total healthcare costs, with net monetary benefits (at £20,000 per QALY) of £13,936 (95% CI: £8,112 to £20,658) per person over 20 years, and £546 million (95% CI: £435 million to £671 million) in total per year, respectively. The main limitations of this approach are that mendelian randomisation relies on assumptions that cannot be proven, including the absence of directional pleiotropy, and that genotypes are independent of confounders.ConclusionsMendelian randomisation can be used to estimate the impact of interventions on quality of life and healthcare costs. We observed that the effect of increasing BMI on health-related quality of life is much larger when accounting for 240 chronic health conditions, compared with only a limited selection. This means that previous cost-effectiveness studies have likely underestimated the effect of BMI on quality of life and, therefore, the potential cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce BMI.