Take a look at the Recent articles

Cyanoacrylate glue using the VenaSeal™ Closure System for varicose veins may not be the panacea endovenous ablation device-more complications than you think

Keohane C

Lambe Institute for Translational Discipline of Surgery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

E-mail : bhuvaneswari.bibleraaj@uhsm.nhs.uk

Walsh SR

Lambe Institute for Translational Discipline of Surgery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

Tiwari A

Department of Vascular Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK

Davies AH

Academic Department of Vascular Surgery, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK

Tang TY

Department of Vascular Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore

DOI: 10.15761/VDT.1000184

Article
Article Info
Author Info
Figures & Data

Editorial

The last twenty years has seen an explosion in the number of medical devices available for the management of varicose veins. Whereas previously, decision making revolved around whether to operate or not, the question of which procedure is best has become the subject of much competition and debate.

Radiofrequency and endovenous laser ablation (RFA/EVLA) are two of the most popular minimally invasive treatments and having come to the market earlier, they have a well-established safety record and are the current gold standard for comparison. Recent unrivalled 15-year follow-up data using RFA have shown excellent durable long- term technical success [1]. However, there are still significant adverse events and the concerns of skin burns and endovenous heat induced thrombosis (EHIT) (3-5%) [2,3] are unique to these thermal techniques.

Mechanical obstruction and Chemical Ablation (MOCA) avoids the risks of thermal and nerve injuries and obviates the need for tumescent anaesthesia. Use of a single introducer sheath and puncture site, means a single injection of local anaesthetic is sufficient in the majority of cases. However there have been concerns recently of a higher recurrence rate at one year follow-up with this device in different geographical settings [4,5].

Cyanoacrylate glue (CAG) ablation, marketed as VenaSeal (Medtronic Plc, Galway, Ireland), or VariClose™ (Biolas) is also non-thermal non-tumescent in nature, and has been shown to be safe and effective in the short-term [6-9]. Metanalysis has shown greater anatomic recurrence rates at one year compared to MOCA. These results, though not directly compared, are also inferior to RFA and EVLA though superior to foam sclerotherapy [10]. It is important to note however that clinical recurrence does not always match anatomic recurrence [10,11].

Though significant adverse events are no more common in the literature, phlebitis rates from 11.4-20% [12,13] have been reported using the VenaSeal™ device, which are higher than all the other modalities previously described. Of particular note, is a condition which is similar to phlebitis, occurring beyond the treatment zone called the VenaSeal™ Red reaction [9]. It is likely many of these patients display a form of abnormal cutaneous erythema, which is a distinct entity from phlebitis. It has now been widely described, and is an adverse event thought to be a delayed type IV hypersensitivity reaction to the glue itself [14]. This seems to have a predilection along the course of the great saphenous vein (GSV) and in females [15]. Patch testing has been performed suggestive that it may be a allergic contact dermatitis to CAG and that it is a delayed hypersensitivity reaction to the acrylate component of the compound [16]. It is important not to get glue in the access site at all. This has caused some infections and access site issues such as pain and even glue rejection [17]. Allergists and users of the product encourage proceduralists to avoid getting CAG into the subcutaneous space (SC) or near the access site in fear of causing an immune reaction. The SC space has a high number of immune cells and potentially CAG may trigger a hypersensitivity reaction, which may explain the relatively high rate of phlebitis-like reaction following the procedure. It is important to avoid offering this option of venous ablation to patients with multiple drug allergies as hypersensitivity reaction is more likely in these types of patients [18].

The true incidence of phlebitis, and this cyanoacrylate-related reaction is difficult to estimate due to a lack of differentiated reporting of the two entities. More research into the immunology of this reaction is required to understand which patients should and should not be offered this treatment because the phlebitis type reaction can be severe and prolonged requiring treatment with steroids and antihistamines [19].

Another problem patients have encountered followed VenaSeal™ treatment is the pulling of the fibrosed truncal vein when they flex and extend their leg. This is particularly more pronounced when the GSV has a suprafascial component and is nearer the skin surface [11]. From a technical viewpoint, about 10% of patients necessitated the use of a double puncture technique to allow the catheter to be manoeuvred up to the sapheno-femoral junction , mainly due to the tortuosity of the vein in the below knee segment of the GSV and also due to angulation of the vein at the level of the distal thigh, where the vein was suprafascial, before diving acutely into its normal surrounding anatomical fascia. There is a significant number of patients (approximately 30%) who have their GSV come out of its fascial envelope during its course (supra-fascial extension) and traversing up to the skin surface. In our experience with the VenaSeal™ device, a double puncture technique may be essential to successfully navigate the epifascial component of the truncal vein, especially if tortuous and small, as the 5Fr introducing catheter can be rather stiff to manoeuvre up even over a 0.035” wire, unlike the lower profile mechano-chemical ablation ClariVein™ catheter, which may be more flexible to navigate the venous curves [20]. We have also developed a retrograde cannulation technique using this device to counter these small angulated deep seated veins [21].

Embolisation of the glue, and the potential for devastating pulmonary embolism (PE) with no hope of thrombolysis is a legitimate concern despite the manufacturer’s reassurances. Multiple case reports exist of PE, including fatal PE, after cyanoacrylate embolisation in other vascular beds [22,23]. Many of the trials and early feasibility studies quote zero percent deep vein thrombosis (DVT) rate and this has been used as a unique selling point to attempt to gain market share, but this is misleading. From the beginning, Almeida’s first in man study showed thread-like extension into the common femoral vein [8] and while no PE resulted from this, they have been reported in subsequent series [7,11,24,25]. Less common adverse events of any kind require particular vigilance, and the small numbers in early studies showing no DVT means insufficient power to detect rare but potentially devastating complications.

Venaseal therefore is a new technique with a good safety profile in trials, but which has not yet been proven in widespread use. A current RCT is ongoing to compare MOCA against CAG and is designed to determine which method causes less pain and is more efficacious [26].

Proper monitoring of outcomes and especially rare but significant complications needs to begin in earnest, allowing us to determine what the right treatment is for each patient. At the very least, surgeons need to be mindful of the uncertainty that accompanies every device to the market, and rather than trying it and assume that one device fits all, ask what is its role, and what can it do that existing technologies can’t? If neither of these questions has a clear answer then why experiment?

References

  1. Whiteley MS, Shiangoli I, Dos Santos SJ, Dabbs EB, Fernandez-Hart TJ, et al. (2017) Fifteen Year Results of Radiofrequency Ablation, Using VNUS Closure, for the Abolition of Truncal Venous Reflux in Patients with Varicose Veins. European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery. J European Soc Vasc Surg 54: 357-362.
  2. Kane K, Fisher T, Bennett M, Shutze W Jr., Hicks T, et al. (2014) The incidence and outcome of endothermal heat-induced thrombosis after endovenous laser ablation. Ann Vasc Surg 28: 1744-1750.
  3. Sufian S, Arnez A, Labropoulos N, Lakhanpal S (2013) Incidence, progression, and risk factors for endovenous heat-induced thrombosis after radiofrequency ablation. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 1: 159-164.
  4. Mohamed AH, Leung C, Wallace T, Pymer S, Harwood A, et al. (2018) Mechanochemical ablation for the treatment of superficial venous incompetence: A cohort study of a single centre's early experience. Phlebology 34: 466-473
  5. Khor SN, Lei J, Kam JW, Kum S, Tan YK, et al. (2018) ClariVein - One year results of mechano-chemical ablation for varicose veins in a multi-ethnic Asian population from Singapore. Phlebology 33: 687-94.
  6. Eroglu E, Yasim A, Ari M, Ekerbicer H, Kocarslan A, et al. (2017) Mid-term results in the treatment of varicose veins with N-butyl cyanoacrylate. Phlebology 32: 665-669.
  7. Bellam Premnath KP, Joy B, Raghavendra VA, Toms A, Sleeba T (2018) Cyanoacrylate adhesive embolization and sclerotherapy for primary varicose veins. Phlebology 33: 547-557.
  8. Almeida JI, Javier JJ, Mackay EG, Bautista C, Cher DJ, et al. (2015) Two-year follow-up of first human use of cyanoacrylate adhesive for treatment of saphenous vein incompetence. Phlebology 30: 397-404.
  9. Morrison N, Gibson K, McEnroe S, Goldman M, King T, et al. (2015) Randomized trial comparing cyanoacrylate embolization and radiofrequency ablation for incompetent great saphenous veins (VeClose). J Vasc Surg 61: 985-994.
  10. Davies HO, Popplewell M, Darvall K, Bate G, Bradbury AW (2016) A review of randomised controlled trials comparing ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy with endothermal ablation for the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins. Phlebology 31: 234-240.
  11. Tang TY, Rathnaweera HP, Kam JW, Chong TT, Choke EC, et al. (2019) Endovenous cyanoacrylate glue to treat varicose veins and chronic venous insufficiency-Experience gained from our first 100+ truncal venous ablations in a multi-ethnic Asian population using the Medtronic VenaSeal Closure System. Phlebology 34: 543-551.
  12. Proebstle TM, Alm J, Dimitri S, Rasmussen L, Whiteley M, et al. (2015) The European multicenter cohort study on cyanoacrylate embolization of refluxing great saphenous veins. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 3: 2-7.
  13. Gibson K, Ferris B (2017) 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). Vasc 25: 149-156.
  14. Tang TY, Tiwari A (2018) The VenaSeal Abnormal Red Skin Reaction: Looks Like but is not Phlebitis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 55: 841.
  15. Park I (2017) Initial Outcomes of Cyanoacrylate Closure, VenaSeal System, for the Treatment of the Incompetent Great and Small Saphenous Veins. Vasc Endovasc Surg 51: 545-549.
  16. Chua D, Chong TT, Tang TY (2019) Type IV hypersensitivity reaction following Cyanoacrylate Glue Embolization (VenaSealTM) of the Great Saphenous Vein incompetence: A case report. Surg Case Rep 2: 3.
  17. Lew YT, Chong TT, Tang TY (2019) VenasealTM Cyanoacrylate Glue Rejection Following Endovenous Ablation - Another New Complication. Biomed J Sci Tech Res 17: 12993-12994.
  18. Tang T (2018) Endovenous Cyanoacrylate Super-Glue to Treat Varicose Veins: How I Perform VenaSeal Ablation – Tips & Tricks Gained from Ablating Over 300 Truncal Saphenous Veins. Annals Vasc Med Surg.
  19. Nasser H, Ivanics T, Shakaroun D, Lin J (2019) Severe phlebitis-like abnormal reaction following great saphenous vein cyanoacrylate closure. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 7: 578-582.
  20. Chan SS, Tang TY, Chong TT, Choke EC, Tay HT (2019) Retrograde technique for great saphenous vein ablation using the VenaSeal closure system - Ideal approach for deep seated or small below the knee refluxing truncal veins. Phlebology 35: 102-109.
  21. Robaina G, Albertini R, Carranza M, Herrena Najum P (2016) Pulmonary embolism after endoscopic injection with N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate for gastric varices. Medicina 76: 373-375.
  22. Burke MP, O'Donnell C, Baber Y (2017) Death from pulmonary embolism of cyanoacrylate glue following gastric varix endoscopic injection. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 13: 82-85.
  23. Chan YC, Law Y, Cheung GC, Ting AC, Cheng SW (2017) Cyanoacrylate glue used to treat great saphenous reflux: Measures of outcome. Phlebology 32: 99-106.
  24. Yang GK, Parapini M, Gagnon J, Chen JC (2019) Comparison of cyanoacrylate embolization and radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of varicose veins. Phlebology 34: 278-283.
  25. Belramman A, Bootun R, Tang TY, Lane TRA, Davies AH (2018) Mechanochemical ablation versus cyanoacrylate adhesive for the treatment of varicose veins: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 19: 428.
  26. Katsanos K, Spiliopoulos S, Kitrou P, Krokidis M, Karnabatidis D (2018) Risk of Death Following Application of Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons and Stents in the Femoropopliteal Artery of the Leg: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Am Heart Assoc 7: e011245.

Editorial Information

Editor-in-Chief

Article Type

Editorial

Publication history

Received date: June 27, 2020
Accepted date: August 10, 2020
Published date: August 13, 2020

Copyright

©2020 Keohane C. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Citation

Keohane C, Walsh SR, Tiwari A, Davies AH and Tang TY (2020) Cyanoacrylate glue using the VenaSeal™ Closure System for varicose veins may not be the panacea endovenous ablation device-more complications than you think. Vascul Dis Ther, 5: doi: 10.15761/VDT.1000184.

Corresponding author

Tang TY, MD

FRCS, FAMS, Consultant Vascular &Endovascular Surgeon, Associate Professor Duke-NUS Medical School, Department of Vascular Surgery,Singapore General Hospital, Level 5; Academia 20 College Road, 169856, Singapore

E-mail : bhuvaneswari.bibleraaj@uhsm.nhs.uk

No data.