Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT07561320

Mechanochemical Ablation Versus Ultrasound-Guided Foam Sclerotherapy of the Great Saphenous Vein

This study compares two minimally invasive treatments for varicose veins in the legs, specifically the great saphenous vein.

Varicose veins can cause symptoms such as leg pain, swelling, and skin changes. One commonly used treatment is foam sclerotherapy, where a special foam is injected into the vein to close it. This method is simple and allows patients to return quickly to their daily activities, but sometimes the vein can reopen, requiring additional treatments.

Another option is mechanochemical ablation, which combines a small device with a medication to close the vein. This method also allows for quick recovery and may have a lower chance of the vein reopening.

In this study, 50 patients with varicose veins will be randomly assigned to receive one of these two treatments. Doctors will follow patients over time to evaluate:

How well the treated vein stays closed Improvement in quality of life Pain during the procedure Possible complications All procedures are performed with local anesthesia, and additional small varicose veins are treated at the same time.

Recruiting

Interested in participating?

Request Info

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Phase 4

Primary location

Hospital da Clínicas da FMUSP

São Paulo, Brazil

Location status: Recruiting

Location contact

Antonio Zerati, PhD

PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Victor Minari Campos, MD

CONTACT

[email protected]

+5511997596010

About this study

Introduction:

Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy is a widely used method for the treatment of lower limb varicose veins. Its main advantages include applicability in patients at high surgical risk and immediate or early return to daily activities. However, it requires a higher number of reinterventions compared to other techniques due to increased rates of venous recanalization, particularly in larger-caliber veins. In contrast, mechanochemical ablation shares these advantages and is associated with lower recanalization rates.

Objective:

To compare ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy of the great saphenous vein (GSV) with mechanochemical ablation using the Flebogrif® catheter in the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) associated with GSV disease. The primary endpoints will be quality of life assessment and GSV occlusion rate, as determined by lower limb venous color Doppler ultrasonography over the proposed follow-up period. Secondary endpoints include the incidence of treatment-related complications and pain level during the procedure.

Patients and Methods:

A total of 50 patients with primary varicose veins will be selected. Inclusion criteria include lower limb pain, edema, or skin changes such as hyperpigmentation, eczema, and lipodermatosclerosis (CEAP classification C2-C4, EpAsPr), as well as GSV insufficiency with a diameter between 6 and 12 mm measured at the mid-thigh using color Doppler ultrasonography. Clinical evaluations and ultrasound examinations will be conducted at the venous disease outpatient clinic, and procedures will be performed in the minor surgery operating room of the University of São Paulo Hospital.

This will be a prospective randomized study, with patients allocated into two groups according to the treatment technique.

Group 1: Percutaneous puncture and ultrasound-guided injection of sclerosant foam through a short 18G catheter.

Group 2: Use of the Flebogrif® catheter, positioned under ultrasound guidance 2 cm from the saphenofemoral junction, followed by catheter withdrawal combined with sclerosant foam injection.

In both groups, 20 mL of 0.9% saline solution will be infused prior to polidocanol administration. The GSV puncture site will depend on the extent of insufficiency (segmental or total), being performed at the knee or medial malleolar region, respectively, after local anesthesia with 2% lidocaine without vasoconstrictor and without infiltration along the venous course.

For knee-level puncture, a tourniquet will be applied distal to the access site and maintained for 5 minutes after foam injection to prevent dispersion into healthy venous segments.

In all patients, varicose tributaries will be treated immediately after the GSV procedure using 1% polidocanol sclerotherapy.

Expected Results:

Mechanochemical ablation is expected to demonstrate a higher target vein occlusion rate with lower recanalization rates, without increased procedural pain and with at least a comparable complication rate to ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy. This study aims to contribute to the refinement of treatment strategies, seeking greater efficacy with monotherapy.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • CEAP Classification C2, 3 or 4
  • Insufficient great saphenous vein measuring 6-12 mm in the mid-thigh on Doppler ultrasound.

Exclusion criteria

  • Allergy to sclerosing substances
  • Deep venous thrombosis, stroke, or pulmonary embolism
  • Local or generalized infection at the sclerotherapy site
  • Prolonged immobilization
  • Asymptomatic patent foramen ovale
  • Pregnancy Occlusive peripheral arterial disease

Treatment and study plan

Flebogrif

Device

Mechanical-chemical ablation is a technique for treating varicose veins that combines mechanical damage to the venous endothelium with chemical damage using polidocanol foam.

Polidocanol foam sclerotherapy

Drug

Polidocanol foam is a drug infused into varicose veins, causing chemical damage to the endothelium.

Primary outcomes

  1. Quality Of Life Score: Brazilian Version Adapted from the Aberdeen Varicose Veins Questionnaire

    Time frame: From enrollment to the end of treatment at 365 days after procedure

    Brazilian Version Adapted from the Aberdeen Varicose Veins Questionnaire will be used. Score from 0 to 100, where 0 is the best and 100 is the worst quality of life related to varicose veins.

  2. Disease Severity Score: Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS)

    Time frame: From enrollment to the end of treatment at 365 days after procedure

    Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) will be used. Score from 0 to 30, where 0 means asymptomatic patient and 30 means more symptomatic patient as possible.

  3. Ultrasound Assessment: Classification of the Second European Consensus Meeting on Foam Sclerotherapy Held in Tegernsee, Germany in 2006

    Time frame: From enrollment to the end of treatment at 365 days after procedure

    Classification of the Second European Consensus Meeting on Foam Sclerotherapy Held in Tegernsee, Germany in 2006, will be used. Classification where 0 means reflux greater than 1 second, 1 means reflux less than 1 second, and 2 means no reflux.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Treatment complications

    Time frame: One to 365 after procedure

    Deep vein thrombosis, thrombophlebitis, visual disturbances, skin irritation and skin hyperpigmentation.

  2. Pain Level During Procedure: Visual Analog Pain Scale

    Time frame: Pain level during the procedure

    Visual Analog Pain Scale will be used. Scale where 0 means no pain and 10 means maximum pain during procedure.

Study contacts

Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.

Antonio Zerati, PhD

CONTACT

[email protected]

+5511996354925

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Antonio Eduardo Zerati

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Mechanochemical Ablation Versus Ultrasound-Guided Foam Sclerotherapy of the Great Saphenous Vein: Randomized Clinical Trial

Important dates

Study start
2026
Primary completion
2027
Study completion
2027
First posted
May 1, 2026
Registry last updated
May 1, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.