Mechanochemical ablation versus ultrasound-guided polidocanol foam sclerotherapy for great saphenous vein varicose veins

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

Phase 4 Interventional University of Sao Paulo · NCT07561320

This compares mechanochemical ablation and ultrasound-guided polidocanol foam sclerotherapy to see which better closes the great saphenous vein and improves symptoms in adults with symptomatic varicose veins.

Quick facts

PhasePhase 4
Study typeInterventional
Enrollment50 (estimated)
Ages18 Years and up
SexAll
SponsorUniversity of Sao Paulo Academic / other
Locations1 site (São Paulo, São Paulo)
Trial IDNCT07561320 on ClinicalTrials.gov

What this trial studies

Fifty patients with symptomatic varicose veins (CEAP C2–C4) and an insufficient great saphenous vein 6–12 mm in diameter will be randomized to either mechanochemical ablation using the Flebogrif® catheter or ultrasound-guided polidocanol foam sclerotherapy. Procedures are performed under ultrasound guidance and patients are followed with clinical exams and Doppler ultrasonography to document vein occlusion over the follow-up period. Primary endpoints are GSV occlusion rate on duplex ultrasound and disease-specific quality of life; secondary endpoints include procedure pain and treatment-related complications. This single-center, randomized Phase 4 comparison is conducted at Hospital das Clínicas da FMUSP in São Paulo.

Who should consider this trial

Good fit: Adults with symptomatic varicose veins classified CEAP C2–C4 and ultrasound-confirmed great saphenous vein insufficiency measuring 6–12 mm at mid-thigh, who are eligible for minimally invasive endovenous treatment, are ideal candidates.

Not a fit: People with active deep vein thrombosis, recent pulmonary embolism or stroke, allergy to sclerosing agents, pregnancy, occlusive peripheral arterial disease, or GSV outside the 6–12 mm range are unlikely to benefit or be eligible.

Why it matters

Potential benefit: If successful, the approach could reduce vein recanalization and the need for repeat treatments while improving patients' leg symptoms and quality of life.

How similar studies have performed: Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy is widely used but has higher recanalization rates in larger veins, while mechanochemical ablation has shown lower recanalization in several prior studies though results are not uniformly definitive.

Eligibility criteria

Show full inclusion / exclusion criteria
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

Where this trial is running

São Paulo, São Paulo

Study contacts

How to participate

  1. Review the eligibility criteria above with your treating physician.
  2. Visit the official trial page on ClinicalTrials.gov for the most current contact information and recruitment status.
  3. Contact the listed study coordinator or principal investigator to request pre-screening. Pre-screening is free and never obligates you to enroll.
Conditions Varicose Veins of Leg With Long Saphenous Vein DistributionVaricose Veins of Lower LimbMechanical chemical ablationFlebogrifSclerotherapy with polidocanol foam
Last reviewed 2026-06-13 by the Find a Trial editorial team. Information on this page is for educational purposes and is not medical advice. Always consult qualified healthcare professionals about clinical trial participation.