Trial reportVascular and endovascular surgery2024
Axial Ablation versus Terminal Interruption of the Reflux Source (AAVTIRS): A Randomised Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Vascular and endovascular surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04484168 (Axial Ablation Versus Terminal Interruption of the Reflux Source), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Axial Ablation Versus Terminal Interruption of the Reflux Source (AAVTIRS): A Randomised Controlled Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTreatment of reflux has been shown to improve time to healing of Venous Leg Ulcers (VLU). Terminal Interruption of the Reflux Source (TIRS) treats reflux within the plexus of veins around an active VLU using foam sclerotherapy. The efficacy of TIRS in managing VLU has never been tested.
methodsWe performed a pragmatic, single centre, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial comparing endovenous ablation of the axial superficial veins (Axial Ablation-AA) vs TIRS. Patients of any age with VLU of any duration were eligible.
results98 Participants were randomised to AA or TIRS. 39/55, 70.9% (95%CI; 57.1-82.37) healed their VLU in the AA group, while 29/39, 74.36% (95%CI; 57.87-86.96) healed their VLU in the TIRS group,
conclusionThe AAVTIRS trial did not show that axial ablation was superior to TIRS in the primary outcome of number of VLU healed in 6 months, or time to VLU healing. This trial is not powered to show non-inferiority. TIRS is a viable option for treatment of VLU. Further investigation is necessary before it can be recommended as an alternative to axial ablation.Trial registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT04484168.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.