clariVein®OC Advantage

More than 130,000 ClariVein®OC units are in market today. It is designed to benefit patients and physicians alike.

市面上有超過 130000 clariVein® 設備*。 clariVein® 設備專為使患者和醫生受益設計。

오늘날 시장에서 현재 130,000개 이상의 ClariVein®OC는 시장에서 사용되었으며 ClariVein OC 는 환자와 의사 모두에게 도움이 되도록 설계되었습니다.

ClariVein®OC is a specialty infusion catheter with a rotating wire tip designed for 360-degree dispersion of physician-specified agents to the targeted treatment area. This device is also called MOCA (Mechanical Occlusion Chemically Assisted) and provides many unique and proven benefits.

clariVein®OC 是一種附旋轉線尖的特種輸注導管，設計用於將醫生指定的藥劑以受控方式 360 度分散到目標治療區域。 通常稱為 MOCA (機械封堵化學輔助），則 ClariVein®OC 裝置具有許多獨特且經證實的優點：

ClariVein®OC는 회전식 전선 끝부분이 의사가 지정한 약제를 치료 부위에 360도로 골고루 분산시킬 수 있도록 설계된 특수 주입 카테터입니다. 이 기기는 MOCA(Mechanical Occlusion Chemically Assisted)라고도 불리며, 다양한 다양하고 고유한 입증된 이점을 제공합니다

  • No tumescent anesthesia
  • Reduced pain1
  • 不腫脹
  • 減少疼痛1
  • 비 팽창마취
  • 통증 감소1
  • Non-thermal
  • Reduced recovery time1
  • 不發熱
  • 減少恢復時間1
  • 열을 사용하지 않음
  • 회복 시간 단축1
  • Clinically proven
  • Reduced procedure time1
  • 經臨床證明
  • 減少手術時間1
  • 임상에서 입증
  • 시술 시간 단축1


clariVein ®OC Advantage

ADVANTAGES

Physician

Patient



MINIMALLY INVASIVE^

FAST PROCEDURE TIME^

QUICK RETURN TO NORMAL ACTIVITIES^

Minimized patient discomfort^

PERFORMED IN AN OFFICE SETTING^

tumescentless procedure decreases procedure time^

Disposable medical device

Reduced cost: No purchase of additional equipment

^ Data on file
1. R. van eekeren, et al., Postoperative Pain and Early Quality of Life After Radiofrequency Ablation and Mechanochemical Endovenous Ablation of Incompetent Great Saphenous Veins, journal of vascular surgery, Volume 57, Number 2, February 2013, p. 445-450.

clariVein®OC Comparison to Thermal Ablation

clariVein

Thermal Ablation

ClariVeinLogo

requires tumescent anesthesia

Thermal Ablation –Yes

clariVein –No

Risk of Thermal Damage

Nerves, Skin, Paresthesia

Thermal Ablation –Yes

clariVein –No

Percutaneous Access

Thermal Ablation –6 F or Larger

clariVein –4 F or Larger

Thermal Ablation –Yes

clariVein –No

Lease Agreement

Thermal Ablation –Yes

clariVein –No

Contract Purchasing

Thermal Ablation –Yes

clariVein –No

Equipment Maintenance Contract

Thermal Ablation –Yes

clariVein –No

Treatment Suitability

Thermal Ablation – & SSV

-May not be suited for smaller vessels due to thermal damage risk 1

clariVein –GSV & SSV

-Plus small vessels all the way to ankle. Some studies show success in the venous ulcer beds2

Patient Pain & Bruising

Thermal Ablation –Risk from thermal energy 2

clariVein –74% less post-operative pain1
less bruising

Vascular Imaging

Thermal Ablation –Yes

clariVein –Yes

positioning technique

Thermal Ablation –2 cm from SFJ

clariVein –2 cm from SFJ

Pullback Timing & Method

Thermal Ablation –RF: park and Wait
LASER: 1.5mm/second

clariVein –1-3mm/second

^ Data on file
1. R. van eekeren, et al., Postoperative Pain and Early Quality of Life After Radiofrequency Ablation and Mechanochemical Endovenous Ablation of Incompetent Great Saphenous Veins, journal of vascular surgery, Volume 57, Number 2, February 2013, p. 445-450.
2. Hayley M Moore, Tristan RA Lane, Ian J franklin and alun H davies Retrograde Mechanochemical Ablation of the Small Saphenous Vein for the Treatment of a Venous Ulcer 1708538113516320 first published December 17, 2013

clariVein®OC Versus Radiofrequency

 

Postoperative pain and early quality of life after radiofrequency ablation and mechanochemical endovenous ablation of incompetent great saphenous veins 1

Graph2

Fig 1. Assesment of the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) 6 weeks after the treatment with mechanochemical endovenous ablation (MOCA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA).

 

Graph1

Fig 2. Mean postoperative pain scores on a 0 to 100 mm visual analogue scale for 14 days after mechanochemical endovenous ablation (MOCA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). CI, Confidence interval; VAS, visual analog scale.

  • “This study has demonstrated that postoperative pain is significantly lower after MOCA compared with RFA, corresponding to a 74% reduction in pain for the first 14 postoperative days.”
  • “The time to return to normal activities was 1.0 day (IQR, 0-1.0) in the MOCA group and 1.0 day (IQR, 1.0-3.0) in the RFA group, which was significantly longer (P=.01).”
  • “The median time to work resumption for employees was significantly shorter in the MOCA group than in the RFA group (P=.02), respectively, 1.0 days (IQR, 1.0-3.75) vs 2.0 days (IQR, 2.0-7.0).”
^ Data on file
1. R. van Eekeren, et al., Postoperative Pain and Early Quality of Life After Radiofrequency Ablation and Mechanochemical Endovenous Ablation of Incompetent Great Saphenous Veins, Journal of Vascular Surgery, Volume 57, Number 2, February 2013, p. 445-450.