clariVein®OC Advantage

More than 130000 clariVein® units are in market*. The clariVein® device is designed to benefit patients and physicians alike.

The clariVein®OC is a specialty infusion catheter with a rotating wire tip designed for the controlled 360-degree dispersion of physician-specified agents to the targeted treatment area. Often referred to as MOCA (mechanical occlusion chemically assisted), the ClariVein®OC Device offers many unique and proven benefits:

  • Non-tumescent
  • Reduced Pain1
  • Non-thermal
  • Reduced Recovery Time1
  • Clinically Proven
  • Reduced Procedure Time1


clariVein®OC Advantage

ADVANTAGES

Physician

Patient



MINIMALLY INVASIVE^

FAST PROCEDURE TIME^

QUICK RETURN TO NORMAL ACTIVITIES^

minimizes patient discomfort^

PERFORMED IN AN OFFICE SETTING^

tumescentless procedure decreases procedure time^

SELF-CONTAINED DISPOSABLE DEVICE

reduced cost: no user servicable parts

^ 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.