Benefits of polidocanol endovenous microfoam (Varithena®) compared with physician-compounded foams.
Carugo D., Ankrett DN., Zhao X., Zhang X., Hill M., O'Byrne V., Hoad J., Arif M., Wright DDI., Lewis AL.
OBJECTIVE: To compare foam bubble size and bubble size distribution, stability, and degradation rate of commercially available polidocanol endovenous microfoam (Varithena®) and physician-compounded foams using a number of laboratory tests. METHODS: Foam properties of polidocanol endovenous microfoam and physician-compounded foams were measured and compared using a glass-plate method and a Sympatec QICPIC image analysis method to measure bubble size and bubble size distribution, Turbiscan™ LAB for foam half time and drainage and a novel biomimetic vein model to measure foam stability. Physician-compounded foams composed of polidocanol and room air, CO2, or mixtures of oxygen and carbon dioxide (O2:CO2) were generated by different methods. RESULTS: Polidocanol endovenous microfoam was found to have a narrow bubble size distribution with no large (>500 µm) bubbles. Physician-compounded foams made with the Tessari method had broader bubble size distribution and large bubbles, which have an impact on foam stability. Polidocanol endovenous microfoam had a lower degradation rate than any physician-compounded foams, including foams made using room air (p