Endovenous Microwave Ablation Versus Laser Ablation for Small Saphenous Vein Varicosis.

INTRODUCTION: Laser and radiofrequency ablation are two thermal ablation methods currently widely used to treat lower limb venous insufficiency. However, very few studies have been conducted on the use of microwaves, a form of thermal ablation, for the treatment of small saphenous vein (SSV) insufficiency. This study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of endovenous microwave ablation (EMA) for the treatment of SSV insufficiency. METHODS: The clinical data of 126 patients (126 lower limbs) with SSV insufficiency (SSV trunk reflux time ≥ 500 ms on lower limb color Doppler ultrasound) treated at the Surgery Department of The Sixth People's Hospital of Zhuji from January 2020 to June 2022 were analyzed retrospectively; 64 patients underwent EMA and 62 underwent endovenous laser ablation (EVLA). The perioperative marker data [duration of surgery, duration of hospitalization, length of thermal ablation, duration of thermal ablation, number of incisions, and numerical pain rating scale (NPRS)], complication data [skin ecchymosis, skin burns, surgical site infection, paresthesia, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT)], venous clinical severity score (VCSS), chronic venous disease quality of life questionnaire (CIVIQ-20) before and 1, 3, 12 months after surgery, and SSV trunk occlusion rate at 12 months after surgery were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: No significant differences in the surgery or hospitalization durations were observed between the two groups. There were no significant differences in the length of the SSV that required thermal ablation between the two groups; however, the thermal ablation time was shorter in the EMA group than that in the EVLA group (6.14 ± 1.47 min vs 7.05 ± 1.16 min, P < 0.001). There were no statistical differences in the number of incisions, volume of tumescent solution used, or quantity of sclerosing foam used. The NPRS scores of the EMA group at 24 h and 72 h after surgery were significantly greater than those of the EVLA group (4.03 ± 0.98 vs 3.52 ± 1.28, P = 0.013; 3.78 ± 1.06 vs 3.15 ± 1.03, P = 0.001). Moreover, the two groups showed no significant difference in the NPRS score at 1 month (1.14 ± 0.84 vs 1.07 ± 0.75, P = 0.623). The EMA and EVLA group patients experienced similar postoperative complications. The VCSS and CIVIQ-20 score significantly improved at 1, 3, and 12 months after surgery. The VCSS and CIVIQ-20 scores were compared between the two groups at 12 months after surgery, and there were no significant differences (1.44 ± 0.63 vs 1.56 ± 0.56, P = 0.261; 24.24 ± 4.96 vs 25.19 ± 5.36, P = 0.304). There was no significant difference in the incidence of SSV trunk occlusion at 12 months after surgery between the two groups (95.31% vs 96.77%, OR 1.475; 95% CI 0.238-9.146, P = 1.000). CONCLUSION: EMA and EVLA are equally effective treatment methods for SSV insufficiency. EMA is associated with higher NPRS scores in the early postoperative period.

[Application of iliac vein molding and stent implantation through the ipsilateral great saphenous vein approach in daytime treatment mode].

OBJECTIVE: To explore the feasibility and recent efficacy of iliac vein molding and stenting in daytime treatment mode in patients with iliac vein stenosis. METHODS: Medical records of iliac vein molding and stenting performed in the ipsilateral great saphenous vein approach conducted from February 2017 to March 2022 were retrospective reviewed. There were 21 cases, 6 males and 15 females. Age ranged from 37 to 79 years [(62.5 ± 10.2) years]. The stenosis in the 21 limbs simply involved the common iliac veins in 16 patients, 2 patients had the simple and external iliac veins, and both the total and external iliac veins in 3 patients. Both iliac vein molding and iliac vein stenting were performed through the ipsilateral great saphenous vein approach. The patients with simple iliac vein stenosis with great saphenous vein valve insufficiency also underwent radiofrequency closure of great saphenous vein and flexural vein sclerosis therapy simultaneously. Regular postoperative direct oral anticoagulants therapy and stress therapy were followed. All the patients were hospitalized for less than 24 h. RESULTS: All the 21 patients operations were successful (the success rate was 100%), without any intraoperative complications. Immediate postoperative complications were puncture point bleeding in 1 case. The bandage gauze was completely wet. The bleeding was stopped after 5min of recompression. All the patients were hospitalized for less than 24 h. Follow-up results: The 3-month follow-up rate after operation was 100%. Absolute effective 18 cases (18/21, 85.7%). Relatively effective(postmentation still after surgery, but with less extent) in 3 cases (3/21, 14.3%). The iliac vein stents were unobstructed, and the trunk of the great saphenous vein was well closed in the patients with great saphenous vein radiofrequency treatment. The 6-month follow-up rate after operation was 71.4%(15/21). Of these, 14 cases (14/15, 93.3%) were absolutely effective. Relatively effective(postmentation still after surgery, but with less extent) in 1 case (1/15, 6.7%). The iliac vein stents were no restenosis or obstruction, and the trunk of the great saphenous vein was well closed in the patients with great saphenous vein radiofrequency treatment. CONCLUSION: The interventional treatment technique of iliac vein stenosis is feasible in the daytime treatment mode, with clear advantages and satisfactory recent efficacy.

Impact of great saphenous vein ablation on healing and recurrence of venous leg ulcers in patients with post-thrombotic syndrome: A retrospective comparative study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment approach for patients with active venous leg ulcers (VLUs) and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) associated with great saphenous vein (GSV) reflux remains unclear. To address this gap, we retrospectively compared the outcomes of patients with post-thrombotic VLU with an intact GSV vs those with a stripped or ablated GSV. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 48 patients with active VLUs and documented PTS, who were treated at a single center between January 2018 and December 2022. Clinical information, including ulcer photographs, was recorded in a prospectively maintained digital database at the initial and follow-up visits. Two patient groups-group A (with an intact GSV) and group B (with a stripped or ablated GSV)-were compared in terms of time to complete healing, proportion of ulcers achieving complete healing, and ulcer recurrence during the follow-up period. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, gender, initial ulcer size, or ulcer duration between the two groups. All included patients had femoropopliteal post-thrombotic changes. Group A had significantly more completely healed ulcers (33 of 34 ulcers, 97%) compared with group B (10 of 14 ulcers, 71%) (P = .008). Group A also exhibited a significantly shorter time to complete ulcer healing (median: 42.5 days, interquartile range [IQR]: 65) compared with group B (median: 161 days, IQR: 530.5) (P = .0177), with a greater probability of ulcer healing (P = .0084). Long-term follow-up data were available for 45 of 48 patients (93.7%), with a mean duration of 39.6 months (range: 5.7-67.4 months). The proportion of ulcers that failed to heal or recurred during the follow-up period was significantly lower in group A (9 of 32 ulcers, 27%) compared with group B (11 of 13 ulcers, 85%) (P = .0009). In addition, in a subgroup analysis, patients with an intact but refluxing GSV (12 of 34) had a significantly shorter time to heal (median: 34 days, IQR: 57.25) (P = .0242), with a greater probability of ulcer healing (P = .0091) and significantly fewer recurrences (2 of 12, 16%) (P = .006) compared with group B. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that removal of the GSV through stripping or ablation in patients with post-thrombotic deep venous systems affecting the femoropopliteal segment may result in delayed ulcer healing and increased ulcer recurrence. Patients with an intact GSV had better outcomes, even when the refluxing GSV was left untreated. These findings emphasize the potential impact of GSV treatment on the management of VLUs in individuals with PTS. Further investigation is needed to validate these results and explore alternative therapeutic strategies to optimize outcomes for this patient population.

The anterior saphenous vein. Part 3. Systematic review of the literature and payor coverage policies. Endorsed by the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, the American Venous Forum and the International Union of Phlebology.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to systemically review the literature on Anterior Saphenous Vein (ASV) reflux treatment and insurance impediments to treatment coverage. METHODS: A literature search was performed using a PRISMA framework. In addition, a cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for ASV treatment was evaluated. RESULTS: Published evidence and treatment considerations in the literature for ASV treatment are discussed. In 155 of 226 (68.6%) insurance policies reviewed coverage of ASV ablation was allowed while 62/226 (27.4%) did not specify coverage and 9/226 (4.0%) specified ASV treatment was not covered. Of the 155 that provide ASV coverage, 98 (62.2%) provide coverage with criteria such as requiring prior treatment of the great saphenous vein. CONCLUSIONS: Vein treatment experts should continue to advocate to insurance carriers to update their varicose vein treatment policies to reflect the substantial clinical evidence so that patients with ASV reflux can be appropriately treated.

Strategies to reduce rates of severe endothermal heat-induced thrombosis following radiofrequency ablation.

OBJECTIVE: Endothermal heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) is a potential complication of radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Data on effective prophylaxis of EHIT are limited. In 2018, a high-volume, single institution implemented strategies to decrease the incidence of EHIT, including a single periprocedural prophylactic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin to patients with a great saphenous vein (GSV) diameter of ≥8 mm or saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) diameter of ≥10 mm and limiting treatment to one vein per procedure. The size threshold was derived from existing literature. The study objective was to evaluate the effects of these institutional changes on thrombotic complication rates after RFA. METHODS: A retrospective cohort control study was conducted using the Vascular Quality Initiative database. Data were collected for patients who underwent RFA with a GSV diameter of ≥8 mm or SFJ diameter of ≥10 mm from January 2015 to July 2022. The clinical end points were thrombotic complications (ie, thrombophlebitis, EHIT, deep vein thrombosis) and bleeding complications. Patient demographic and procedural variables were included in the analysis, and significant variables after univariable logistic regression were included in a multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: After the policy change, the overall vein center EHIT rate decreased from 2.6% to 1.5%, with a trend toward significance (P = .096). The inclusion criterion of a GSV diameter of ≥8 mm or an SFJ diameter of ≥10 mm yielded 845 patients, of whom 298 were treated before the policy change and 547 after. There was a significant reduction in the rate of EHIT classified as class ≥III (2.34 vs 0.366; P = .020) after the institutional changes. Treatment of two or more veins and an increased vein diameter were associated with an increased risk of EHIT (P = .049 and P < .001, respectively). No significant association was found between periprocedural anticoagulation and all-cause thrombotic complications or EHIT (P = .563 and P = .885, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The institutional policy changes have led to lower rates of EHIT, with a reduction in severe EHIT rates in patients with an ≥8-mm diameter GSV or a ≥10-mm diameter SFJ treated with RFA. Of the changes implemented, restricting treatment to one vein was associated with a reduction in severe EHIT. No association was found with periprocedural low-molecular-weight heparin, although a type 2 error might have occurred. Alternative strategies to prevent thrombotic complications should be explored, such as increasing the dosage and duration of periprocedural anticoagulation, antiplatelet use, and nonpharmacologic strategies.

Cryostripping Versus Conventional Safenectomy in Chronic Venous Disease Treatment: A Single Center Retrospective Cohort Study.

AIM: This study presents a comparative analysis of cryostripping to conventional saphenectomy. Materials and Methods: The study included 2191 patients admitted in the Phlebology Department, 1st Surgical Department, Emergency County Hospital Timisoara, between September 2013 and April 2023, between September 2013 and April 2023, who underwent saphenectomy by cryostripping (1327 patients) or conventionally (864 patients). We compared the duration and costs of the procedure, hospitalization period, post-operative results, method feasibility, as well as the technical advantages of cryostripping compared to conventional surgery. Results: A smaller proximal incision, compared to the classic operation, as well the fact that distal counter incision is not necessary, represents technical advantages of this procedure. Average duration of the intervention was 41 +- 12.8 minutes, consumables costs were about 52 +- 10 EUR/intervention, with an average hospitalization period was 1.05 +- 0.41 days. The post-operative results were favourable, early complications rate being reduced (ecchymoses Phi; 2 cm - 33.23%; hematoma - 2.11%; deep vein thrombosis - 0.15%; transient paresthesias 3.01%). Compared to classic saphenectomy, the costs of consumables/intervention are similar, intervention time, hospitalization period and complication rate being statistically significantly lower. An advantage of the method is the fact that the cryo-probes can be sterilized, being reusable; from the economic point of view, the technique perfectly fits in both public hospitals and private clinics. Conclusions: Cryostripping is a radical surgical procedure which bring a significant number of advantages compared to the classic saphenectomy, being an effective alternative in CVD treatment.

Effects of high ligation plus endovenous laser therapy in patients with varicosis of great saphenous vein and type 2 diabetes.

To analyze the effects of high ligation plus endovenous laser therapy on intraoperative blood loss, postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and complications in patients with varicosis of great saphenous vein and type 2 diabetes. About 61 patients with varicosis of great saphenous vein and type 2 diabetes treated at our hospital were included. About 32 patients (37 affected limbs) receiving conventional surgery were included in control group, while 29 patients (34 affected limbs) receiving high ligation plus endovenous laser therapy were included in study group. The intraoperative blood loss, operation time, length of postoperative hospital stay, postoperative VAS scores, blood glucose levels, Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), and incidence of complications were compared between the two groups. Compared with the control group, there were less intraoperative blood loss (P < .05), shorter operation time (P < .05), and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay in the study group (P < .05). Besides, there was also lower VAS scores at different time points after surgery in the study group than in the control group (P < .05). Blood glucose levels were decreased in both groups after surgery (P < .05). Moreover, VCSS was decreased in either group at 3 months after surgery (P < .05). Blood glucose levels of patients in the study group were lower than those of the control group after surgery (P < .05). The VCSS was also lower in the study group at 3 months after surgery than in the control group (P < .05). High ligation with endovenous laser therapy for varicosis of great saphenous vein in patients with type 2 diabetes was safe and feasible.

The anterior saphenous vein. Part 3. Systematic review of the literature and payor coverage policies. Endorsed by the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, the American Venous Forum, and the International Union of Phlebology.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to systemically review the literature on Anterior Saphenous Vein (ASV) reflux treatment and insurance impediments to treatment coverage. METHODS: A literature search was performed using a PRISMA framework. In addition, a cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for ASV treatment was evaluated. RESULTS: Published evidence and treatment considerations in the literature for ASV treatment are discussed. In 155 of 226 (68.6%) insurance policies reviewed coverage of ASV ablation was allowed while 62/226 (27.4%) did not specify coverage and 9/226 (4.0%) specified ASV treatment was not covered. Of the 155 that provide ASV coverage, 98 (62.2%) provide coverage with criteria such as requiring prior treatment of the great saphenous vein. CONCLUSIONS: Vein treatment experts should continue to advocate to insurance carriers to update their varicose vein treatment policies to reflect the substantial clinical evidence so that patients with ASV reflux can be appropriately treated.

Secondary interventions following open vs endovascular revascularization for chronic limb threatening ischemia in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVES: Patients undergoing revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia experience a high burden of target limb reinterventions. We analyzed data from the Best Endovascular versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) randomized trial comparing initial open bypass (OPEN) and endovascular (ENDO) treatment strategies, with a focus on reintervention-related study endpoints. METHODS: In a planned secondary analysis, we examined the rates of major reintervention, any reintervention, and the composite of any reintervention, amputation, or death by intention-to-treat assignment in both trial cohorts (cohort 1 with suitable single-segment great saphenous vein [SSGSV], n = 1434; cohort 2 lacking suitable SSGSV, n = 396). We also compared the cumulative number of major and all index limb reinterventions over time. Comparisons between treatment arms within each cohort were made using univariable and multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS: In cohort 1, assignment to OPEN was associated with a significantly reduced hazard of a major limb reintervention (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.49; P < .001), any reintervention (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.75; P < .001), or any reintervention, amputation, or death (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.78; P < .001). Findings were similar in cohort 2 for major reintervention (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.84; P = .007) or any reintervention (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98; P = .04). In both cohorts, early (30-day) limb reinterventions were notably higher for patients assigned to ENDO as compared with OPEN (14.7% vs 4.5% of cohort 1 subjects; 16.6% vs 5.6% of cohort 2 subjects). The mean number of major (mean events per subject ratio [MR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34-0.58; P < .001) or any target limb reinterventions (MR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57-0.80; P < .001) per year was significantly less in the OPEN arm of cohort 1. The mean number of reinterventions per limb salvaged per year was lower in the OPEN arm of cohort 1 (MR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.35-0.57; P < .001 and MR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.79; P < .001 for major and all, respectively). The majority of index limb reinterventions occurred during the first year following randomization, but events continued to accumulate over the duration of follow-up in the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Reintervention is common following revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Among patients deemed suitable for either approach, initial treatment with open bypass, particularly in patients with available SSGSV conduit, is associated with a significantly lower number of major and minor target limb reinterventions.

Comparison of Radiofrequency Ablation and Cyanoacrylate Closure for Large-Diameter Great Saphenous Vein Insufficiency.

BACKGROUND: To compare radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cyanoacrylate closure (CAC) for large-diameter great saphenous vein (GSV) insufficiency between diameters of 12 and 16 mm. METHODS: This study is a single-center retrospective study. Subjects who underwent endovenous treatment with RFA (Group A) or CAC (Group B) for GSV insufficiency between June 2015 and June 2021 who were followed up for at least 2 years were included in the study. Subjects who had a 12-mm to 16-mm target vessel diameter and subjects with grade 3 and grade 4 reflux were included. Subjects' demographic data (age, sex), body mass indices, clinical, etiological, anatomic, pathophysiologic classification, GSV diameter, reflux grade, target vessel length, preoperative venous clinical severity score (VCSS), procedural time, postoperative first-day pain scores, postoperative 14th-day patient satisfaction scale, and postoperative complications were noted. In follow-up, subjects were evaluated with duplex ultrasonography and VCSS at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months. RESULTS: In total, 142 subjects were included (n = 71 for both groups). The mean GSV diameter was 13.21 ± 1.00 for Group A and 13.51 ± 0.97 for Group B. The groups did not differ in terms of age, sex, body mass index, clinical, etiological, anatomic, pathophysiologic classification, GSV diameter, reflux grade, target GSV length, preoperative VCSS, complications, postoperative 24-hr pain status or postoperative 14-day patient satisfaction scale (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). The procedure time was significantly shorter in Group B (34.68 ± 4.22 min for Group A vs. 22.59 ± 4.5 min for Group B, P = 0.001). In the 1-month and 6-month Duplex ultrasonography of the subjects, partial closure and patency rates in Group B were significantly higher than those in Group A (P = 0.003 and P = 0.025, respectively). At the 12-month and 24-month evaluation, closure rates did not show a statistically significant difference between the groups (P = 0.056 and P = 0.090, respectively). Preoperative and 1-month VCSS measurements did not show a statistically significant difference between groups (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). The 6-month, 12-month, and 24-month VCSS measurements of Group A were significantly higher than those in Group B. (P = 0.043, P = 0.009 and P = 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Both RFA and CAC were found to be effective in the treatment of large-diameter GSV incompetency. The complication rates were similar between the 2 techniques. CAC had a shorter procedure time. Although the closure rates in the early postoperative period were better in the RFA group, long-term follow-up demonstrated similar patency rates. The functional results in the long-term follow-up were better in the RFA group.

Editor's Choice - Short Term Cost Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Ablation and High Ligation and Stripping for Great Saphenous Vein Incompetence.

OBJECTIVE: Superficial venous incompetence (SVI) is a common disease that causes significant quality of life (QoL) impairment. There is a need for more health economic evaluations of SVI treatment. The aim of this study was to perform a cost effectiveness analysis in patients with great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence comparing radiofrequency ablation (RFA), high ligation and stripping (HL/S), and no treatment or conservative treatment with one year follow up. METHODS: Randomised controlled trial economic analysis from an ongoing trial; 143 patients (156 limbs) with GSV incompetence (CEAP clinical class 2 - 6) were included. Treatment was performed with RFA or HL/S. Follow up was performed up to one year using duplex ultrasound, revised venous clinical severity score (r-VCSS), Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ), and EuroQol-5D-3L (EQ-5D-3L). RESULTS: Seventy-eight limbs were treated with RFA and HL/S respectively. No treatment or conservative treatment was assumed to have zero in treatment cost and no treatment benefit. In the RFA group, one limb had reflux in the GSV after one month and three limbs after one year. In HL/S, two limbs had remaining reflux in the treated area at one month and one year. Both disease severity (r-VCSS, p = .004) and QoL (AVVQ, p = .021 and EQ-5D-3L, p = .028) were significantly improved over time. The QALY gain was 0.21 for RFA and 0.17 for HL/S. The cost per patient was calculated as €1 292 for RFA and €2 303 for HL/S. The cost per QALY (compared with no treatment or conservative treatment) was €6 155 for RFA and €13 549 for HL/S. With added cost for days absent from work the cost per QALY was €7 358 for RFA and €24 197 for HL/S. The cost per QALY for both methods was well below the threshold suggested by Swedish National Board of Health. CONCLUSION: RFA is more cost effective than HL/S and no treatment or conservative treatment at one year follow up.

Factors associated with ablation-related thrombus extension following microfoam versus radiofrequency saphenous vein closure.

OBJECTIVE: Polidocanol endovenous microfoam ablation (MFA) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for great saphenous vein (GSV) closure, yet there are few published data on the subsequent risk of ablation-related thrombus extension (ARTE). Recent societal practice guidelines recommend against routine postprocedure duplex ultrasound (DU) examination after thermal ablation of the GSV in asymptomatic patients. At present, limited data do not allow this recommendation to extend to MFA. Our aim is to identify characteristics and outcomes associated with ARTE following MFA vs radiofrequency ablation (RFA). METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was conducted of patients who underwent MFA and RFA closure of incompetent above-knee GSVs. Patients treated for isolated tributary vein treatment or did not have a postprocedure DU examination within 48 to 72 hours were not included. Patients were classified into two groups: ARTE and no ARTE. Demographic data, Clinical, Etiologic, Anatomic and Pathophysiologic class, Venous Clinical Severity Score, operative details, postprocedure (48-72 hours) DU findings, and adverse events were analyzed. Variables that were significant on univariate analysis were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression with the primary outcome being development of ARTE. RESULTS: Between June 2018 and February 2023, 800 limbs were treated with either MFA (n = 224) or RFA (n = 576). Ninety-six GSVs treated with MFA met the study criteria. One hundred fifty successive GSVs treated with RFA during the same period were included as a comparison group. There was no statistically significant difference in baseline demographics between the two groups. Six patients (2.4%) demonstrated ARTE on postoperative DU examination at 48 to 72 hours (MFA, n = 5 [5.2%]; RFA, n = 1 [0.7%]; P = .02). Saphenous vein ablation with MFA (P = .045) and a vein diameter of >10 mm (P = .017) were associated with ARTE on both univariable and multivariable analysis. All patients who developed ARTE were treated with oral anticoagulants (mean, 15.6 days). Body mass index, Clinical, Etiologic, Anatomic and Pathophysiologic class, Venous Clinical Severity Score, microfoam volume, operative time, and prior deep venous thrombosis were not predictive of ARTE. CONCLUSIONS: ARTE after above-knee GSV closure occurred more frequently after MFA. Our results suggest that a saphenous vein diameter of >10 mm may be associated with ARTE. Despite this finding, all patients with ARTE were treated with short-term anticoagulation with no related complications. Until larger studies with high-risk subgroups have been studied after MFA, DU examination should be performed routinely after this procedure and patients with ARTE anticoagulated until the thrombus retracts caudal to the saphenofemoral junction or is no longer present on DU examination. Current societal guidelines recommending against routine post-thermal ablation DU examination should not be applied to similar patients after saphenous nonthermal MFA ablation.

[Randomized controlled study on the application effect of a new type of intravenous radiofrequency closed therapy system made in China and an imported system].

Objective: To compare the application effect of domestic and imported intravenous radiofrequency closure system in the treatment of primary varicose veins of lower extremities. Methods: This single-center prospective, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial was performed in the Department of Vascular Surgery, the Fourth Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine from January 2021 to January 2022. Patients with primary varicose veins of lower extremities who met the ataxation criteria were randomly assigned to the experimental group(domestic novel venous radiofrequency closure system) or the control group(imported venous radiofrequency closure system) in a ratio of 1∶1. The two groups of subjects were compared in terms of target vein closure rate, technical success rate, system operation performance, incidence of adverse events and incidence of serious adverse events(SAE) within 6 months after surgery. Quantitative data were compared by Mann-Whitney U test, and categorical data were compared by χ2 test and non-inferiority test. Results: A total of 80 subjects were included in the trial (41 in the experimental group and 39 in the control group), including 27 males and 53 females, aged (M(IQR)) 55(23) years (range:40 to 78 years). There were 48 cases of left lower limb and 32 cases of right lower limb. The technical success rate and system control performance between the groups were 100%.The incidence of adverse events (58.5% (24/41) vs. 61.5% (24/39), χ2=0.075, P=0.784), and the incidence of SAE (7.3% (3/41) vs. 5.1% (2/39), χ2=0.163, P=0.686) within 6 months after surgery in experimental group and control group had no statistical significance. There was one device-related adverse event in each of the two groups. In the experimental group, one patient developed endovenous heat-induced thrombosis after surgery and recovered after taking rivaroxaban tablets. One patient in the control group had pain in the upper right thigh for more than 1 day after operation, which was cured after using analgesic cream. No device-related SAE occurred. The venous closure rate of the experimental group was 100% (38/38) at 6 months after surgery, and that of the control group was 97.4% (37/38). The difference between the two groups was 2.63% (95%CI:-3.19 to 8.45, Z=4.865, P<0.01), and the 95%CI lower limit of the difference in target venous closure rate between two groups was greater than the non-inferiority threshold of -10.00%. Conclusion: The early application effect of the new domestic intravenous radiofrequency closure system in patients with primary varicose veins of lower extremities is in line with expectations, it is not inferior to the imported system.

CHIVA for dummies.

BACKGROUND: Sparing the Great Saphenous Vein capital for possible arterial substitution and recurrence decrease may be an alternative to current ablation options for Varicose Veins treatment. Conservative surgery of varicose veins (CHIVA) was suggested in 1988 by Franceschi, by limited veins interruptions in strategic points. However, the method did not diffuse due to the need for high Duplex expertise to determine the procedure in every single patient. METHOD: Evaluation of the literature regarding saphenous sparing, with special reference to CHIVA. RESULT: It has been realized that basic Ultrasound expertise is sufficient for performing GSV conservation. Most of the time, only a few parameters are needed: a junction competence assessment and a re-entry perforator position. CONCLUSION: For achieving the goal of saphenous conservative treatment, a limited phlebectomy and possible Junction interruption (crossotomy) may be a simplified solution.

Mechanochemical ablation: disappointing long-term anatomic results and worsening symptoms.

An updated report on the five-year results in the treatment of great saphenous vein incompetence with mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) provides additional evidence for higher rates of anatomic recanalization compared to other treatment modalities and progressive worsening of symptoms with time.

Laser-sclerosing foam hybrid treatment, a non-tumescent technique for insufficient great saphenous vein ablation.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to report on the Laser-Sclerosing Foam Hybrid Treatment (LSFHT) and its outcomes when used on patients with great saphenous vein (GSV) insufficiency. METHODS: This was a single center retrospective cohort study on patients with GSV insufficiency that were treated with the LSFHT technique, a surgical procedure that comprises the use of both sclerosing foam and endovenous ablation and avoids the use of tumescent anesthesia. Occlusion rates and complications were reported. RESULTS: 139 legs from 106 patients were operated, achieving a 100% occlusion rate, while only a small burn and 2 popliteal vein thrombosis cases occurred. CONCLUSION: The study suggests that the LSFHT is a feasible fast procedure that proved both effective and safe for the treatment of GSV insufficiency.

Lymphedema after saphenous harvesting for coronary artery bypass surgery: case report and literature review.

Different causes have been described for secondary lymphedema as reported in this article. A 75-year-old man was diagnosed with lymphedema about one decade after saphenous harvesting for coronary artery bypass surgery. It took two years for him to find out his diagnosis and receive the proper treatment. After standard complete decongestive therapy, his volume and pain decreased and his quality of life was improved, especially its physical aspect. It is important to recognize the possibility of lymphedema development after saphenous harvesting among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery to prevent significant disturbance of quality of life with timely management.

The 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery, American Venous Forum, and American Vein and Lymphatic Society clinical practice guidelines for the management of varicose veins of the lower extremities. Part II: Endorsed by the Society of Interventional Radiology and the Society for Vascular Medicine.

The Society for Vascular Surgery, the American Venous Forum, and the American Vein and Lymphatic Society recently published Part I of the 2022 clinical practice guidelines on varicose veins. Recommendations were based on the latest scientific evidence researched following an independent systematic review and meta-analysis of five critical issues affecting the management of patients with lower extremity varicose veins, using the patients, interventions, comparators, and outcome system to answer critical questions. Part I discussed the role of duplex ultrasound scanning in the evaluation of varicose veins and treatment of superficial truncal reflux. Part II focuses on evidence supporting the prevention and management of varicose vein patients with compression, on treatment with drugs and nutritional supplements, on evaluation and treatment of varicose tributaries, on superficial venous aneurysms, and on the management of complications of varicose veins and their treatment. All guidelines were based on systematic reviews, and they were graded according to the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations, using the GRADE method. All ungraded Consensus Statements were supported by an extensive literature review and the unanimous agreement of an expert, multidisciplinary panel. Ungraded Good Practice Statements are recommendations that are supported only by indirect evidence. The topic, however, is usually noncontroversial and agreed upon by most stakeholders. The Implementation Remarks contain technical information that supports the implementation of specific recommendations. This comprehensive document includes a list of all recommendations (Parts I-II), ungraded consensus statements, implementation remarks, and best practice statements to aid practitioners with appropriate, up-to-date management of patients with lower extremity varicose veins.

Comparison of endovenous microwave ablation versus radiofrequency ablation for lower limb varicose veins.

OBJECTIVE: Endovenous microwave ablation (EMA) is a recently developed thermal ablation technique used in the treatment of lower limb varicose veins. However, its efficacy and safety have been largely understudied. In the present study, we sought to explore the clinical results of EMA and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in treating lower limb varicose veins. METHODS: Patients who underwent EMA (n = 65) or RFA (n = 46) at our institute from September 2018 to September 2020 were included in this retrospective investigation. The clinical results and complications were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the procedure. The effects on disease severity and quality of life were evaluated using the venous clinical severity score and chronic venous insufficiency questionnaire (CIVIQ). RESULTS: The technical success rate was 100% for both experimental groups. Although the operative time between the two groups was comparable, the EMA technique was associated with lower direct costs (P < .001), although also with prolonged hospitalization (P < .001). We found that the use of EMA correlated with more pain at 48 hours postoperatively. Except for the visual analog scale scores, no statistically significant variations were observed in the occurrence of postoperative complications within the first 48 hours postoperatively between the EMA and RFA groups, including paresthesia, ecchymosis, induration, and phlebitis (P > .05). At 4 weeks postoperatively, significantly less pigmentation was observed in the RFA group than in the EMA group (13.04% vs 32.31%; P = .020). However, the pigmentation had resolved in all patients by 12 months postoperatively. The two groups had a reduction in the venous clinical severity scores and an increase in the CIVIQ scores after the procedure. However, the CIVIQ scores within the RFA group had increased more than had those within the EMA group (P < .05). No significant differences were found in recurrence between the two groups (EMA group, 1.54%; RFA group, 2.17%; P = .804). CONCLUSIONS: Both ablation techniques are safe and effective. RFA is associated with relatively higher treatment costs but shorter hospitalization and better quality of life improvement.