Factors influencing recurrent varicose vein formation after radiofrequency thermal ablation for truncal reflux performed in two high-volume venous centers.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Recanalization of the saphenous vein trunk after endovenous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is often associated with recurrent varicose veins (RVVs) or recanalization. This study aimed to assess the long-term results of RFA of the great saphenous vein (GSV) and identify the risk factors for GSV recanalization and RVVs during follow-up for patients presenting to dedicated outpatient vein centers. METHODS: All consecutive patients with incompetent GSVs who underwent RFA between 2009 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The primary study end points were freedom from GSV recanalization and the RVV rate during follow-up. The secondary study end points were the postoperative complication rate and the risk factors for GSV recanalization and RVVs. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the potential risk factors for GSV recanalization and RVVs. RESULTS: During the study period, 1568 limbs were treated in 1300 consecutive patients (mean age, 53.5 ± 12.9 years; 71.9% women; CEAP [clinical, etiology, anatomy, pathophysiology] C2-C6; venous clinical severity score >5). Technical success was achieved in 99.7% of cases. At a mean follow-up of 57.2 ± 25.4 months, the GSV occlusion and freedom from reintervention rates were 100% and 100% within 1 week, 97% and 95.7% at 1 year, 95.2% and 93.1% at 3 years, and 92.4% and 92.8% at 5 years, respectively. The recurrence rate was 10% (n = 158) during the follow-up period. On multivariate analysis, a direct confluence of the accessory saphenous vein into the saphenofemoral junction (odds ratio [OR], 1.561; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-7.04; P = .032), a history of pregnancy >2 (OR, 3.68; 95% CI, 1.19-11.36; P = .023), C4 (OR, 6.41; 95% CI, 1.36-30.28; P = .019), and preoperative GSV diameter >10 mm (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.65-4.03; P = .043) were risk factors for GSV recanalization. Moreover, age >70 years (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; P = .014) and incompetent perforator veins (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.65-2.03; P = .018) were also risk factors for RVVs. CONCLUSIONS: RFA is a safe technique to ablate the GSV with a low complication rate and durability during 5 years of follow-up. However, patients with a high clinical score and those with direct confluence of the accessory saphenous vein into the saphenofemoral junction experienced higher long-term GSV recanalization and RVV rates.