Comparative effectiveness of non-compounded polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam (Varithena) ablation versus endovenous thermal ablation utilizing a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the effectiveness and safety of polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam ablation vs endovenous thermal ablation with radiofrequency or laser energy for treatment of venous insufficiency caused by lower extremity truncal vein incompetence via network meta-analysis of published comparative evidence. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review following best practices, including a prospective protocol. We screened studies published in English from 2000 to 2023 for randomized and nonrandomized studies reporting direct or indirect comparisons between polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam and endovenous thermal ablation. Thirteen studies met our eligibility criteria for the network meta-analysis. The co-primary effectiveness outcomes were the closure rate ≥3 months after procedure and the average change in the Venous Clinical Severity Score. For the subgroup of venous ulcer patients, the ulcer healing rate was the primary effectiveness outcome. The secondary outcomes included safety and patient-reported outcomes. Network meta-analyses were conducted on outcomes having sufficient data. Categorical outcomes were summarized using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Sensitivity tests and estimates of network inconsistency were used to investigate the robustness of our meta-analysis. RESULTS: We found that polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam was not significantly different statistically from endovenous thermal ablation for venous closure (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.36-1.18; P = .16). Although not the primary aim of the study, the network meta-analysis also provided evidence to confirm our supposition that polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam was significantly differentiated statistically from physician-compounded foam, with higher odds for vein closure (OR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.58-5.37; P < .01). A sensitivity analysis using the longest available time point for closure in each study, with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up (median, 48 months; range, 12-72 months), showed results similar to those of the main analysis. No association was found between the risk of deep vein thrombosis and the treatment received. The available data were insufficient for a network meta-analysis of Venous Clinical Severity Score improvement and ulcer healing rates. CONCLUSIONS: Polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam was not significantly different statistically from endovenous thermal ablation for venous closure and deep vein thrombosis risk for chronic venous insufficiency treatment, based on a network meta-analysis of published evidence. Polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam was significantly differentiated statistically from physician-compounded foam, with higher odds of vein closure. A sensitivity analysis found venous closure findings were robust at follow-up intervals of 12 months or greater and for up to 6 years. New evidence meeting the inclusion criteria for this review will be incorporated at regular intervals into a living network meta-analysis.

Relationship between iliofemoral venous stenting and femoropopliteal deep venous reflux.

OBJECTIVE: Severe presentations of chronic venous insufficiency can result from reflux or obstruction at the deep venous, perforator, or superficial venous levels. Iliofemoral venous stenting can be used to address central venous obstruction; however, its effects on deep venous reflux (DVR) have remained unclear. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effects of iliac vein stenting on femoropopliteal DVR with the hypothesis that ultrasound evidence of DVR would remain absent or would have improved after iliac vein stenting. METHODS: The present study was a retrospective review of patients who had undergone iliofemoral venous stenting from 2013 to 2018. The patients were divided into two cohorts according to the preprocedural presence (group A) or absence (group B) of femoropopliteal DVR. Baseline patient variables were collected, including age, gender, CEAP (clinical, etiologic, anatomic, pathophysiologic) class, presence of concomitant superficial or perforator reflux, deep vein thrombosis history, and additional venous interventions. The primary outcome evaluated was the persistent absence or resolution of DVR on the latest venous duplex ultrasound at follow-up. Other outcomes included the follow-up CEAP classification and the need for secondary deep venous interventions. RESULTS: A total of 275 consecutive patients had undergone iliofemoral venous stenting. Of the 275 patients, 58 had presented with DVR (group A). A comparison of groups A and B revealed that group A had had a greater likelihood of prior deep vein thrombosis (P = .0001) and a higher frequency of superficial venous ablation. The remaining demographic variables did not differ significantly between the two groups. Of the 58 patients in group A, DVR had resolved at follow-up in 17 (P = .0001). When stratified by level, 7 of these 17 patients had had isolated popliteal reflux. In group B, DVR had developed at follow-up in 6 of the 217 patients. The CEAP class had improved from before intervention (C0, 1.1%; C1, 0.4%; C2, 1.8%; C3, 41.4%; C4, 24.9%; C5, 5.9%; C6, 24.5%) to the latest follow up (C0, 4.9%; C1, 1.9%; C2, 5.7%; C3, 34.2%; C4, 22.8%; C5, 17.1%; C6, 13.3%). Significant improvement had occurred in C6 disease within both groups (group A, 16 of 58 [27.6%; P = .0078]; group B, 19 of 217 [8.8%; P = .0203]). CONCLUSIONS: For patients who undergo iliofemoral venous stenting, DVR could improve if present initially and is unlikely to develop if not present before stenting. A cohort of patients had experienced persistent DVR and warranted further evaluation. Prospective studies are required to corroborate the safety, efficacy, and durability of iliofemoral venous stenting for patients with DVR.

Arteriovenous fistula after endovenous ablation for varicose veins.

Endovenous ablation, using radiofrequency or laser, is becoming the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic varicose veins in the setting of saphenous vein incompetency. Both procedures have been shown to produce high rates of truncal vein occlusion with few complications. This article presents three patients who developed arteriovenous fistula (AVF) following great saphenous vein treatment: two following radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and one following laser ablation. This is the first published report of AVF following RFA for which operative details are known. We review the literature and discuss possible causes and management of this rare complication.

A pre-clinical animal study of a novel mechanical-only ablation device treatment for superficial venous disease.

OBJECTIVE: Current minimally invasive techniques for ablation in superficial venous reflux are limited to thermal based systems requiring tumescent anesthesia, non-thermal chemical sclerosants and permanent glue implantation. The aim of this feasibility study was to determine the safety and efficacy of a novel mechanical-only ablation (MOA) device called EnVena, in a recognised large animal model with chronic follow up. METHODS: Venous ablation of six lateral saphenous veins in three sheep was performed using the EnVena device. Luminal patency and vein wall fibrosis were evaluated by histologic analysis at 51 and 89 days. RESULTS: All treated veins demonstrated fibrotic occlusion in contiguous segments at 51 and 89 days on histological analysis. From 45 consecutive segments spanning the treatment length across the six treated veins, 26 (57%) were fully occluded, 7 (16%) were impinged or partially occluded and 12 (27%) were open. There were no device related complications during the follow up period. CONCLUSIONS: A purely mechanical approach to superficial venous ablation demonstrated safety and efficacy in a recognized large animal model based on histological findings.

The presence of a pathologic perforator may be predictive of central venous pathology and multilevel disease in severe chronic venous insufficiency.

OBJECTIVES: The treatment of a refluxing perforator is indicated in the setting of severe chronic venous insufficiency, but there are limited data on the presence of multilevel disease in these patients. This study sought to evaluate whether the presence of a pathologic perforator is predictive of the presence of central venous pathology. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of the institutional Vascular Quality Initiative database. Consecutive patient limbs were identified that underwent intervention of refluxing perforators. The patients who underwent imaging, including magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography (group A), were compared with those who did not undergo imaging (group B). The treated limbs in group A were also compared with the contralateral limbs as an internal control. Anatomical findings on imaging were analyzed by two independent investigators. The primary outcome was the presence and degree of central venous stenosis as measured by an orthogonal diameter reduction of >50% by axial imaging. Secondary outcomes included demographic and clinical differences between the two groups, frequency of central venous intervention, and duration of ulcer healing. Standard statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Ninety-three patient limbs underwent treatment of a pathologic perforator, with 30 in group A and 63 in group B. The following demographic and clinical variables were higher in group A compared with group B: male sex, body mass index, deep venous thrombosis history, recent or active anticoagulation use, perforator diameter, Clinical Etiology Anatomy Pathophysiology class 4, 5, or 6, and Venous Clinical Severity Score. Radiographic analysis of group A revealed concordance of a treated pathologic perforator with an ipsilateral central venous stenosis in 53.3% of patients, and a higher frequency of common iliac vein stenosis (50% vs 21.4%, P = .024) and external iliac vein stenosis (20% vs 0%, P = .012) compared with the contralateral limbs. When separated by the left or right limb, the left limbs exhibited a greater degree of common iliac vein stenosis as compared with the contralateral limbs (50.7% ± 20.9% vs 16.3% ± 16.5%, P < .001) as well as a greater frequency of >50% common iliac vein stenosis (46.7% vs 13.3%, P = .046). The right limbs exhibited a greater frequency of >50% external iliac vein stenosis as compared with the contralateral limbs (33.3% vs 0%, P = .022). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that patients with severe chronic venous insufficiency who undergo treatment for a pathologic perforator may have additional ipsilateral central venous pathology, supporting the presence of multilevel disease. Additional axial imaging might unmask central venous pathology and provide another option for treatment.

Current status of endothermal heat induced thrombosis.

There remain many questions regarding the pathophysiology and risk factors for endothermal heat induced thrombosis formation. Moreover, there are a paucity of data on the timing of its occurrence, and there has been no consensus regarding for its treatment. The purpose of this review was to summarize the current knowledge on the pathophysiology, risk factors and treatment strategies for endothermal heat induced thrombosis. The PubMed database was searched from 2001 to present for endothermal heat induced thrombosis, EHIT, deep vein thrombosis, chronic venous insufficiency, varicose veins, endovenous laser and radiofrequency ablation (treatment). All relevant articles identified by the authors mentioning endothermal heat induced thrombosis were included in this review. A multitude of risk factors, several pathophysiological hypotheses and different treatment strategies are described in the literature. Endothermal heat induced thrombosis is marginally understood. There remains a theoretical risk for significant venous thromboembolic complications. With the new uniform classification of EHIT (American Venous Forum), healthcare providers should continue to investigate the nature of this event.

An algorithm combining VVSYmQ® and VCSS scores may help to predict disease severity in C2 patients.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose was to assess whether combining patient reported scores (VVSymQ®) and physician reported scores (VCSS) stratifies disease severity in C2 patients. METHODS: Consecutive patients were pooled from the VANISH-1 and VANISH-2 cohorts. VCSS and VVSymQ® were calculated for each patient. The relationship between scoring systems was evaluated using Pearson's correlation and frequency distribution analysis. RESULTS: Two-hundred and ten C2 limbs were included. Scoring systems demonstrated: VVSymQ®: mean = 8.72; VCSS: mean = 6.32; correlation (r = 0.22, p = 0.05). Frequency distribution analysis demonstrated 61.4% of patients had low VVSymQ® and low VCSS; 31.3% had elevated VVSymQ® and increased VCSS; 7.3% were inconsistent with C2 disease. Strict concordance analysis revealed 40.5% had VVSymQ® (< 9)/VCSS (0-6), 18.6% had VVSymQ® (≥ 9)/VCSS (7-9), and 2.9% had VVSymQ® (≥9)/VCSS (≥10). CONCLUSIONS: For combined elevated VVSymQ® and VCSS, moderate/severe disease is corroborated, and intervention may be indicated. For combined lower scores, the disease severity is mild and conservative therapy is more appropriate.

Classification and treatment of endothermal heat-induced thrombosis: Recommendations from the American Venous Forum and the Society for Vascular Surgery.

The American Venous Forum (AVF) and the Society for Vascular Surgery set forth these guidelines for the management of endothermal heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT). The guidelines serve to compile the body of literature on EHIT and to put forth evidence-based recommendations. The guidelines are divided into the following categories: classification of EHIT, risk factors and prevention, and treatment of EHIT. One major feature is to standardize the reporting under one classification system. The Kabnick and Lawrence classification systems are now combined into the AVF EHIT classification system. The novel classification system affords standardization in reporting but also allows continued combined evaluation with the current body of literature. Recommendations codify the use of duplex ultrasound for the diagnosis of EHIT. Risk factor assessments and methods of prevention including mechanical prophylaxis, chemical prophylaxis, and ablation distance are discussed. Treatment guidelines are tailored to the AVF EHIT class (ie, I, II, III, IV). Reference is made to the use of surveillance, antiplatelet therapy, and anticoagulants as deemed indicated, and the recommendations incorporate the use of the novel direct oral anticoagulants. Last, EHIT management as it relates to the great and small saphenous veins is discussed.

Classification and treatment of endothermal heat-induced thrombosis: Recommendations from the American Venous Forum and the Society for Vascular Surgery This Practice Guidelines document has been co-published in Phlebology [DOI: 10.1177/0268355520953759] and Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders [DOI: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2020.06.008]. The publications are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. The contribution has been published under a Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

The American Venous Forum (AVF) and the Society for Vascular Surgery set forth these guidelines for the management of endothermal heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT). The guidelines serve to compile the body of literature on EHIT and to put forth evidence-based recommendations. The guidelines are divided into the following categories: classification of EHIT, risk factors and prevention, and treatment of EHIT.One major feature is to standardize the reporting under one classification system. The Kabnick and Lawrence classification systems are now combined into the AVF EHIT classification system. The novel classification system affords standardization in reporting but also allows continued combined evaluation with the current body of literature. Recommendations codify the use of duplex ultrasound for the diagnosis of EHIT. Risk factor assessments and methods of prevention including mechanical prophylaxis, chemical prophylaxis, and ablation distance are discussed.Treatment guidelines are tailored to the AVF EHIT class (ie, I, II, III, IV). Reference is made to the use of surveillance, antiplatelet therapy, and anticoagulants as deemed indicated, and the recommendations incorporate the use of the novel direct oral anticoagulants. Last, EHIT management as it relates to the great and small saphenous veins is discussed.

Endovenous laser ablation: A comprehensive review.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an evidence-based overview of endovenous laser ablation and describe its role as an effective and durable technique for the management of superficial venous insufficiency. METHODS: The published literature on the treatment of varicose veins using endovenous laser ablation was reviewed. The literature search focused on the history of endovenous laser ablation, its safety and durability, known complications, and differences in outcomes based on the iterations of fiber type and laser wavelength. RESULTS: Treatment safety and efficacy of endovenous laser ablation appear to be based on the amount of energy administered over a defined distance, or the linear endovenous energy density. The ideal linear endovenous energy density varies with the laser wavelength and fiber-type. Post-operative pain and bruising may be reduced by the use of higher wavelength fibers or the use of radial or jacket-tip fibers as compared to bare-tip fibers. The incidence of endothermal heat-induced thrombosis remains low and has declined with increasing experience. Reports have demonstrated a greater than 90% technical success rate with saphenous endovenous laser ablation, long-term durability of ablation, and commensurate improvement in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Endovenous laser ablation is a safe and durable treatment option for the management of incompetent superficial and perforator veins of the lower extremities. As an endothermal technology, it remains a key component of the standard of care for the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency.

A prospective safety and effectiveness study using endovenous laser ablation with a 400-µm optical fiber for the treatment of pathologic perforator veins in patients with advanced venous disease (SeCure trial).

BACKGROUND: Treatment of pathologic perforator veins (PPVs) can shorten time to healing and reduce recurrence of ulcers in patients with advanced venous disease. Because of limited clinical evidence and device options, widespread adoption of PPV treatment is controversial. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endovenous laser therapy using a 400-µm optical fiber to treat PPVs. METHODS: This study was a single-arm, prospective, seven-center, nonblinded clinical study examining patients with advanced skin changes or healed or active ulceration (Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology clinical class C4b, C5, and C6). Patients received treatment with a 1470-nm laser. Procedural technical success and 10-day primary closure were evaluated. All device-related adverse events were reported. Follow-up of patients was continued for 12 months after initial ablation. RESULTS: The primary PPV closure (at 10-day visit) rate was 76.9% (95% confidence interval, 70.3%-82.4%). Successful primary closure rates of 75.7%, 70.3%, 62.1%, 68.8%, and 71.3% of PPVs were achieved at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months, respectively. Statistically significant improvements (P < .05) were seen in patients' quality of life at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months compared with screening. The percentage of patients with ulcers (22.9% at screening, 14.1% at 1 month, 13.7% at 3 months, 10.1% at 6 months, 12.3% at 9 months, and 11.1% at 12 months) displayed improvement during the course of the study. Tibial deep venous thrombosis and procedural pain were the only device-related adverse events observed. CONCLUSIONS: Endovenous laser therapy for PPV using the 400-µm optical fiber with the 1470-nm laser yielded safe and effective outcomes with no major adverse sequelae.

In Well-Selected Patients With a Femoral Deep Vein Thrombosis Central Venous Imaging May Identify Additional Iliocaval Disease.

OBJECTIVE: Patients who present acutely with a femoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT) diagnosed by ultrasound are often treated with anticoagulation and instructed to follow-up electively. This study sought to assess whether obtaining axial imaging of the central venous system results in the identification of additional iliocaval pathology warranting treatment. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained registry from November 2014 through April 2017 with follow-up through March 2020. Consecutive patients with a diagnosis of femoral DVT diagnosed by ultrasound were evaluated; those who underwent axial imaging of the iliocaval system (Group A) were compared to those who did not undergo imaging of the central veins (Group B). The primary outcome was the performance of any percutaneous central venous intervention. Secondary outcomes included the extent of DVT identified on duplex and after axial imaging, follow-up duplex patency and persistence of severe symptoms. RESULTS: Eighty patients presented with an ultrasound diagnosis of a femoral vein DVT. Mean follow-up was 551 ± 502 days. Group A comprised 24 patients (30%) and Group B comprised 56 patients (70%). Baseline demographics did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. After duplex imaging, Group A exhibited an increased prevalence of DVT in the common femoral vein. After central imaging, Group A exhibited an increased prevalence of DVT in the iliocaval veins. The number of patients who underwent invasive treatment differed significantly between the 2 groups, Group A 16/24 (67%) vs. Group B 9/56 (16%), P < 0.0001. The number of patients that demonstrated duplex patency and had persistent symptoms on follow-up did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with an ultrasound diagnosis of femoral DVT may have additional iliocaval pathology warranting intervention. Well-selected imaging of the central veins may reveal a more complete picture, potentially altering management.

Radiofrequency and laser vein ablation for patients receiving warfarin anticoagulation is safe, effective, and durable.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, durability, and safety of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) of the great saphenous vein (GSV) and small saphenous vein (SSV) to treat symptomatic venous reflux in patients receiving therapeutic anticoagulation. METHODS: Patients treated at a single institution with RFA or EVLA while receiving warfarin (Coumadin) anticoagulation were identified retrospectively along with a consecutive sample of patients not receiving anticoagulation who were similarly treated. Patients' demographics, comorbidities, procedural details, and follow-up data were obtained from electronic medical records. Outcomes of interest included the rates of persistent vein ablation, bleeding, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and endothermal heat-induced thrombosis. Groups were compared using χ2 tests, Fisher exact test, Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox proportional hazard modeling. RESULTS: There were 100 procedures performed in 65 patients receiving anticoagulation and 127 procedures in 89 control patients. Mean follow-up time was 467 days. The most common indications for anticoagulation were atrial fibrillation (52%), remote DVT (29%), and mechanical heart valves (8%). Patients receiving anticoagulation were on average older (67 years vs 52 years), were more likely to be male (51% vs 27%), and had higher rates of coronary disease (9% vs 0%) and hypertension (55% vs 20%), although they were more likely to have never smoked (86% vs 69%). There were 127 RFA procedures (56%) and 100 EVLA procedures (44%); 189 procedures treated the GSV or its tributaries (83%), and 38 treated the SSV (17%). At 1 year, the target vessel remained ablated after 96% of procedures performed with anticoagulation and in 99% of controls; at 18 months, rates were 92% vs 95% (P = .96). Rates of persistent ablation did not differ significantly by vessel treated (P = .28), EVLA vs RFA (P = .36), or use of antiplatelet therapy (P = .92). One patient had bleeding from a phlebectomy site 2 days postprocedurally when supratherapeutic on warfarin; this was controlled with pressure. DVT in the ipsilateral leg occurred within 90 days after 1 of 100 (1%) procedures in patients receiving anticoagulation and 2 of 127 (1.6%) procedures in control patients; endothermal heat-induced thrombosis rates were similarly 1 of 100 (1%) procedures in patients receiving anticoagulation and 1 of 127 (0.8%) in control patients. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest series to date reporting >30-day follow-up for patients undergoing venous ablation procedures while receiving anticoagulation and the longest follow-up reported of any series. Durability, safety, and efficacy of vein ablation in patients receiving anticoagulation are comparable to those in control patients. Anticoagulation should not be considered a contraindication to endothermal ablation of the GSV or SSV for symptomatic venous reflux.