Differences in risk profile associated with varicose veins and chronic venous insufficiency - results from the Bonn Vein Study 1.

Background: The aim of this publication is to demonstrate similarities and differences in the association of risk factors with the prevalence of different manifestations of chronic venous disease (CVD), like varicose veins (VV), venous oedema (C3) and severe chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) in the population-based cross-sectional Bonn Vein Study 1 (BVS). Patients and methods: In the BVS 1 between 13.11.2000 and 15.3.2002, 3.072 participants, 1350 men and 1722 women, from a simple random sample of the general population of the city of Bonn and two rural townships aged 18-79 years were included. The overall response proportion was 59%. All participants answered a standardized questionnaire including information about socio-economic data, lifestyle, physical activity, medical history, and quality of life. Venous investigations were performed clinically and by a standardized duplex examination by trained investigators. The CEAP classification in the version of 1996 was used to classify the findings. Logistic regression models were performed for the association of possible risk factors with VV, venous edema (C3) and severe CVI (C4-C6). The predictive risk (PR) describes the association of the diseases and the possible influencing factors. Results: VV, venous oedema (C3) and severe CVI (C4-C6) have common risk factors like higher age, number of pregnancies, family history of VV and overweight or obesity. Female gender is significantly associated with VV and C3 but not with severe CVI (C4-C6). High blood pressure and urban living are only associated with C3 and C4-C6 disease whereas prolonged sitting is associated with C3 and lower social class with C4-C6 exclusively. Discussion: In many epidemiological studies risk factors were associated with chronic venous disorders in general. Our data show that VV, venous edema and severe CVI may have different risk profiles. Venous edema is more often associated with arterial hypertension and sedentary lifestyle whereas lower social class seems to be a risk factor for severe CVI including venous ulcers. Conclusions: The differences in the association of risk factors to VV, venous edema and severe CVI should be considered if prevention and treatment of chronic venous diseases are planned. As examples, compression stockings could be proposed in sitting profession to prevent oedema, VV patients with risk factors like obesity might benefit from early treatment for VV and obesity. More longitudinal evaluation of risk factors is necessary to evaluate the true risk profile of CVD.

CT venography combined with ultrasound-guided minimally invasive treatment for recurrent varicose veins: a pilot paired-design clinical trial.

AIM: To compare 1-year outcomes of computed tomography venography (CTV) combined with ultrasound-guided minimally invasive treatment with ascending phlebography and ultrasound-guided treatment for recurrent varicose veins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with unilateral recurrent varicose veins were matched by gender, age, C classification, and degree of obesity, and randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either CTV (CTV group) or ascending phlebography (control group) combined with ultrasound-guided minimally invasive treatment. Patients were followed up by clinical and ultrasound examination. Follow-up was scheduled at 1 week, and 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome measure was the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) at 12 months. Measures of secondary outcome included Chronic Insufficiency Venous International Questionnaire-20 (CIVIQ-20) score, recurrence of varicose vein or ulcer during 12 months, ulcer healing time, detection and location of treated veins. RESULTS: Eighty patients were enrolled. Median VCSS in the CTV group was lower than it in the control group (p=0.04) and the CIVIQ-20 score was higher than the control group (p=0.02). By 12 months, no symptomatically recurrent varicose veins or ulcers had occurred. The ulcer healing time in CTV group was shorter (p<0.01). A greater number of patients had treated veins detected using CTV than by ascending venography (p=0.01), especially among patients with recurrence reflux veins in the groin, perineum, and vulva (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: CTV combined with ultrasound may be more helpful than ascending phlebography combined with ultrasound to improve treatment efficacy for recurrent varices. These results should be verified by an future study with more patients and long-term follow-up.

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.

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

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.

A systematic review on ablation techniques for larger saphenous veins in patients with symptomatic superficial venous disease.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to summarize the existing evidence for the treatment of saphenous veins >10 mm in diameter, to determine whether there were vein size limits for treatment modalities, and to determine if there are specific technical considerations for treatment of large veins. METHODS: We searched the literature for reports of treatment methods and outcomes for patients with large-diameter saphenous veins treated with various ablation methods between 1993 and 2023. These studies were evaluated for the size of the vein determined as "large diameter," type of ablation method, study type, outcomes, adverse events, and any technical considerations noted. A systematic review was conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology. The COVIDENCE software was used for full-text screening and data extraction. Three reviewers reviewed the data, and the content expert served as the tiebreaker. RESULTS: Seventy-one records were identified, of which 24 studies were deemed appropriate for extraction. Most of the studies identified reported outcomes of endovenous thermal ablation modalities. There were fewer studies on non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques, and these studies reported an overall lower occlusion rate compared with endovenous thermal ablation techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Large head-to-head trials or randomized controlled that compare all the modalities over a long follow-up duration are yet to be performed. In the existing literature, there is considerable heterogeneity in terms of the study size, design, definition of large veins, site of vein measurement, and follow-up periods, making it challenging to make fair comparisons and draw firm conclusions. Currently available evidence supports the use of endothermal ablation techniques for the treatment of veins >10 mm in diameter as they have a more favorable efficacy and safety profile and have a larger body of evidence available compared with non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques or surgery.

Increased body mass index and vein diameter are associated with incomplete target vein closure following microfoam ablation of incompetent saphenous veins.

OBJECTIVE: Patient characteristics and risk factors for incomplete or non-closure following thermal saphenous vein ablation have been reported. However, similar findings have not been clearly described following commercially manufactured polidocanol microfoam ablation (MFA). The objective of our study is to identify predictive factors and outcomes associated with non-closure following MFA of symptomatic, refluxing saphenous veins. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained patient database was performed from procedures in our Ambulatory Procedure Unit. All consecutive patients who underwent MFA with commercially manufactured 1% polidocanol microfoam for symptomatic superficial vein reflux between June 2018 and September 2022 were identified. Patients treated for tributary veins only, without truncal vein ablation, were excluded. Patients were then stratified into groups: complete closure (Group I) and non-closure (Group II). Preoperative demographics, procedural details, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Preoperative variables that were significant on univariate analysis (prior deep venous thrombosis [DVT], body mass index [BMI] ≥30 kg/m2, and vein diameter) were entered into a multivariate logistic regression model with the primary outcome being vein non-closure. RESULTS: Between June 2018 and September 2022, a total of 224 limbs underwent MFA in our ambulatory venous center. Of these, 127 limbs in 103 patients met study inclusion criteria. Truncal veins treated included the above-knee great saphenous vein (Group I: n = 89, 77% vs Group II: n = 7, 58%; P = .14), below-knee great saphenous vein (Group I: n = 7, 6% vs Group II: n = 0; P = .38), anterior accessory saphenous vein (Group I: n = 17, 15% vs Group II: n = 4, 33%; P = .12, and small saphenous vein (Group I: n = 4, 4% vs Group II: n = 1, 8%; P = .41). Complete closure (Group I) occurred in 115 limbs, and 12 limbs did not close (Group II) based on postoperative duplex ultrasound screening. The mean BMI in Group II (36.1 ± 6.4 kg/m2) was significantly greater than Group I (28.6 ± 6.1 kg/m2) (P < .001). Vein diameter of ≥10.2 mm was independently associated with truncal vein non-closure with an odds ratio of 4.8. The overall mean foam volume was 6.2 ± 2.7 ml and not different between the two cohorts (Group I: 6.2 ± 2.6 ml vs Group II: 6.3 + 3.5 ml; P = .89). Post MFA improvement in symptoms was higher in Group I (96.9%) compared with Group II (66.7%) (P = .001). The mean postoperative Venous Clinical Severity Score was also lower in Group I (8.0 ± 3.0) compared with Group II (9.9 ± 4.2) (P = .048). The overall incidences of ablation-related thrombus extension and DVT were 4.7% (n = 6) and 1.6% (n = 2), and all occurred in Group I. All were asymptomatic and resolved with anticoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: Microfoam ablation of symptomatic, refluxing truncal veins results in excellent overall closure rates and symptomatic relief. BMI ≥30 kg/m2 and increased vein diameter are associated with an increased risk of saphenous vein non-closure following MFA. Non-closure is associated with less symptomatic improvement and a lower post-procedure reduction in Venous Clinical Severity Score. Despite the incidence of ablation-related thrombus extension and DVT in this study being higher than reported rates following thermal ablation, MFA is safe for patients with early postoperative duplex ultrasound surveillance and selective short-term anticoagulation.

Acute Thrombosis of an Aneurysm of the Small Saphenous Vein: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND: A venous aneurysm (VA) is a focal dilatation of a nonvariceal vein (diameter increased by at least 1.5 times compared to the adjacent upstream or downstream venous segment), which carries a risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) when located in the deep veins of the lower limbs but also when it affects the veins above the muscle fascia. CASE: We report the case of a 40-year-old woman who presented with a painful and disabling mass-like lesion of the upper third of the right calf. A Doppler ultrasound (DUS) examination revealed a small saphenous vein (SSV) dilated at the saphenopopliteal junction (SPJ) and thrombosed along its entire length. Anticoagulant treatment was initiated but although the thrombosis regressed on DUS, the functional impotence and the persistence of pain prompted a stripping of the SSV. Histology allowed the diagnosis of SSV's primary aneurysm. DISCUSSION: Dilated segments of the saphenous vein are not always varicose veins (VVs). True VAs can develop on veins located above the muscular fascia and, like deep VAs, may trigger VTE. Small saphenous vein aneurysms have seldom been reported, and only a few clinical observations have described the thrombosis of a SSV aneurysm. Any mass in the popliteal fossa or upper part of the calf should be examined by DUS to look for an SSV aneurysm. Excision of the saphenous vein with junctional ligation is advised if thrombosis is present at the time of diagnosis.

A Comparison of Venaseal Versus Radiofrequency Ablation Outcomes Within a Managed Care Organization.

BACKGROUND: Chronic venous insufficiency is a common medical condition that afflicts over 30 million adults in the United States. Treatment and management have changed dramatically over the past 20 years with the introduction of various endovenous therapies, including radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cyanoacrylate closure using the Venaseal system. In this study, we explore a direct comparison of outcomes between RFA and VenaSeal conducted by a single surgeon within a managed care organization. METHODS: Between May 2020 and December 2021, there were 87 patients undergoing 97 total procedures who were treated with either VenaSeal (n = 55) or RFA (n = 42), conducted by a single surgeon within a managed care organization. Primary outcomes included successful greater saphenous vein (GSV) closure, postoperative deep vein thrombosis (DVT), embolization, saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) thrombosis, skin reaction (allergic or thrombophlebitis), or procedure-related emergency room (ER) and urgent care (UC) visits. Retrospective chart review was conducted to describe patient demographics, indications for treatment, treatment details (number of access sites and indication for treatment), as well as follow-up adjunctive vein procedures (sclerotherapy and stab phlebectomy). RESULTS: All patients had postprocedural ultrasound (US) performed within 7 days by the operating surgeon and mean overall patient follow-up from index procedure was 12 months; 2 patients were lost to follow-up due to death. All operations utilized intraoperative US, and SFJ thrombosis was not observed in any patient postprocedure. The average age of VenaSeal and RFA groups was 59.05 and 59.51 years, respectively. The average number of access sites during the procedure for VenaSeal and RFA was 1.56 and 1.20, respectively. Of the 55 VenaSeal treatments, 9.1% of patients reported postoperative skin reactions, and 9.1% of patients underwent subsequent stab phlebectomy (22 stabs on average). Of the 42 RFA treatments, 7.1% of RFA patients reported postoperative skin reactions, and 9.5% underwent subsequent stab phlebectomy (36 stabs on average). The percentage of patients who had postoperative UC or emergency department visits related to the procedure in the VenaSeal and RFA groups was 3.6% and 0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both VenaSeal and RFA demonstrated effective vein closure of the GSV at 12-month follow-up, with VenaSeal demonstrating continued noninferiority to RFA. Based on our data, postoperative skin reactions do not appear to be significantly higher with VenaSeal treatment, as previously reported.

Effect of junctional reflux on the venous clinical severity score in patients with insufficiency of the great saphenous vein (JURY study).

OBJECTIVE: Effective treatment options are available for chronic venous insufficiency associated with superficial venous reflux. Although many patients with C2 and C3 disease based on the CEAP (Clinical-Etiological-Anatomical-Pathophysiological) classification have combined great saphenous vein (GSV) and saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) reflux, some may not have concomitant SFJ reflux. Several payors have determined that symptom severity in patients without SFJ reflux does not warrant treatment. In patients planned for venous ablation, we tested whether Venous Clinical Severity Scores (VCSS) are equivalent in those with GSV reflux alone compared with those with both GSV and SFJ reflux. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at 10 centers. Inclusion criteria were: candidate for endovenous ablation as determined by treating physician; 18 to 80 years of age; GSV reflux with or without SFJ reflux on ultrasound; and C2 or C3 disease. Exclusion criteria were prior deep vein thrombosis; prior vein ablation on the index limb; ilio-caval obstruction; and renal, hepatic, or heart failure requiring prior hospitalization. An a priori sample size was calculated. We used multiple linear regression (adjusted for patient characteristics) to compare differences in VCSS scores of the two groups at baseline, and to test whether scores were equivalent using a priori equivalence boundaries of +1 and -1. In secondary analyses, we tested differences in VCSS scores in patients with C2 and C3 disease separately. RESULTS: A total of 352 patients were enrolled; 64.2% (n = 226) had SFJ reflux, and 35.8% (n = 126) did not. The two groups did not differ by major clinical characteristics. The mean age of the cohort was 53.9 ± 14.3 years; women comprised 74.2%; White patients 85.8%; and body mass index was 27.8 ± 6.1 kg/m2. The VCSS scores in patients with and without SFJ reflux were found to be equivalent; SFJ reflux was not a significant predictor of VCSS score; and mean VCSS scores did not differ significantly (6.4 vs 6.6, respectively, P = .40). In secondary subset analyses, VCSS scores were equivalent between C2 patients with and without SFJ reflux, and VCSS scores of C3 patients with SFJ reflux were lower than those without SFJ reflux. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom severity is equivalent in patients with GSV reflux with or without SFJ reflux. The absence of SFJ reflux alone should not determine the treatment paradigm in patients with symptomatic chronic venous insufficiency. Patients with GSV reflux who meet clinical criteria for treatment should have equivalent treatment regardless of whether or not they have SFJ reflux.

Endovenous laser ablation vs phlebectomy of foot varicose veins.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes and complications of selected patients treated with endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) or ambulatory phlebectomy for foot varicose veins. METHODS: From October 2016 to February 2022, selected patients undergoing EVLA (using 1470-nm with radial-slim or bare-tip fibers) or phlebectomy of foot varicose veins for cosmetic indications were analyzed, and the outcomes were compared. Patients were classified according to the Clinical, Etiologic, Anatomical, and Pathophysiological (CEAP) classification. Anatomic criteria provided the basis for the decision to perform EVLA or phlebectomy. Clinical and ultrasound assessments were performed on postoperative days 7, 30, and 90 for visualization of the sapheno-femoral and sapheno-popliteal junctions and the deep venous system. Disease severity was graded with the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), and quality of life was measured with the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ) before and after treatment. Treatment outcomes were evaluated based on changes in VCSS and AVVQ scores. The groups were also compared for procedure-related complications. Data were statistically analyzed in SPSS v. 20.0 using the χ2, Student t test, Mann-Whitney test, Wilcoxon test, and analysis of variance. The results were presented as mean (standard deviation or median (interquartile range). RESULTS: The study included 270 feet of 171 patients. Mean patient age was 52.3 (standard deviation, 13.1) years, ranging from 21 to 84 years; 133 (77.8%) were women. Of 270 feet, 113 (41.9%) were treated with EVLA and 157 (58.1%) with phlebectomy. The median preoperative CEAP class was 2 (interquartile range, 2-3) in the phlebectomy and EVLA groups, with no statistically significant difference between the groups (P = .507). Dysesthesia was the most common complication in both groups. Only transient induration was significantly different between EVLA (7.1%) and phlebectomy (0.0%) (P = .001). The two approaches had an equal impact on quality of life and disease severity. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment complications were similar in phlebectomy and EVLA and to those previously described in the literature.

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.

A comparison of below-knee vs above-knee endovenous ablation of varicose veins.

OBJECTIVE: Varicose veins have a significant impact on quality of life and can commonly occur in the thigh and calves. However, there has been no large-scale investigation examining the relationship between anatomic distribution and outcomes after varicose vein treatment. This study sought to compare below-the-knee (BTK) and above-the-knee (ATK) varicose vein treatment outcomes. METHODS: Employing the Vascular Quality Initiative Varicose Vein Registry, 13,731 patients undergoing varicose vein ablation for either BTK or ATK lesions were identified. Outcomes were assessed using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS). Continuous variables were compared using the t-test, and categorical variables were analyzed using the χ2 test. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of improvement after intervention. The multivariable model controlled for age, gender, race, preoperative VCSS composite score, and history of deep vein thrombosis. RESULTS: Patients who received below-knee treatment had a lower preoperative VCSS composite (7.0 ± 3.3 vs 7.7 ± 3.3; P < .001) and lower PROs composite scores (11.1 ± 6.4 vs 13.0 ± 6.6; P < .001) compared with those of patients receiving above-knee treatment. However, on follow-up, patients receiving below-knee intervention had a higher postoperative VCSS composite score (4.4 ± 3.3 vs 3.9 ± 3.5; P < .001) and PROs composite score (6.1 ± 4.4 vs 5.8 ± 4.5; P = .007), the latter approaching statistical significance. Patients receiving above-knee interventions also demonstrated more improvement in both composite VCSS (3.8 ± 4.0 vs 2.9 ± 3.7; P < .001) and PROs (7.1 ± 6.8 vs 4.8 ± 6.6; P < .001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis similarly revealed that patients receiving above-knee treatment had significantly higher odds of improvement in VCSS composite in both the unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-1.65; P < .001 and adjusted (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.14-1.50; P < .001) models. Patients receiving above-knee treatment also had a significantly higher odds of reporting improvement in PROs composite in both the unadjusted (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.64-2.11; P < .001) and adjusted (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.45-1.88; P < .001) models. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment region has a significant association with PROs and VCSS composite scores after varicose vein interventions. Preoperatively, there were significant differences in the composite scores of VCSS and PROs with patients receiving BTK treatment exhibiting less severe symptoms. Yet, the association appeared to reverse postoperatively, with those receiving BTK treatments exhibiting worse PROs, worse VCSS composites scores, and less improvement in VCSS composite scores. Therefore, BTK interventions pose a unique challenge compared with ATK interventions in ensuring commensurate clinical improvement after treatment.

Venous thrombosis following endovenous laser ablation with and without thromboprophylaxis.

OBJECTIVE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs infrequently after endovenous laser ablation (EVLA). The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence of VTE after EVLA with and without pharmacologic prophylaxis. METHODS: From October 2019 to March 2020, a series of consecutive patients from the prospectively maintained VEINOVA (vein occlusion with various techniques) registry was retrospectively analyzed. All the patients underwent EVLA with and without postoperative thromboprophylaxis. A 1470-nm laser wavelength with a radial fiber was used for EVLA. Concomitant phlebectomy or sclerotherapy of insufficient tributaries was allowed. Perivenous tumescence was applied with 1% Rapidocaine (lidocaine hydrochloride monohydrate; Sintetica SA). Ablation of varicose veins was performed by continuously drawing back the laser fiber at a power of 10 W, aiming for a linear endovenous energy delivery of 60 to 90 J/cm. Compression stockings were applied postoperatively, and the patients were advised to wear them for 1 week. Duplex ultrasound was performed at the 1- and 4-week follow-up visits to determine the occlusion rate and the occurrence of EHIT and VTE. RESULTS: Overall, 249 patients were identified from the registry. Of the 249 patients, 26 were omitted because of treatment of recurrent varicose veins. Finally, 223 consecutive patients with 223 legs and 227 saphenous veins (159 great saphenous veins, 49 small saphenous veins, and 19 anterior accessory saphenous veins) were included in the final analysis. Their mean age was 58.1 ± 13.8 years, and 167 patients (73.1%) were women. The clinical CEAP (clinical, etiology, anatomy, pathophysiology) classification was C2 for 11 legs (4.9%), C3 for 123 legs (55.2%), C4a or C4b for 86 legs (38.6%), and C5 to C6 for 3 legs (1.4%). Thromboprophylaxis was given to 132 patients (59.2%) for 3 days (rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily to 130 patients [98.5%] and low-molecular-weight heparin to 2 patients [1.5%]). No thromboprophylaxis was administered to 91 patients (40.8%) after EVLA. The average treatment length was 34.2 ± 19.3 cm and the average diameter was 5.0 ± 1.3 mm. At 1 week of follow-up, no thrombotic event had occurred in either group. At 4 weeks of follow-up, one case of EHIT class 2 (1.1%) and one case of pulmonary embolism (1.1%) had occurred in the group without thromboprophylaxis. In the thromboprophylaxis group, one deep vein thrombosis (0.8%) event had occurred (adjusted P = .135). At 1 and 4 weeks of follow-up, the treated varicose veins remained occluded in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Endovenous ablation of truncal varicose veins appears to be safe with a low thrombotic event rate with or without pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. However, more data are needed before a final recommendation regarding the best thromboprophylaxis treatment option can be given.

COmpressioN following endovenous TreatmenT of Incompetent varicose veins by sclerotherapy (CONFETTI).

OBJECTIVE: The evidence for post-foam sclerotherapy compression stockings for varicose veins is limited. Thus, we examined the effects of post-procedural compression stockings on varicose vein patients undergoing foam sclerotherapy. METHODS: The CONFETTI study was a prospective, single-center, randomized controlled trial. Patients with foam sclerotherapy-suitable varicose veins were randomly assigned to the compression group (CG) or the no compression stockings group (NCG) for 7 days. The primary outcome was post-procedural pain measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale for 10 days. Secondary outcomes included clinical severity, generic and disease-specific quality of life scores, return to normal activities and/or work, occlusion rates, degree of ecchymosis, CG compliance, and complications. Patients were reviewed at 2 weeks and 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 139 patients were consented to and randomly assigned. The intention-to-treat analysis included 15 patients who did not receive the allocated intervention. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics. Of the patients, 63.3% and 55.4% returned for follow-up at 2 weeks and 6 months, respectively. Most of the veins treated were tributaries. The CG experienced significantly lower pain scores than the NCG, with median scores of 7 mm and 19 mm, respectively (Mann-Whitney U-test; P = .001). At 2 weeks, no differences were observed in ecchymosis or the time to return to normal activities or work. Both groups showed improvements in clinical severity and quality of life, and occlusion rates were comparable. The NCG experienced one deep venous thrombosis and superficial thrombophlebitis, whereas the CG experienced two superficial thrombophlebitis. CONCLUSIONS: The CONFETTI study suggests that short-term post-procedural compression stockings are beneficial for reducing post-procedure pain.

Endovenous Microwave Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for the Treatment of Lower Limb Varicose Veins.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to retrospectively compare the clinical outcomes of endovenous microwave versus radiofrequency ablation combined with foam sclerotherapy in patients with lower limb varicose veins. METHODS: We identified patients with lower limb varicose veins treated with endovenous microwave ablation or radiofrequency ablation with foam sclerotherapy between January 2018 and June 2021 at our institution. Patients were followed-up for 12 months. Clinical results, including the pre-post-Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire and post-Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire and Venous Clinical Severity Score, were compared. Complications were documented and treated accordingly. RESULTS: We included 287 cases (295 limbs total; endovenous microwave ablation + foam sclerosing agent: n = 142, 146 limbs; radiofrequency ablation + foam sclerosing agent: n = 145, 149 limbs). The operative time was shorter for endovenous microwave ablation than radiofrequency ablation (42.58 ± 15.62 min vs. 65.46 ± 24.38 min, P < 0.05); however, other procedural parameters did not differ. Furthermore, hospitalization costs for endovenous microwave ablation were lower than those for radiofrequency ablation (21,063.74 ± 850.47 yuan vs. 23,312.40 ± 1,035.86 yuan, P < 0.05). At the 12-month follow-up, the great saphenous vein closure rate was similar in both groups (endovenous microwave ablation, 97% [142/146] vs. radiofrequency ablation, 98% [146/149]; P > 0.05). Additionally, the satisfaction or incidence rates of complications were not different among the groups. In both groups, the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire and Venous Clinical Severity Score values were significantly lower 12 months postsurgery than before surgery; however, the postoperative values did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Endovenous microwave ablation effectively treated lower limb varicose veins, with similar short-term effects as radiofrequency ablation. Moreover, it had a shorter operative time and was less expensive than endovenous radiofrequency ablation.

Outcomes of Cyanoacrylate Closure Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for the Treatment of Incompetent Great Saphenous Veins.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of cyanoacrylate closure (CAC) for treating incompetent great saphenous veins (GSVs) compared to radiofrequency ablation (RFA). METHODS: In this prospective, randomized controlled study, 248 symptomatic subjects with incompetent GSVs were assigned to either CAC or RFA. The primary end point, complete closure of the target GSV, was determined using a duplex ultrasound examination. RESULTS: In this study, 248 patients (mean age 33.64 ± 8.06 years including 71% women) were treated with either CAC (n = 128) or RFA (n = 120) between August 2018 to May 2022. As a follow-up, after a 1-month duration, the closure rates were 128/128 at the CAC and 154/158 at the RFA. At month 24, closure rates were 122/128 at CAC and 146/158 at RFA. Apart from phlebitis and pigmentation, the incidences of bruising, skin burn, and paresthesia were lower in the CAC group compared to the RFA group. The mean procedural times were shorter for CAC. The satisfaction level with the treatment was moderately higher among CAC patients than RAF patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that Cyanoacrylate glue closure of the GSV and RFA are effective techniques for managing primary varicose veins. Cyanoacrylate glue closure of the GSV appears to have a lower rate of complications and higher satisfaction levels, rapid return to normal activities, and improved procedure time without the need for perivenous tumescent anesthesia and postprocedure compression stockings when compared to RFA.