RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The current guidelines recommend routine postoperative duplex ultrasound (DUS) screening after endovenous ablation (EVA). This is a grade 2C recommendation, and several contemporary reports have called for revision of this recommendation as there is insufficient evidence to support universal DUS screening after EVA. There are currently no studies that evaluate outcomes among EVA patients who did not have DUS screening. The aim of our study is to present outcomes from our single-center experience among patients who did not have DUS routinely performed after EVA. METHODS: We performed a single-center, prospective cohort study that included consecutive patients who underwent EVA of the great saphenous vein at our institution between September 30, 2021, and March 15, 2022. At 30 days after the procedure, electronic medical records were queried to identify patients who may have presented for the evaluation of venous thromboembolism (VTE) symptoms. RESULTS: Over the study period, a total of 80 lower extremity EVA procedures (71 endovenous laser ablation and 9 radiofrequency ablation) were performed among 76 patients. Postoperative DUS was performed on 24 patients, of whom none were identified as having endovenous heat-induced thrombosis. Of the 54 patients who did not have DUS, a 30-day postprocedure chart review revealed that none of these patients were seen for symptoms of VTE. We estimate total cost savings of $14,289 by eliminating routine DUS without impact to clinical outcomes after EVA. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative DUS assessment after EVA comes with associated health care cost and has low yield given that the incidence of clinically significant endovenous heat-induced thrombosis (3 and 4) is rare. In our experience, eliminating routine DUS had no impact on clinical outcomes, improved vascular lab access, and had a positive financial impact in our organization. Limiting DUS screening to EVA patients who exhibit symptoms of VTE can be a cost-effective approach that limits unnecessary imaging, time, and resources with no potential change in clinical outcomes based on our data. Further research is required, and a randomized controlled trial would be ideal to answer this question.