Effect of endovenous ablation assessment stratified by great saphenous vein size, gender, clinical severity, and patient-reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The policies of insurance carriers have used the truncal vein size as a criterion for coverage. The objective of the present study was to compare the effect of great saphenous vein (GSV) size ≥5 mm vs <5 mm on patient presentation and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Patients in a national cohort were prospectively captured in the Vascular Quality Initiative Varicose Vein Registry. From January 2015 to October 2017, the Vascular Quality Initiative Varicose Vein Registry database was queried for all patients who had undergone varicose vein procedures. The CEAP (clinical, etiologic, anatomic, pathophysiologic) classification, Venous Clinical Severity Score, and patient-reported outcomes were compared by GSV size (<5 mm, group 1; ≥5 mm, group 2) before and after the procedures. A 2-sample Wilcoxon test was performed to assess the differences between the 2 groups stratified by GSV size. To assess for postoperative improvement, a matched-pairs Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed for each group separately. RESULTS: During the study period, 5757 vein ablation procedures had been performed for GSV: 770 for GSV size <5 mm and 4987 for GSV size ≥5 mm. Patients in group 1 were more likely to be women (81.7% vs 68.4%; P = .001) and older (56.8 vs 55.6 years; P = .012). The CEAP clinical class was more advanced in group 2 than in group 1 (P = .001). The maximal GSV diameter in group 2 was significantly greater than in group 1 (8.32 vs 3.86 mm; P = .001); 64% of group 2 and 59.2% of group 1 had undergone radiofrequency thermal ablation (P = .001). No mortalities occurred in either group. Group 2 had more complications postoperatively (0.6% vs 0%; P = .027), required postoperative anticoagulation (8.8% vs 5%, P = .001), developed partial recanalization (0.8% vs 0.3%; P = .001), and missed more work days (2.32 vs 1.6 days) compared with group 1. A similar rate of hematoma developed in both groups, but group 1 had a higher rate of paresthesia. Both groups had improvement in the Venous Clinical Severity Score and HASTI (heaviness, achiness, swelling, throbbing, itching) score. The degree of symptomatic improvement between the 2 groups was similar. CONCLUSIONS: All patients demonstrated improvement in both clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes after endovenous ablation, regardless of GSV size. Patients with a preoperative GSV size ≥5 mm experienced similar improvement in symptoms but an increased complication rate. Patients with a smaller vein size should not be denied intervention or coverage by vein size.

Posterior tibial vein approach to catheter-directed thrombolysis for iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis.

OBJECTIVE: Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) remains a significant cause of morbidity in the American population. Catheter-directed thrombolysis for acute iliofemoral DVT is an effective therapy not only to restore venous patency but also to reduce the development of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), especially in patients with extensive thrombosis involving the iliac and femoral venous segments. We hypothesized that delivery of thrombolytics through an access site in a vein distal to the segments containing thrombus would provide the greatest short- and long-term therapeutic clinical benefit with similar safety and efficacy. METHODS: All patients treated at a single institution between 2009 and 2016 undergoing mechanical and chemical thrombolysis for iliofemoral DVT were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into groups by access site, including contralateral and ipsilateral femoral vein, popliteal vein, and posterior tibial vein (PTV). Preoperative demographics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outpatient charts were analyzed. Primary end points included evidence of incompetence after the procedure by duplex ultrasound assessment and development of complications of PTS as defined by the Villalta scale. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients underwent mechanical and chemical thrombolysis, and 51 patients met the inclusion criteria. Thrombolysis access was through PTV (n = 27), popliteal vein (n = 20), or femoral vein (n = 4). More patients were female (55%), and the mean age was 57 years. Forty patients had unilateral DVT, whereas 11 patients had bilateral involvement. After lysis, 44 patients underwent percutaneous venous angioplasty and 11 patients underwent venous stenting in the acute setting. Although not statistically significant, mean operative times were slightly longer in the posterior tibial approach (156.7 minutes vs 130.6 minutes; P = .08), and mean fluoroscopy time was higher in the posterior tibial group (18.1 minutes vs 14.3 minutes; P = .17). Overall 90-day morbidity was 9.8%, and no deaths were recorded. Patency of the deep venous system was similar between the posterior tibial and the popliteal or femoral approach (95% vs 88%; P = .29); 21.6% developed symptoms of PTS. There was no difference for development of PTS between posterior tibial and popliteal or femoral approaches (22% vs 20.8%; P = .52). There was no difference in development of chronic nonocclusive DVT (37% vs 35%; P = .61). Median follow-up was 8.7 months (range, 0.4-58.9 months). CONCLUSIONS: The PTV approach to catheter-directed thrombolysis is a safe and sensible option for the treatment of iliofemoral and femoropopliteal DVT. A larger cohort will be necessary to demonstrate superiority of tibial vein access in the treatment of iliofemoral DVT with popliteal involvement.