Race, sex, and socioeconomic disparities affect the clinical stage of patients presenting for treatment of superficial venous disease.

OBJECTIVE: Superficial venous disease has a U.S. prevalence of nearly 30%, with advanced disease contributing to a significant healthcare burden. Although the risk factors for venous disease are well known, the correlation between race, sex, socioeconomic status, and disease severity on presentation is not well established. The area deprivation index (ADI) is a validated metric with respect to regional geography, social determinants of health, and degree of socioeconomic disadvantage. In the present study, we aimed to identify the disparities and the effect that the ADI, in addition to race and sex, has among patients associated with an advanced venous disease presentation. METHODS: A retrospective review between 2012 and 2022 was performed at four tertiary U.S. institutions to identify patients who underwent endovenous closure of their saphenous veins. Patient demographics, state ADI, comorbidities, CEAP (clinical, etiologic, anatomic, pathophysiologic) classification, and periprocedural outcomes were included. Pearson's correlation was performed between the CEAP classification and ADI. Poisson regression analysis was performed to identify factors predicting for an increasing CEAP classification at presentation. Variables with P < .05 were deemed significant. RESULTS: A total of 2346 patients underwent endovenous saphenous vein closure during the study period, of whom 7 were excluded because of a lack of follow-up data. The mean age was 60.4 ± 14.9 years, 65.9% were women, and 55.4% were White. Of the 2339 patients, 73.3% presented with an advanced CEAP class (≥3). The mean state ADI for the entire cohort was 4.9 ± 3.1. The percent change in the CEAP classification is an increase of 2% and 1% for every level increase in the state ADI for unadjusted (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.02; P < .001) and adjusted (IRR = 1.01; P < .001) models, respectively. Black race has a 12% increased risk of a higher CEAP class on presentation compared with White race (IRR = 1.12; P = .005). Female sex had a 16% lower risk of a higher CEAP presentation compared with male sex (IRR = 0.84; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Low socioeconomic status, Black race, and male sex are predictive of an advanced CEAP classification on initial presentation. These findings highlight the opportunity for improved mechanisms for identification of venous disease and at-risk patients before advanced disease progression in known disadvantaged patient populations.

Type IV Hypersensitivity Reaction after Cyanoacrylate Venous Closure.

BACKGROUND: Nonthermal endovenous closure techniques are routinely utilized to treat superficial axial venous reflux. Cyanoacrylate closure is a safe and effective modality implemented for truncal closure. However, an adverse reaction of type IV hypersensitivity (T4H), unique to cyanoacrylate, is a known risk. This study aims to evaluate the real-world incidence of T4H and examine risk factors that may predispose its development. METHODS: A retrospective review between 2012- and 2022 was performed at four tertiary US institutions to examine patients who underwent cyanoacrylate vein closure of their saphenous veins. Patient demographics, comorbidities, CEAP (Clinical [C], Etiological [E], Anatomical [A], and Pathophysiological [P]) classification, and periprocedural outcomes were included. The primary endpoint was development of T4H post procedure. Logistic regression analysis for risk factors predictive of T4H was performed. Variables with a P-value of <0.05 were deemed significant. RESULTS: 595 patients underwent 881 cyanoacrylate venous closures. Mean age was 66.2 ± 14.9, and 66% of patients were female. There were 92 (10.4%) T4H events in 79 (13%) patients. Oral steroids were administered to 23% for persistent and/or severe symptoms. There were no systemic allergic reactions to cyanoacrylate. Multivariate analysis revealed younger age (P = 0.015), active smoking status (P = 0.033), and CEAP 3 (P < 0.001) and 4 (P = 0.005) classifications as independent risk factors associated with development of T4H. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world multicenter study shows the overall incidence of T4H to be 10%. CEAP 3 and 4 patients of younger age and smokers predicted a higher risk of T4H to cyanoacrylate.

Thrombotic complications after radiofrequency and cyanoacrylate endovenous ablation: Outcomes of a multicenter real-world experience.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) affects >40% of the U.S. population; thus, intervention for symptomatic venous disease comprises a large portion of many vascular practices. The treatment of superficial CVI has evolved from open surgical treatment to minimally invasive endovenous closure, including both thermal and nonthermal techniques. Thrombotic complications of thermal ablation have been well reported, with an overall complication rate of <2%. However, a paucity of high-powered, real-world data is available on the thrombotic outcomes of nonthermal techniques. In the present study, we compared the incidence of endovenous heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) and endovenous glue-induced thrombosis (EGIT) in a large cohort of patients with CVI. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted at two tertiary-level institutions of patients who had undergone superficial endovenous ablation from 2018 to 2021. The patient demographics, comorbidities, and periprocedural outcomes were collected through medical record review. A Caprini risk assessment model score was assigned using the information available from the electronic medical records. The patients were categorized by procedure type (ClosureFast [Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, MN] radiofrequency ablation [RFA] vs VenaSeal [Medtronic Inc] cyanoacrylate glue closure [CAG]). The primary end point was the incidence of EHIT or EGIT. The secondary end point was the incidence of deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism. RESULTS: A total of 803 patients had undergone 1096 procedures during the study period. Their mean age was 62 ± 15 years, and 67% were women. Of the 1096 procedures, 700 were RFA and 396 were CAG procedures, with a combined closure rate of 98% by postprocedure duplex ultrasound at 7 days. The average Caprini score was 5.2 ± 1.8 (RFA, 5.0; vs CAG, 5.4; P < .001). The incidence of EHIT and EGIT was 1.9% and 1.3%, respectively (P = .57). The deep vein thrombosis rate was 0.1% in the RFA cohort and 0.3% in the CAG cohort (P = .81). A comparative analysis of thermal vs nonthermal techniques was performed. A univariate analysis of the risk factors for EHIT and EGIT revealed no significant factors predisposing to thrombotic events. CONCLUSIONS: The results from the present study have demonstrated the safety of RFA and CAG closure techniques for CVI, with lower thrombotic rates than previously reported. Further work might help to identify how these results can be achieved across all venous ablative techniques for CVI, even for patient populations with advanced venous disease and possibly a greater than average risk of thrombotic events.

Does autotransfusion from a contaminated trauma laparotomy field increase the risk of complications?

BACKGROUND: Autotransfusion (AT) in trauma laparotomy is limited by concern that enteric contamination (EC) increases complications, including infections. Our goal was to determine if AT use increases complications in trauma patients undergoing laparotomy with EC. METHODS: Trauma patients undergoing laparotomy from October 2011-November 2020 were reviewed. Patients were excluded if they did not receive blood in the operating room, did not have a full thickness hollow viscus injury, or died <24 h from admission. AT and non-AT patients were matched. Outcomes were compared. RESULTS: 185 patients were included, 60 received AT, and 46 pairs were matched. After matching, demographics were similar. No differences were noted in septic complications (33 vs 41%, p = 0.39), overall complications (59% vs 54%, p = 0.67), or mortality (13 vs 6%, p = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: AT use in contaminated trauma laparotomy fields was not associated with a higher rate of complications.

The need for perforator treatment after VenaSeal and ClosureFast endovenous saphenous vein closure in CEAP 6 patients.

OBJECTIVE: The authors have previously demonstrated that VenaSeal (Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) adhesive, compared with radiofrequency ablation (RFA, ClosureFast; Medtronic, Inc), in treatment of refluxing saphenous veins in CEAP 6 limbs, results in shorter healing times of venous ulcers. The authors hypothesize that the longer treated length possible with VenaSeal's nonthermal modality may affect the number of critical refluxing perforators contributing to the nonhealing wound. This follow-up study compares the need for follow-up treatment of perforator veins after saphenous vein treatment with either radiofrequency ablation (ClosureFast RFA) or adhesive closure (VenaSeal). METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective review of CEAP 6 patients who had closure of their saphenous veins from 2015 to 2020 was conducted. Patients who underwent follow-up treatment of perforator veins were grouped according to their method of initial management of their saphenous veins. The primary end point was incidence of a perforator procedure after ClosureFast or VenaSeal ablation. Secondary end points included sclerotherapy to facilitate wound healing. Bivariate analysis used the χ2 test, Fisher exact test, t-test, and Wilcoxon rank sum test. A P value of <.05 defined statistical significance. RESULTS: There were 119 CEAP 6 patients with saphenous closure: 51 limbs treated with VenaSeal and 68 with RFA. Median follow-up was 105 days (interquartile range: 44, 208). All limbs achieved wound healing during the study period. Mean time to wound healing post index procedure was shorter for VenaSeal than RFA (72 vs 293.8 days, P > .0009), as was median time (43 vs 104 days, P = .001). More limbs treated with RFA had previous known deep vein thrombosis (29% vs 10%, P = .009), deep venous insufficiency (82% vs 51%, P = .0003), and perforator reflux (57% vs 29%, P = .002). Limbs with identified follow-up perforator reflux treated with RFA had a higher prevalence of initially treated saphenous veins with RFA compared with those treated with VenaSeal (49% vs 27%, P = .003). There was no difference between the methods of vein closure and use of concurrent sclerotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: ClosureFast and VenaSeal are both effective and safe modalities of saphenous ablation, but VenaSeal treatment was associated with less perforator RFA intervention.

Thrombotic complications of superficial endovenous ablation: a contemporary review of thermal and non-thermal techniques.

Endovenous ablation has become the preferred means to treat superficial venous insufficiency. Ablative technologies have evolved to include a variety of both thermal and non-thermal techniques. The reported thrombotic complications of endovenous heat induced thrombosis (EHIT) and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) associated with thermal techniques are low (<2% overall). However, the limited data on newer non-thermal technologies suggest these modalities may have thrombotic complication rates upwards of 6%. Additionally, the pathophysiology of thrombotic events related to mechanochemical ablative techniques may differ from EHIT, and thus, may have different implications for management. Described is a case report of a stroke after cyanoacrylate ablation of the great saphenous vein, and a review of the current literature reporting the thrombotic complications associated with current thermal and non-thermal techniques. There exists a need for high-volume studies on newer ablative techniques to fully understand their associated thrombotic complications. This review highlights the need for a comprehensive classification system and standard treatment algorithm encompassing of thrombotic complications associated with both thermal and non-thermal ablative techniques.

A comparison of cyanoacrylate glue and radiofrequency ablation techniques in the treatment of superficial venous reflux in CEAP 6 patients.

OBJECTIVE: Venous leg ulcers (CEAP [clinical, etiologic, anatomic, pathophysiologic] class 6) represent the most severe form of chronic venous insufficiency. As closure techniques for superficial venous reflux evolve, direct outcome comparisons of treatments are integral, because many studies have already demonstrated that early endovenous intervention improves wound healing. The present study compared the rates of venous wound healing between two techniques of superficial vein closure: ClosureFast radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and adhesive closure (VenaSeal; both Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, Minn). METHODS: We performed a multi-institutional retrospective review of all patients with CEAP class 6 who had undergone closure of their truncal veins from 2015 to 2020. Patients undergoing ClosureFast RFA were compared with those undergoing VenaSeal adhesive closure. The primary endpoint was the interval to wound healing from initial vein closure. The secondary endpoints included ulcer recurrence and infection rates. Bivariate analysis involved the χ2, Fisher exact, t, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to examine the factors affecting the time to wound healing in the most predictive model. Statistical significance was defined as P < .05. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients with CEAP 6 were included, with a median follow-up of 105 days (interquartile range, 44-208 days). Of the 119 limbs, 68 were treated with RFA and 51 with VenaSeal. Significantly more patients undergoing RFA had had a history of deep vein thrombosis (29% vs 10%; P = .01) and deep venous reflux (82% vs 51%; P = .003). The VenaSeal patients were older (72 years vs 65 years; P = .02) with a greater rate of coronary artery disease (16% vs 37%; P = .01). The median time to wound healing after the procedure was significantly shorter for VenaSeal than for RFA (43 vs 104 days; P = .001). Two RFA patients developed a postprocedure infection. The ulcer recurrence rate was 19.3% (22.1% for RFA vs 13.7% for VenaSeal; P = .25). On multivariate analysis, the treatment modality was the only significant predictor of the time to wound healing. When stratified by ulcer size as small (<3 cm2) vs large (>3 cm2), VenaSeal closure healed the wounds significantly faster for all ulcers. CONCLUSIONS: ClosureFast and VenaSeal are both safe and effective treatments to eliminate truncal venous insufficiency. VenaSeal showed a superior time to wound healing compared with ClosureFast in both large and small ulcers.