Determining Risk Factors for Endovenous Heat-induced Thrombosis after Radiofrequency Ablation.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate risk factors, incidence, management, and outcome of endovenous heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) related to radiofrequency ablation (RFA). METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective analysis of patients over the age of 18 who underwent RFA between 2016 and 2019. Demographics, comorbidities, medications, severity scores, vascular anatomy, procedural details, and outcome data were collected. EHIT-related data included occurrence, grade, laterality, management, and outcome. RESULTS: During the study period, 672 RFA procedures were performed at our institution. Of these, 642 (median age 57 (21-93), 62.3% female) met study inclusion criteria. EHIT was observed in 43 (6.6%) cases. Concurrent left common femoral vein (CFV) or right femoral vein (FV) incompetence was found to be more prevalent in the EHIT group (P = 0.024 and P = 0.011, respectively). Compared with performing RFA alone, concurrent performance of stab phlebectomy and sclerotherapy with RFA on the left side was found to be associated with possible increased risk for EHIT (P = 0.021). Furthermore, patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) (P = 0.05) and those with median diameter of the treated left vein of 1.2 cm (P = 0.02) were more likely to have a higher EHIT grade (III and IV) than those without DM and those with smaller vein diameter, respectively. Management included aspirin (44%), anticoagulant (28%), both (10%), or neither (18%). EHIT either resolved or regressed (64%), did not change (5%), or propagated (8%) at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Left CFV or right FV incompetence was found to be more prevalent in the total EHIT group. Furthermore, DM and the median size of the treated vein on the left (1.2 cm) were more prevalent in the high (III-IV) versus low grade (I-II) EHIT group. More than 50% of EHIT improved (regressed or resolved) at follow-up regardless of the management option. Further analysis with larger patient samples are needed to confirm the association between these variables and the development of EHIT.

Non-Nutritive (Artificial) Sweetener Knowledge among University Students.

This study determined non-nutritive sweetener (NNS; artificial sweetener) depth of knowledge among university health and science students. An online survey was delivered to 1248 science students and completed by 493 respondents (19.0 ± 2.2 years old), evaluating ability to provide an NNS description/definition, examples of NNS from memory, and evaluate NNS word familiarity with a click-drag-box to identify six NNS by chemical name (CN) and six NNS by trade name (TN), relative to six decoy NNS, six caloric sweeteners, and six food items (mean ± standard deviation). NNS definitions contained 1.1 ± 1.1 of four previously defined elements suggestive of knowledge depth, with highest scores among self-described non-NNS users and food ingredient label users. Knowledge depth was not correlated with gender, age, American College Test score, or history of weight loss attempts. Without prompting, respondents could name 0.9 ± 1.1 NNS from memory, with highest scores among self-described non-NNS users (1.4 ± 0.8) and food ingredient label users (1.4 ± 0.8). NNS example memory was not correlated with gender, age, ACT score, or history of weight loss attempts. With the click-drag-box exercise, NNS were correctly identified 4.9 ± 1.0 times by TN and significantly less by CN (3.9 ± 1.9 times). Decoy NNS were incorrectly identified as being a real NNS 4.7 ± 1.3 times, while caloric sweeteners and food items were incorrectly identified as NNS 1.7 ± 1.7 times and 1.0 ± 1.5 times, (TN and Decoy NNS > CN > caloric sweetener and food item). NNS knowledge among university students may be inadequate for understanding what NNS are, if they consume NNS, or whether NNS are important for dietary health.