The Effect of Saphenous Vein Ablation on Combined Segmental Popliteal Vein Reflux

Clinical outcomes after treatment of incompetent saphenous vein combined with segmental popliteal vein reflux

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate whether differences exist in the quality of life changes and complication rates after treatment of incompetent saphenous vein (ISV) based on the presence of segmental popliteal vein reflux (SPVR).

METHODS

Patients who underwent treatment for ISV from July 2016 to July 2021 were included and divided into two groups: patients without deep venous reflux (DVR) and patients with SPVR. Patients with axial DVR, a history of deep vein thrombosis, a history of orthopedic surgery, previous venous treatment, and no postoperative follow-up were excluded from the study. Duplex ultrasound examination was performed preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

The study included 233 patients (398 limbs), and 50 (64 limbs) had SPVR. Differences were not observed in gender, age, body mass index, distribution of clinical class according to Clinical-Etiology-Anatomy-Physiology classification, laterality, treatment method, and preoperative Venous Clinical Severity Score or Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire scores between the two groups with SPVR or without DVR. Furthermore, the Venous Clinical Severity Score and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire scores at 6 and 12 months postoperatively were improved in both groups, although without significant differences. A significant difference was not observed in the rate of postoperative complications between the groups based on the presence of SPVR (1.8% vs 1.6%: P = .896). The SPVR improvement rate after ISV treatment was 25% (16/64), and patient-reported outcomes in patients combined with SPVR improved independent of treatment modality, saphenous vein treatment section, and postoperative SPVR improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Complication rates and clinical outcomes after ISV treatment did not differ in the presence of SPVR. In patients with SPVR, after ISV treatment, quality of life improved regardless of treatment modality, saphenous vein treatment section, and postoperative SPVR improvement.

The Effect of Superficial Venous Incompetence Treatment on Combined Segmental Deep Venous Reflux

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the role of treatment of superficial venous reflux (SVR) in patients with combined deep segmental venous reflux as regards clinical symptoms as well as reflux improvement of the deep veins.

METHODS

We reviewed 80 patients, retrospectively selected on the inclusion criteria and having combined SVR and segmental deep venous reflux who underwent SVR ablation. The contralateral limb of 44 patients was used as a control group, asked to wear compression stockings for 3 months during day time with no surgical intervention. Duplex ultrasounds follow-up was performed at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Clinical severity of venous disease was graded from C1 to C6 according to the CEAP (Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology) classification. Duplex ultrasound was done in both supine and standing positions with non-weight-bearing of the examined limb. The venous reflux time, the venous flow volume and the peak venous flow velocity were registered. Removal of SVR was performed using either conventional surgery or radiofrequency ablation. The patient was required to wear compression stockings during the day time for the following weeks.

RESULTS

During the follow-up period, all patients were improved clinically as regards pain, edema, and ulcer healing. All patients included in this study had no signs of residual SVR. Corrected deep venous segment reflux was in 36 (45%). Similar data at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively after SVR removal. The popliteal vein reflux responded less than the femoral vein reflux did.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of the SVR eliminates segmental deep venous reflux in a good percentage of patients regardless of the treatment modality. Also, symptoms improvement and ulcer healing were documented, and hence, more studies are recommended to evaluate this role.

Incidence and Significance of Deep Venous Reflux in Patients Treated with Saphenous Vein Ablation

BACKGROUND

Venous ablation (VA) of the saphenous vein is the most common procedure performed for venous insufficiency. The incidence of concomitant deep venous reflux (DVR) in patients undergoing VA is unknown. Our hypothesis is that patients undergoing saphenous VA with concomitant DVR exhibit a higher clinical, etiology, anatomy, and pathophysiology (CEAP) stage and less relief after VA compared to patients without DVR.

METHODS

Electronic medical records of patients treated with saphenous VA at a tertiary care center from March 2012 to June 2016 were reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on presence or absence of DVR on initial ultrasound (US) before saphenous VA. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared. A telephone survey was conducted to assess long-term symptomatic relief, compliance with compression, and pain medication use. Subgroup analysis of patients with post-thrombotic versus primary DVR was performed.

RESULTS

362 patients underwent 497 ablations, and the incidence of DVR (>1 sec) was 20% (N = 71). Patients with DVR were significantly more likely to be male (46.4% vs. 32.1%, P = 0.021) and of Black race (21.2% vs. 5.5%, P = 0.0001) compared to patients without DVR. Patients with DVR were more likely to have a history of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (15.1% vs. 7.9%, P = 0.045), but there was no difference in other comorbidities. There was no significant difference in presenting symptoms, CEAP stage, or symptom severity based on numeric rating scale (NRS) (0-10) for pain and swelling. Clinical success of saphenous VA was comparable between the 2 groups, but patients with DVR were more likely to develop endovenous heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) II-IV (6% vs. 1%, P = 0.002). After a mean follow-up of 26 months, there was still no difference in pain or swelling scores, but patients with DVR were more likely to use compression stockings and used them more frequently. Only 11 of 71 patients with DVR had a history of DVT. Patients with post-thrombotic DVR were significantly older than patients with primary DVR (67.3 vs. 57.2, P = 0.038) and exhibited a trend toward more advanced venous disease (C4-C6: 45.4% vs. 33.3%, P = 0.439).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, 20% of patients undergoing saphenous VA demonstrated DVR, which was more common in Black men. Presence of DVR is associated with increased risk of EHIT after saphenous VA but does not seem to impact disease severity or clinical relief after ablation. Larger studies are needed to understand outcome differences between post-thrombotic and primary DVR.

Relationship between iliofemoral venous stenting and femoropopliteal deep venous reflux

OBJECTIVE

Severe presentations of chronic venous insufficiency can result from reflux or obstruction at the deep venous, perforator, or superficial venous levels. Iliofemoral venous stenting can be used to address central venous obstruction; however, its effects on deep venous reflux (DVR) have remained unclear. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effects of iliac vein stenting on femoropopliteal DVR with the hypothesis that ultrasound evidence of DVR would remain absent or would have improved after iliac vein stenting.

METHODS

The present study was a retrospective review of patients who had undergone iliofemoral venous stenting from 2013 to 2018. The patients were divided into two cohorts according to the preprocedural presence (group A) or absence (group B) of femoropopliteal DVR. Baseline patient variables were collected, including age, gender, CEAP (clinical, etiologic, anatomic, pathophysiologic) class, presence of concomitant superficial or perforator reflux, deep vein thrombosis history, and additional venous interventions. The primary outcome evaluated was the persistent absence or resolution of DVR on the latest venous duplex ultrasound at follow-up. Other outcomes included the follow-up CEAP classification and the need for secondary deep venous interventions.

RESULTS

A total of 275 consecutive patients had undergone iliofemoral venous stenting. Of the 275 patients, 58 had presented with DVR (group A). A comparison of groups A and B revealed that group A had had a greater likelihood of prior deep vein thrombosis (P = .0001) and a higher frequency of superficial venous ablation. The remaining demographic variables did not differ significantly between the two groups. Of the 58 patients in group A, DVR had resolved at follow-up in 17 (P = .0001). When stratified by level, 7 of these 17 patients had had isolated popliteal reflux. In group B, DVR had developed at follow-up in 6 of the 217 patients. The CEAP class had improved from before intervention (C0, 1.1%; C1, 0.4%; C2, 1.8%; C3, 41.4%; C4, 24.9%; C5, 5.9%; C6, 24.5%) to the latest follow up (C0, 4.9%; C1, 1.9%; C2, 5.7%; C3, 34.2%; C4, 22.8%; C5, 17.1%; C6, 13.3%). Significant improvement had occurred in C6 disease within both groups (group A, 16 of 58 [27.6%; P = .0078]; group B, 19 of 217 [8.8%; P = .0203]).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients who undergo iliofemoral venous stenting, DVR could improve if present initially and is unlikely to develop if not present before stenting. A cohort of patients had experienced persistent DVR and warranted further evaluation. Prospective studies are required to corroborate the safety, efficacy, and durability of iliofemoral venous stenting for patients with DVR.

Superficial venous procedures can be performed safely and effectively in patients with deep venous reflux

BACKGROUND

The finding of concurrent deep venous reflux (DVR) when interrogating superficial venous reflux is common and might be a marker of more severe chronic venous insufficiency. However, the safety and clinical and patient-reported outcomes for patients undergoing superficial venous treatment in the presence of DVR remains underreported. Moreover, the factors associated with the persistence and disappearance of DVR after superficial vein treatment have not been evaluated. In the present study, we sought to address these questions.

METHODS

We performed a review of the institutional vascular quality initiative database from June 2016 to June 2021. Consecutive patient limbs were identified that had undergone a superficial venous intervention and had duplex ultrasound evaluations available. These patients were divided into those with and without DVR. Those with DVR were further reviewed for anatomic details and the persistence or resolution of DVR after the procedure. The primary outcome was the venous clinical severity score (VCSS) at a follow-up >3 months. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of any postoperative deep vein thrombosis or endovenous heat-induced thrombosis, differences in patient-reported outcomes, rate of resolution of DVR, and factors associated with DVR persistence. Both univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were applied.

RESULTS

Of the patients who had undergone superficial venous treatment, 644 patient limbs had had DVR and 7812 had not, for a prevalence of 7.6%. The DVR group was associated with a higher burden of chronic venous insufficiency. On univariate analysis, patient limbs, both with and without DVR, had improved significantly in the VCSS at <3 months of follow-up and were not significantly different. At >3 months of follow-up, the VCSS had again improved significantly compared with the VCSS at <3 months of follow-up. However, the difference between the two groups was statistically significant at the longer interval. The magnitude of improvement in the VCSS between the two groups at the longer follow-up were similar statistically (VCSS, 3.17 ± 3.11 vs 3.03 ± 2.93; P = .739). The HASTI (heaviness, achiness, swelling, throbbing, itching) score had similarly improved significantly in both groups but remained significantly higher in the DVR group during follow-up. On multivariate logistic regression, DVR was not associated with an increased VCSS at >3 months of follow-up. No intergroup difference was found in the incidence of postoperative deep vein thrombosis or endovenous heat-induced thrombosis. Of limbs with DVR, 40.8% no longer had evidence of detectable DVR at the latest follow-up venous duplex ultrasound, and DVR limited to a single segment was more likely than DVR in multiple segments to be no longer detectable.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results have shown that superficial venous procedures are safe and effective in patients with DVR, leading to improvements in clinical and patient-reported outcomes similar to those for patients without DVR. In a large proportion of the treated limbs, especially those with DVR in a single segment, no evidence of DVR was found after superficial venous intervention. Although patients with DVR will have a higher burden of chronic venous insufficiency, they still appear to derive significant benefit from superficial venous treatment.