Clinical ResearchRecanalization After Endovenous Thermal Ablation
Introduction
Endovenous thermal ablation (ETA) has now become the treatment modality of choice for chronic venous insufficiency. ETA has increased in volume by 450-fold to 300,000 procedures during the last decade.1 The therapeutic goal of ETA is to obliterate the targeted vein segment by thermal injury to the venous wall. This procedure can be performed using endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) technique or the radiofrequency ablation (RFA). It has been shown that EVLA and RFA are both highly effective and safe from both anatomic and clinical standpoints, and neither modality has achieved superiority over the other.2, 3 In comparison to older techniques involving vein stripping and ligation, these minimally invasive techniques have greater patient satisfaction rates early on and higher quality of life scores.4
Previous literature has mostly focused on the morbidity involving thrombotic complications in the form of endothermal heat–induced thrombosis and deep vein thrombosis. Durability is another important long-term characteristic of this vascular procedure, so recurrence of symptoms is a key outcome measure for ETA to treat venous insufficiency.3 Recurrence of varicose veins (VVs) with ligation and stripping of the great saphenous vein (GSV) has been well described, ranging from 20% to 80%. Its incidence increases with the length of time after the procedure.5, 6, 7 Recanalization is also a common complication with ETA and has been reported in up to 10% of the patients after 1 year.5, 8, 9 In these patients, recanalization may be the result of the technique used (e.g., laser or RFA), device settings (e.g., energy delivered and number of RF cycles), and/or experience of the physician.6, 7, 10 Other factors may also play a role, such as patient characteristics and clinical and duplex ultrasound (DUS) findings.11, 12
We suggest that if patient characteristics and DUS findings are indeed associated with the risk of recanalization, physicians might be able to predict which patients are likely to develop recanalization before the treatment. Identification of these patient-specific predictors may result in a more personalized approach in practice and minimize health-care costs.13
The objective of this study was to compare the successful closure rates after RFA and EVLA in the treatment of venous insufficiency for the 4 commonly treated veins and to identify the recanalization rate in both the procedures at long-term follow-up. We specifically looked at the closure rate in the GSV, short saphenous vein (SSV), accessory saphenous vein (ASV), and perforator veins (PV) and correlated it with the patient characteristics, DUS findings, and choice of ETA used. Also, the closure rate after a redo procedure in recanalized vein to assess early successful closure was identified.
Section snippets
Materials and Methods
A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who were treated with ETA (RFA or EVLA) from 2012 to 2015. All procedures were performed in a single vascular surgery outpatient office by 3 practitioners, with assistance from registered vascular technicians. During the initial office visit, a clinical severity score of venous insufficiency was given to each patient as determined by the presenting symptoms based on clinical severity, etiology, anatomy, and pathophysiology (CEAP)
Results
A total of 1475 procedures were performed from January 2012 to August 2015 in 485 patients. The average age of the patients included in the study was 65.2 years (range, 21–94; SD, ±14.9). Our data included 1475 procedures in 539 males and 936 females. Among the 1475 procedures, 222 procedures were lost to follow-up after first postoperative duplex scan. The laterality, targeted veins included, presenting symptoms of CEAP, mean maximum vein diameter, and choice of procedure are noted in Table I.
Discussion
ETA has been recognized to be the safe and effective procedure for treatment of chronic venous insufficiency. Their main advantages include fewer complications, quicker recovery, and improvement in the quality of life compared with those of conventional surgery.4 However, it is still not clear yet what are the defined prognostic factors for the success of ETA in a patient and when an alternate procedure such as high ligation and stripping/ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy are to be
Conclusion
Our data suggest that there is a low overall recanalization rate after thermal ablation of the GSV and SSV. However, at 1 year, accessory veins demonstrated twice the recurrence rate compared with GSV and SSV, and the PV had almost 5 times the recurrence rate. If the PV were excluded, there was no significant difference between the recanalization rates by RFA or EVLA. Females have a higher failure rate of obliteration than males. Repeated procedures in recanalized veins tend to have lower rate
References (22)
- et al.
Recurrence of varicose veins after endovenous ablation of the great saphenous vein in randomized trials
J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord
(2016) - et al.
Factors influencing the effectiveness of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) in the treatment of great saphenous vein reflux
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg
(2008) - et al.
Reduced recanalization rates of the great saphenous vein after endovenous laser treatment with increased energy dosing: definition of a threshold for the endovenous fluence equivalent
J Vasc Surg
(2006) - et al.
Randomised controlled trial comparing sapheno-femoral ligation and stripping of the great saphenous vein with endovenous laser ablation (980 nm) using local tumescent anaesthesia: one year results
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg
(2010) - et al.
Endovenous 980-nm laser treatment of saphenous veins in a series of 500 patient
J Vasc Surg
(2007) - et al.
Factors associated with saphenous vein recanalization after endothermal ablation
Ann Vasc Surg
(2015) - et al.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing endovenous ablation and surgical intervention in patients with varicose vein
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg
(2012) - et al.
Predictors of recanalization of the great saphenous vein in randomized controlled trials 1 year after endovenous thermal ablation
(2016) - et al.
Revision of the CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders: consensus statement
J Vasc Surg
(2004) Commentary on “predictors for recanalization of the great saphenous vein in RCTs 1 year after endovenous thermal ablation”: the Dark side of systematic reviews
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg
(2016)
Cited by (19)
Endovenous radiofrequency ablation vs laser ablation in patients with lower extremity varicose veins: A meta-analysis
2024, Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic DisordersValue and limitations of postoperative duplex scans after endovenous thermal ablation
2024, Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic DisordersCorrelation of body mass index with recanalization risk after endovenous thermal ablation
2022, Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic DisordersCitation Excerpt :Although CVI is commonly found in obese patients, the exact pathophysiology remains unclear. Risk factors for recanalization after EVTA including patient sex, age, clinical presenting findings, targeted vein, vein diameter, and vein laterality have been explored; however, prior studies have not investigated patient BMI as a risk factor for recanalization.11,20-22 Increased intra-abdominal pressure due to central obesity leads to increased venous tension resulting in a wider venous diameter, endothelial injury, and venous valve dysfunction increasing CVI incidence in obese patients.16
Resolution times of endovenous heat-induced thrombosis
2020, Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic DisordersSecondary Ablation of Recanalized Saphenous Vein after Endovenous Thermal Ablation
2020, Annals of Vascular SurgeryCitation Excerpt :Another second option could have been the use of newer nonthermal nontumescent procedures such as mechanochemical endovenous ablation and cyanoacrylate vein ablation, which promise to have high occlusion success rates compared with those reported for EVLA and RFA.29 Aurshina et al.19 described 76 SA procedures for clinical recurrence after ETA (RFA or EVLA), distributed in GSV, SSV, ASV, and PV. They compared occlusion rates between first and second ablation procedures showing no difference at 1-week follow-up, but a significant difference at 14-month follow-up: 86.9% occlusion in the first ablation group and 76.3% in the SA group.19
Radiofrequency Ablation Increases the Incidence of Endothermal Heat-Induced Thrombosis
2020, Annals of Vascular SurgeryCitation Excerpt :All RFA procedures of the saphenous veins were performed using the ClosureFast catheter (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN), whereas all RFA procedures of perforator veins were performed using the ClosureRFS stylet (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN). The technique for endovenous saphenous ablation has been previously reported by our group.10 After the procedure, a compression bandage was applied to the region overlying the ablated vein and patients were instructed to leave it on for 48 hr and return to the office within 3–7 days for a follow-up DUS.
Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest to disclose.