Literature DB >> 32592853

Effect of concomitant deep venous reflux on truncal endovenous ablation outcomes in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

Craig S Brown1, Nicholas H Osborne2, Gloria Y Kim2, Danielle C Sutzko2, Thomas W Wakefield2, Andrea T Obi2, Peter K Henke2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have investigated outcomes after truncal endovenous ablation in patients with combined deep and superficial reflux and no studies have evaluated patient-reported outcomes.
METHODS: We investigated the short- and long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes among patients with and without deep venous reflux undergoing truncal endovenous ablation from 2015 to 2019 in the Vascular Quality Initiative. Preprocedural and postprocedural comparisons were performed using the t-test, χ2, or their nonparametric counterpart when appropriate. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess for confounding.
RESULTS: A total of 4881 patients were included, of which 2254 (46.2%) had combined deep and superficial reflux. The median follow-up was 336.5 days. Patients with deep reflux were less likely to be female (65.9% vs 69.9%; P = .003), more likely to be Caucasian (90.2% vs 86.5%; P = .003) and had no difference in BMI (30.6 ± 7.5 vs 30.6 ± 7.2; P = .904). Additionally, no difference was seen in rates of prior varicose vein treatments, number of pregnancies, or history of deep venous thrombosis; however, patients without deep reflux were more likely to be on anticoagulation at the time of the procedure (10.9% vs 8.1%; P < .001). Patients without deep reflux had slightly higher median preprocedural Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) scores (8 [interquartile range (IQR), 6-10]) vs 7 [IQR, 6-10]; P = .005) as well as postprocedural VCSS scores (5 [IQR, 3-7] vs 4 [IQR, 2-6]; P < .001). The median change in VCSS from before to after the procedure was lower for patients without deep reflux (3 [IQR, 1.0-5.5] vs 3.5 [IQR, 1-6]; P = .006). Total symptom score was higher for patients without deep reflux both before (median, 14 [IQR, 10-19] vs median, 13.5 [IQR, 9.5-18]; P = .005) and postprocedurally (median, 4 [IQR, 1-9] vs median, 3.25 [IQR, 1-7]; P < .001), but no difference was seen in change in symptom score (median, 8 [IQR, 4-13] vs median, 9 [IQR, 4-13]; P = .172). Patients with deep reflux had substantially higher rates of complications (10.4% vs 3.0%; P < .001), with a particular increase in proximal thrombus extension (3.1% vs 1.1%; P < .001). After controlling for confounding, this estimate of effect size for any complication increased (odds ratio, 5.72; 95% confidence interval, 2.21-14.81; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference is seen in total symptom improvement when patients undergo truncal endovenous ablation with concomitant deep venous reflux, although a greater improvement was seen in VCSS score in these patients. Patients with deep venous reflux had a significantly increased rate of complications, independent of confounding variables, and should be counseled appropriately before the decision for treatment.
Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chronic venous insufficiency; Deep venous reflux; Endovenous ablation

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32592853      PMCID: PMC7768610          DOI: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2020.04.031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord


  18 in total

Review 1.  Phlebolymphoedema/chronic venous lymphatic insufficiency: an introduction to strategies for detection, differentiation and treatment.

Authors:  Neil Piller
Journal:  Phlebology       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 1.740

2.  Deep venous reflux definitions and associated clinical and physiological significance.

Authors:  Kah Heng Lim; Gerry Hill; Greg Tarr; Andre van Rij
Journal:  J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord       Date:  2013-05-31

3.  Age is not a barrier to good outcomes after varicose vein procedures.

Authors:  Danielle C Sutzko; Elizabeth A Andraska; Andrea T Obi; Mikel Sadek; Lowell S Kabnick; Thomas W Wakefield; Nicholas H Osborne
Journal:  J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord       Date:  2017-09

4.  Prevalence and risk factors of chronic venous insufficiency.

Authors:  F G Fowkes; C J Evans; A J Lee
Journal:  Angiology       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.619

5.  First 10-month results of the Vascular Quality Initiative Varicose Vein Registry.

Authors:  Andrea T Obi; Danielle C Sutzko; Jose I Almeida; Lowell Kabnick; Jack L Cronenwett; Nicholas H Osborne; Brajesh K Lal; Thomas W Wakefield
Journal:  J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord       Date:  2017-05

Review 6.  Revision of the CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders: consensus statement.

Authors:  Bo Eklöf; Robert B Rutherford; John J Bergan; Patrick H Carpentier; Peter Gloviczki; Robert L Kistner; Mark H Meissner; Gregory L Moneta; Kenneth Myers; Frank T Padberg; Michel Perrin; C Vaughan Ruckley; Philip Coleridge Smith; Thomas W Wakefield
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.268

Review 7.  Epidemiology of varicose veins.

Authors:  M J Callam
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 6.939

8.  How often is deep venous reflux eliminated after saphenous vein ablation?

Authors:  Alessandra Puggioni; Fedor Lurie; Robert L Kistner; Bo Eklof
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.268

9.  Quality of life in patients with chronic venous disease: San Diego population study.

Authors:  Robert M Kaplan; Michael H Criqui; Julie O Denenberg; John Bergan; Arnost Fronek
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.268

10.  Correction of lower extremity deep venous incompetence by ablation of superficial venous reflux.

Authors:  C M Sales; M L Bilof; K A Petrillo; N L Luka
Journal:  Ann Vasc Surg       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 1.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.