Correlation of body mass index with recanalization risk after endovenous thermal ablation

Abstract

ObjectiveChronic venous insufficiency (CVI) has an increased prevalence among obese individuals with body mass indices (BMI) over 30. A safe, efficacious, and evidence-based recommended treatment for CVI due to superficial venous reflux (SVR) in great saphenous veins (GSVs), small saphenous veins (SSVs), accessory saphenous veins (ASVs), and reflux in the perforator veins (PVs) is endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA). We sought to identify if BMI is an independent risk factor for recanalization after EVTA. MethodsAll patients with CVI were initially managed conservatively, and those with pathologic SVR refractory to compression therapy were offered EVTAs depending on the site of reflux. Sonographic confirmation of SVR was defined as >500 milliseconds of reflux in the GSVs, SSVs, and ASVs and a diameter >4 mm. PV reflux was confirmed as >350 milliseconds of reflux and a diameter >2.5 mm. All patients received a follow-up duplex ultrasound 1 week after the procedure, every 3 months for the first year, and every 6 months thereafter. Multivariate analysis with logistic regression was performed regarding patients' age, ablation modality (laser vs radiofrequency ablation), vein location and laterality, BMI, and recanalization. ResultsFrom 2013 to 2018, 9739 endovenous ablations were performed on 3070 patients. Endovenous laser was used in 3862 procedures and radiofrequency ablation in 5831 procedures. Veins treated with EVTA were distributed as follows: 6182 GSVs, 2509 SSVs, 597 ASVs, and 451 PVs. The mean patient age was 61.1 years (15-99, standard deviation [SD] ±15.6) with a mean BMI of 31.2 kg/m2 (13.7-69.5, SD ±7.3). A total of 68.4% patients were women and 31.4% men. The mean follow-up was 25.8 months (0-65.9, SD ±12.9). Multivariate statistical analysis with logistic regression was used to determine potential statistical significance between BMI and vein recanalization after EVTA. Overall, obese patients experienced more recanalizations than nonobese patients (P = .032), with an average BMI of 33 kg/m2 for recanalizations. PVs were statistically more likely to recanalize than any other vein (P = .0001). A secondary analysis was performed with the exclusion of PVs, due to their five times increased risk of recanalization, and showed no significant difference of recanalization across all BMI subgroups (P = .127). ConclusionsBMI does not predict recanalization risk after EVTA, except for ablations performed on PVs.