Thromboprophylaxis strategies in patients undergoing endovenous thermal ablation: a UK survey

Abstract

Introduction: It remains unclear whether patients undergoing endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA) for superficial venous incompetence (SVI) should receive pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. A survey was conducted to assess current thromboprophylaxis practices across the UK in patients undergoing EVTA for SVI. Methods: To examine the thromboprophylaxis practices of clinicians performing EVTA for SVI in the UK, an online survey was developed using the Qualtrics online survey tool. The survey link was circulated via email to members of the multidisciplinary collaborative Vascular and Endovascular Research Network (VERN) and promoted through social media. The primary focus of the survey was to gather information regarding venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis during EVTA for SVI. Results: A total of 32 vascular surgeons and one vascular nurse specialist based in the UK participated in the survey. All respondents reported routine prescription of compression therapy in the immediate postoperative period. Of all the respondents, 67% (n=22) reported routine prescription of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis during the peri-procedural period. Extended prophylaxis was routinely offered by 15% (n=5) of all respondents. Among those who provided extended prophylaxis, the majority (80%, n=4) used low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), while 20% (n=1) opted for a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC). Conclusion: The findings from this survey indicate that a significant proportion of patients undergoing EVTA for SVI routinely receive pharmacological thromboprophylaxis, with a single perioperative dose of LMWH being the prevailing practice. However, there is a notable lack of robust high-quality evidence to substantiate this practice. Grade A evidence is required to assess the potential benefit of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in the context of EVTA to guide the development of clinically relevant guidelines. Should pharmacological thromboprophylaxis prove to offer no additional benefit for this specific patient population, this could result in cost savings for the NHS and enable patients to avoid unwanted side effects associated with anticoagulation therapy.