Endovenous Radiofrequency Ablation Research Articles

Quantitative 2-Dimensionsal Digital Subtraction Venography for Venous Interventions: Validation in Phantom and In Vivo Porcine Models

PurposeTo determine the feasibility of using a 2-dimensional quantitative digital subtraction venography (qDSV) technique that employs a temporally modulated contrast medium injection to quantify blood velocity in phantom, normal, and stenotic porcine iliac vein models. Materials and MethodsBlood velocity was calculated using qDSV following temporally modulated pulsed injections of iodinated contrast medium and compared with Doppler ultrasound (US) measurements (phantom, in-line sensor; in vivo, diagnostic linear probe). Phantom evaluation was performed in a compliant polyethylene tube phantom with simulated venous flow. In vivo evaluation of qDSV was performed in normal (n = 7) and stenotic (n = 3) iliac vein models. Stenoses were created using endovenous radiofrequency ablation, and blood velocities were determined at baseline, after stenosis, after venoplasty, and after stent placement. ResultsIn the phantom model, qDSV-calculated blood velocities (12–50 cm/s) had very strong correlations with US-measured velocities (13–51 cm/s) across a range of baseline blood velocities and injection protocols (slope, 1.01–1.13; R2 = 0.96–0.99). qDSV velocities were similar to US velocities regardless of injection method: (a) custom injector, (b) commercial injector, or (c) hand injection. In the normal in vivo model, qDSV-calculated velocities (5–18 cm/s) had strong correlation (slope, 1.22; R2 = 0.90) with US-measured velocities (3–20 cm/s). In the stenosis model, blood velocities at baseline, after stenosis, after venoplasty, and after stent placement were similar on qDSV and US at all time points. ConclusionsVenous blood velocity was accurately quantified in a venous phantom and in vivo porcine models using qDSV. Intraprocedural changes in porcine iliac vein blood velocity were quantified with qDSV after creation of a stenosis and subsequently treating it with venoplasty and stent placement.

Enhancing patient comfort in varicose vein treatment through combined lidocaine and ropivacaine tumescent anesthesia.

To compare the analgesic effects of specific tumescent anesthetic solutions composed of lidocaine, ropivacaine, or a combination of lidocaine and ropivacaine during endovenous radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of great saphenous vein varicosities. This study included 149 patients with lower limb varicose veins who were admitted to our department between 2019 and 2023. The patients were randomly assigned to three groups: the lidocaine group (Group I), the ropivacaine group (Group II), and the lidocaine + ropivacaine group (Group III). Intraoperative vital signs, intraoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, and long-term treatment outcomes were assessed using the venous clinical severity score (VCSS) based on clinical performance. There were no significant differences in age, body mass index, operative time, or blood loss among the three groups (P ≥ 0.05). The differences in the mean arterial pressure and heart rate during surgery in Group II were significantly greater than those in Groups I and III (P < 0.05). The intraoperative VAS scores in Group II were higher than those in Groups I and III (P < 0.05) and at 8 and 12 h postoperatively. There were no significant differences in VCSS among the groups (P ≥ 0.05). The use of a tumescent anesthetic solution composed of lidocaine and ropivacaine significantly improved patient comfort during the perioperative period without affecting surgical outcomes. This formulation can be considered safe and reliable for preparing tumescent anesthesia solutions.

Radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of great saphenous venous insufficiency using a newly developed VENISTAR catheter: A preliminary study.

This study was aimed to assess the preliminary outcomes of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) using a newly developed catheter (VENISTAR) for the treatment of incompetent great saphenous veins (GSVs). In this prospective observational study, endovenous RFA using a VENISTAR catheter was performed on 16 saphenous veins in 12 patients between August and November 2019. Patients' pre- and post-procedural data were recorded. Doppler ultrasound imaging and clinical evaluation were performed at 1week and 1, 3, and 6months to determine the efficacy and safety of the treatment. Technical success and complete closure of the targeted GSVs immediately after the procedure were observed in all 16 limbs (100%). However, one patient (one limb) was found to have partial occlusion without significant reflux after 1week of follow-up. Kaplan-Meier analysis yielded a complete occlusion rate of 93% at 6months of follow-up. The Venous Clinical Severity Scores at the time of all follow-up were significantly lower than those at baseline (3.3 ± 1.1 at baseline to 0.6 ± 0.6, 0.3 ± 0.6, 0.1 ± 0.4, and 0.2 ± 0.4 at 1week and 1, 3, and 6months, respectively) (p < .001). Mild post-procedural pain was noted in 7 and 4 limbs at 1week and 1month, respectively. Grade 1 ecchymosis over the ablated segment was noted in 5 (35.7%) of 14 limbs at 1-week follow-up. Endovenous treatment of GSV insufficiency using a new VENISTAR radiofrequency catheter has been shown to be feasible, effective, and safe throughout the 6-month follow-up.

Comment on: Effectiveness of Endovenous Radiofrequency Ablation for Elderly Patients with Varicose Veins of Lower Extremities.

Comment on: Effectiveness of Endovenous Radiofrequency Ablation for Elderly Patients with Varicose Veins of Lower Extremities.

Factors influencing recurrent varicose vein formation after radiofrequency thermal ablation for truncal reflux performed in two high-volume venous centers

ObjectiveRecanalization of the saphenous vein trunk after endovenous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is often associated with recurrent varicose veins (RVVs) or recanalization. This study aimed to assess the long-term results of RFA of the great saphenous vein (GSV) and identify the risk factors for GSV recanalization and RVVs during follow-up for patients presenting to dedicated outpatient vein centers. MethodsAll consecutive patients with incompetent GSVs who underwent RFA between 2009 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The primary study end points were freedom from GSV recanalization and the RVV rate during follow-up. The secondary study end points were the postoperative complication rate and the risk factors for GSV recanalization and RVVs. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the potential risk factors for GSV recanalization and RVVs. ResultsDuring the study period, 1568 limbs were treated in 1300 consecutive patients (mean age, 53.5 ± 12.9 years; 71.9% women; CEAP [clinical, etiology, anatomy, pathophysiology] C2-C6; venous clinical severity score >5). Technical success was achieved in 99.7% of cases. At a mean follow-up of 57.2 ± 25.4 months, the GSV occlusion and freedom from reintervention rates were 100% and 100% within 1 week, 97% and 95.7% at 1 year, 95.2% and 93.1% at 3 years, and 92.4% and 92.8% at 5 years, respectively. The recurrence rate was 10% (n = 158) during the follow-up period. On multivariate analysis, a direct confluence of the accessory saphenous vein into the saphenofemoral junction (odds ratio [OR], 1.561; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-7.04; P = .032), a history of pregnancy >2 (OR, 3.68; 95% CI, 1.19-11.36; P = .023), C4 (OR, 6.41; 95% CI, 1.36-30.28; P = .019), and preoperative GSV diameter >10 mm (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.65-4.03; P = .043) were risk factors for GSV recanalization. Moreover, age >70 years (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; P = .014) and incompetent perforator veins (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.65-2.03; P = .018) were also risk factors for RVVs. ConclusionsRFA is a safe technique to ablate the GSV with a low complication rate and durability during 5 years of follow-up. However, patients with a high clinical score and those with direct confluence of the accessory saphenous vein into the saphenofemoral junction experienced higher long-term GSV recanalization and RVV rates.

Six Year Extension Study of Patients From a Randomised Clinical Trial Comparing Venefit, Radiofrequency Induced Thermal Therapy, and Endovenous Radiofrequency Ablation for Treatment of Incompetent Great Saphenous Veins

Six Year Extension Study of Patients From a Randomised Clinical Trial Comparing Venefit, Radiofrequency Induced Thermal Therapy, and Endovenous Radiofrequency Ablation for Treatment of Incompetent Great Saphenous Veins

Stocking-only versus additional eccentric compression after below-the-knee truncal vein sclerotherapy: A SOVAECS prospective randomized within-person trial

ObjectiveAfter foam sclerotherapy in the truncal saphenous vein, the clinical effects of additional eccentric compression has not yet been explored. MethodsBetween April 2020 and February 2021, we enrolled 42 patients (84 limbs) who underwent bilateral endovenous combined therapy for great saphenous vein (GSV) reflux. Each patient received the same type of endovenous ablation in both above-the-knee GSVs (laser, radiofrequency, cyanoacrylate glue), and combined foam sclerotherapy was performed on both below-the-knee GSVs. Subsequently, we conducted a prospective randomized, single-blind, within-person study in which each patient's bilateral truncal saphenous vein of the calves underwent two different compression therapies: wearing of a regular class II compression stocking on one side (RC group) and additional eccentric compression on the other side (AC group). The primary end point was the occlusion range (score, 0-10) of the below-the-knee truncal GSV after foam sclerotherapy. The secondary outcomes were the pain score (visual analog scale score range, 0-10) of the paired limb, the required number of additional foam sclerotherapy sessions, compliance with compression therapy, and procedure-related complications. ResultsFor the above-the-knee GSV, endovenous laser treatment (n = 44), endovenous radiofrequency ablation (n = 14), and endovenous cyanoacrylate glue ablation (n = 26) were performed. The mean subcompression pressure of the medial calf in the supine and standing positions were 16.7 ± 2.34 mm Hg and 24.5 ± 6.6 mm Hg in the RC group and 38.5 ± 5.5 mm Hg and 45.3 ± 8.2 mm Hg in the AC group, respectively (P = .000). The secondary outcomes of pain score, number of additional foam sclerotherapy sessions, and pigmentation were not significantly different statistically between the two groups. The patient-reported satisfaction scores (range, 0-10) on compression at 24 hours postoperatively were 8.03 ± 1.9 for the AC group and 7.98 ± 1.9 for the RC group (P = .317; Wilcoxon signed ranks test). In both groups, the closure rate of the above-the-knee GSV at 1 month postoperatively was 100%. No procedure-related complications were identified within 1 month postoperatively, including no deep vein thrombosis, numbness, or skin necrosis requiring additional medical attention. ConclusionsThe 24 hours of additional eccentric compression on the truncal GSV compared with the use of a conventional knee-level stocking only did not yield any clinical advantages in terms of the occlusion range, postoperative pain, need for additional sclerotherapy, or skin pigmentation after foam sclerotherapy. The decision on which type of compression therapy to perform after foam sclerotherapy in the truncal vein should be comprehensively determined.

Endovenous Microwave Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for the Treatment of Lower Limb Varicose Veins

This study aimed to retrospectively compare the clinical outcomes of endovenous microwave versus radiofrequency ablation combined with foam sclerotherapy in patients with lower limb varicose veins. We identified patients with lower limb varicose veins treated with endovenous microwave ablation or radiofrequency ablation with foam sclerotherapy between January 2018 and June 2021 at our institution. Patients were followed-up for 12months. Clinical results, including the pre-post-Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire and post-Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire and Venous Clinical Severity Score, were compared. Complications were documented and treated accordingly. We included 287 cases (295 limbs total; endovenous microwave ablation+foam sclerosing agent: n=142, 146 limbs; radiofrequency ablation+foam sclerosing agent: n=145, 149 limbs). The operative time was shorter for endovenous microwave ablation than radiofrequency ablation (42.58±15.62min vs. 65.46±24.38min, P<0.05); however, other procedural parameters did not differ. Furthermore, hospitalization costs for endovenous microwave ablation were lower than those for radiofrequency ablation (21,063.74±850.47 yuan vs. 23,312.40±1,035.86 yuan, P<0.05). At the 12-month follow-up, the great saphenous vein closure rate was similar in both groups (endovenous microwave ablation, 97% [142/146] vs. radiofrequency ablation, 98% [146/149]; P>0.05). Additionally, the satisfaction or incidence rates of complications were not different among the groups. In both groups, the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire and Venous Clinical Severity Score values were significantly lower 12months postsurgery than before surgery; however, the postoperative values did not differ. Endovenous microwave ablation effectively treated lower limb varicose veins, with similar short-term effects as radiofrequency ablation. Moreover, it had a shorter operative time and was less expensive than endovenous radiofrequency ablation.

One-year Results With a New Endovenous Radiofrequency Ablation Catheter, Venclose

Chronic venous Insufficiency is a common problem, and radio-frequency ablation (RFA) of incompetent veins is a common and effective treatment. In 2018, the Venclose device and catheter were approved for use in the United States. Given the lack of literature on this new devicem we previously published initial results and now are following-up with 1-year data from our patients. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who had previously received endovenous RFA with Venclose, looking at their follow-up duplexes at 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 1 year. Procedure success was coded as the target veins remaining obliterated on lower-extremity ultrasound. We followed 405 patients who had 846 procedures. Our patients were 69.3% female (281/405) and were aged 18 to 93 years (mean, 54.02 ± 12.4 years). Under the clinical manifestations portion of the CEAP classification system, the majority of our limbs were class C3 (543; 64.1%). Follow-up ranged from 28 to 604 days. We treated 19 anterior accessory saphenous veins, 491 great saphenous vein (GSV) above-knee segments, 149 GSV below-knee segments, 1 GSV duplicate, and 186 small saphenous veins. At 3 months, there were 846 procedures followed-up, with 15 recanalizations; at 6 months, there were 651 procedures with follow-up, with 9 additional recanalizations, and there were no recanalizations at 9 months (n = 397 procedures) and at 1 year (n = 246 procedures). We observed 24 recanalizations in total, four of which required reintervention. Of the 24 recanalizations, 13 were in GSV above-knee segments, three were in GSV below-knee segments, and the remaining eight were in small saphenous veins, and all reinterventions were in GSV above-knee segments. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed successful closure of 97% of the patient population at 1 year. Cox regression analysis accounting for laterality, sex, age, and CEAP showed no significant hazard ratio. The Venclose device and catheter have good results at 1 year. All identified recanalizations occurred within 6 months of follow-up; none were noted at 9 months or 1 year. Recanalization rates for the procedure are comparable to other RFA catheters.

Radiofrequency ablation of the great saphenous vein; does the choice of monopolar or bipolar catheters affect outcomes?

Radiofrequency-based procedure is one of the leading methods of endovenous thermal ablation. The most fundamental difference with regards to currently available radiofrequency ablation systems is the way of electric current flow given to the vein wall; bipolar segmental and monopolar ablation. This study aimed to compare the monopolar ablation method with conventional bipolar segmental endovenous radiofrequency ablation method for the management of incompetent saphenous veins. Between November 2019 and November 2021, 121 patients with incompetent varicose veins who were treated either with the F-Care/monopolar (N = 49) or ClosureFast/bipolar (N = 72) were included in the study. A single extremity of each patient with isolated great saphenous vein insufficiency was enrolled. The differences between the two groups in demographic parameters, disease severity, treated veins, peri- and postoperative complications, and treatment efficacy indicators were retrospectively evaluated. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding demographic parameters, disease severity, and treated veins in preoperative period (p > 0,05). The average procedural time was 21.4 ± 4minutes in the monopolar group, while it was 17.1 ± 3minutes in the bipolar group. In both groups, the venous clinical severity scores declined significantly compared with the preoperative period, however; there was no difference between groups (p > 0,05). The occlusion rate of the saphenofemoral junction and proximal saphenous vein after 1year was 94.1% in the bipolar group and 91.8% in the monopolar group (p = 0.4) while there was a significant difference in the occlusion rate of the shaft and distal part of the saphenous vein (93.2% in the bipolar group and 80.4% in the monopolar group, p = 0.04). Postoperative complications (bruising and skin pigmentation) were slightly higher in the bipolar group (p = 0.02, p = 0.01). Both systems are effective in treating the venous insufficiency of the lower extremity. Monopolar system revealed a better early postoperative course with similar occlusion rate of the proximal part of saphenous vein compared with bipolar system, however; the occlusion of the lower half of the saphenous vein was significantly lower which may negatively affect long-term occlusion rates and recurrence of the disease.

Conversion of open varicose veins surgery unit into a modern one-stop shop endo-venous unit: strategies and cost-effectiveness

Purpose to provide a road map for converting varicose veins service to endovenous ablation and assess its process and outcome on patients with varicose veins. Patients and methods Retrospective assessment of prospectively recorded data for converting vein unit which exclusively did open varicose veins surgery (OS) (39 patients from September 2019 to February 2020) to endovenous radiofrequency ablation (ERFA) service (44 patients from March 2020 to January 2021). Results There was no statistical difference in theatre time between both interventions despite dealing with more complex cases in the ERFA group with more truncal veins (χ2 =11.950*, P&lt;0.001*) and a higher number of stab avulsions (V number) (χ2 =217.889, P&lt;0.001*). On the other hand, the overall cost was significantly lower in open group compared to ERFA (Mean±SD 1261±386 US$ and 1519.2±392 US$ respectively, P&lt;0.001*. This statistical difference was reduced to P=0.041 when subgroup analysis only included cases with higher number of avulsions. In multivariate analysis, cost was associated with surgical duration and using ERFA however, less complications were recorded in ERFA group (χ2=4.419* P=0.036*) and recovery time was significantly longer in open group (8.90±2.44) than in ERFA group (6.0±1.06), P&lt;0.001* Conclusion Converting varicose veins service to a modern ERFA is safe and effective when properly planned. ERFA is associated with shorter recovery and less theatre time and complications despite higher cost which becomes more cost-effective in cases with more truncal veins and avulsion sites.

Six Year Extension Study of Patients From a Randomised Clinical Trial Comparing Venefit, Radiofrequency Induced Thermal Therapy, and Endovenous Radiofrequency Ablation for Treatment of Incompetent Great Saphenous Veins

To compare long term outcomes after great saphenous vein (GSV) treatment with three radiofrequency (RF) thermal devices: Venefit (Closurefast), Radiofrequency Induced Thermal Therapy (RFITT), and Endovenous Radiofrequency (EVRF). A 72 month follow up of patients who were treated in the randomised 3RF study. A total of 172 participants from the 3RF study were invited to take part in a single visit, long term, follow up study. Failure of GSV closure was assessed with duplex ultrasound (DUS) and constituted the primary outcome. Patients completed questionnaires for secondary outcomes: Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ), Euroqol 5D (EQ-5D), and patient reported varicose veins measured by counting vein occupying boxes in AVVQ question 1. Twenty-two patients (12%) had already been re-treated. Of the remainder, 13 (7%) could not be contacted, 20 (11%) declined invitation, and one did not consent. Therefore, 116 (64%) and 95 (53%) participants completed questionnaires and DUS, respectively. Failure of GSV closure on 72 month DUS was 16%, 21%, and 37% for Venefit, RFITT, and EVRF, respectively (p= .14), whilst outcomes for all failures were 14%, 17%, and 44% (p < .001) (Venefit vs. EVRF: p < .001; RFITT vs. EVRF: p < .001; and Venefit vs. RFITT: p= .63). There were no between group differences in AVVQ or EQ-5D scores. Rates of patient reported presence of any varicose veins were high for all groups (97%, 92%, and 97% after Venefit, RFITT, and EVRF, respectively; p= .48). The EVRF treated participants reported more extensive recurrence than the Venefit and RFITT participants (p= .008). Long term technical outcomes after RF ablation for GSV varicose veins were significantly better after Venefit and RFITT compared with EVRF treatment. However, quality of life scores showed no differences after 72 months. Rates of patient reporting any varicose veins were high for all treatments. gov Identifier: NCT04720027.

Application of Femoral Nerve Block in Treating Great Saphenous Vein Insufficiency by Endovenous Radiofrequency Ablation Combined with Punctate Stripping.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block (FNB) in treating great saphenous vein (GSV) insufficiency by endovenous radiofrequency ablation (EVRA) combined with punctate stripping (PS). This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study. A total of 135 patients were divided into Group A (59 patients) and Group B (76 patients). All patients received tumescent anesthesia during the operation, and group A received an additional ultrasound-guided FNB before the procedure. Intraoperative and postoperative pain score, the volume of tumescent anesthesia solution (TAS), and other indicators were compared in two groups. Group A had a significantly lower intraoperative pain visual analog scale than group B (2.7 ± 1.2 vs 5.2 ± 1.5, P < 0.001). The volume of TAS in group A was significantly lower than that in group B (198 ± 26.6 ml vs 338 ± 34.7 ml, P < 0.001). Postoperative muscle strength of group A was significantly decreased compared with group B (54.2% vs 3.90%, P < 0.001); no patient had severe limitation of active movements in both groups, and all motor blocks recovered within 24 h. The incidence of skin ecchymosis in group A was lower than that in group B (18.6% vs 46.1%, P = 0.001). The operation duration of the two groups had no statistically significant difference. Ultrasound-guided FNB in treating GSV insufficiency by EVRA combined with PS significantly relieved intraoperative pain and reduced the dosage of TAS and the incidence of skin ecchymosis without increasing the complications of anesthesia or any other surgical complications.

Endovenous radiofrequency ablation using a new bipolar electrode in a canine model: a new endovenous radiofrequency electrode.

This study aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of a newly developed endovenous radiofrequency (RF) catheter compared with that of the existing RF catheter in a canine model. Seven dogs underwent ablation using 1 control catheter (ClosureFAST, CF; Covidien) and 1 experimental catheter (VENISTAR, VS; STARmed Co., Ltd.) in the femoral and cephalic veins. The ablated vein was evaluated macroscopically (2,3,5-triphenyltetrazolium chloride staining, TTC), microscopically (hematoxylin and eosin staining), and ultrasonographically. Vessel injury score was used to evaluate the ablating effect objectively. Veins from 1 dog were evaluated on the day of ablation, while in the remaining 6 dogs, the ablated veins were evaluated 2 weeks later. A total of 23 veins (CF, 11 veins; VS, 12 veins) were ablated in 7 dogs. Non-TTC-stained vein wall areas were identified in all ablated veins. No significant difference was observed in the mean vessel injury score (2.54 ± 1.16 vs. 2.42 ± 1.13, P = 0.656) and the mean vessel wall thickness (0.32 ± 0.03 mm vs. 0.31 ± 0.05 mm, P = 0.212) between CF and VS. There was no blood flow in all veins ablated with VS, whereas there was remaining blood flow in 1 vein ablated with CF. Perivenous complication was not observed. Endovenous RF ablation using a newly developed VS RF catheter seems to provide comparable occlusion rate and degree of vein wall injury without perivenous adverse events compared to the most commonly used RF catheter (CF).

Direct oral anticoagulant agents might be safe for patients undergoing endovenous radiofrequency and laser ablation: Presented at the Superficial Venous Disease and Imaging Scientific Session of the Thirty-fourth American Venous Forum Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, February 23-26, 2022.

Direct oral anticoagulant agents might be safe for patients undergoing endovenous radiofrequency and laser ablation: Presented at the Superficial Venous Disease and Imaging Scientific Session of the Thirty-fourth American Venous Forum Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, February 23-26, 2022.

Direct oral anticoagulant agents might be safe for patients undergoing endovenous radiofrequency and laser ablation

ObjectiveStudies assessing the effect of the use of anticoagulant agents on endovenous thermal ablation (ETA) have been limited to patients taking warfarin. Thus, the aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ETA for patients taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). We hypothesized that the outcome of ETA for patients taking DOACs would not be superior to the outcomes for patients taking DOACs. MethodsWe performed a retrospective review to identify patients who had undergone radiofrequency ablation or endovenous laser ablation with 1470-nm diode laser fibers for symptomatic great or small saphenous venous reflux from 2018 to 2020. The patients were dichotomized into those who had received a therapeutic dose of DOACs periprocedurally and those who had not (control group). The outcomes of interest included the rates of treated vein closure at 7 days and 9 months and the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), endothermal heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT), and bleeding periprocedurally. ResultsOf the 301 patients (382 procedures), 69 patients (87 procedures) had received DOACs and 232 control patients (295 procedures) had not received DOACs. The patients receiving DOACs were more often older (mean age, 65 years vs 55 years; P < .001) and male (70% vs 37%; P < .001), with a higher prevalence of venous thromboembolism and more severe CEAP (clinical, etiologic, anatomic, pathophysiologic) classification (5 or 6), than were the control patients. Those receiving DOACs were more likely to have had a history of DVT (44% vs 6%; P < .001), pulmonary embolism (13% vs 0%; P < .001), and phlebitis (32% vs 15%; P < .001). Procedurally, radiofrequency ablation had been used more frequently in the control group (92% vs 84%; P = .029), with longer segments of treated veins (mean, 38 mm vs 35 mm, respectively; P = .028). No major or minor bleeding events nor any EHIT had occurred in either group. Two patients in the control group (0.7%) developed DVT; however, no DVT was observed in those in the DOAC group (P = .441). At 9 months, the treated vein had remained ablated after 94.4% of procedures for patients receiving DOACs and 98.4% of the control group (P = .163). On multivariable analysis, DOAC usage was not associated with an increased risk of vein recanalization (hazard ratio, 5.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-58.64; P = .139). An increased preprocedural vein diameter and the use of endovenous laser ablation were associated with an increased risk of recanalization. ConclusionsIn our study of patients who had undergone ETA for symptomatic saphenous venous reflux, the periprocedural use of DOACs did not adversely affect the efficacy of endovenous ablation to ≥9 months. Furthermore, DOAC use did not confer an additional risk of bleeding, DVT, or EHIT periprocedurally. DOACs may be safely continued without affecting the efficacy and durability of ETA.

Relationship between great saphenous vein recanalization, venous symptoms reappearance, and varicose veins recurrence rates after endovenous radiofrequency ablation.

The term "recurrence" in chronic venous disease remains not yet well defined, despite numerous reports describing patterns and causes of the presence of recurrent varicose veins (RVVs). Moreover, saphenous trunk recanalization (STR) has also been documented as one of the major source of RVVs and it is widely used to indicate the "failure" of endovenous ablation. Finally, reappearance of venous symptoms (VSym) should be considered to reach a complete "recurrence" evaluation. RVVs, STR, and VSym rates and mutual co-presence after endovenous treatments are still unclear. The aim of this report is to describe and analyze these three recurrence components after 6 years in patients underwent radiofrequency ablation of the great saphenous vein.

Early Results With a New Endovenous Radiofrequency Ablation Catheter, Venclose®

Endovenous Radio-frequency Ablation (RFA) has become a common treatment for chronic venous insufficiency. The Medtronic® Closurefast catheter was previously the only RFA catheter approved for use in this procedure. In 2018 VenClose® Company's new device was approved. As there has been little literature on this new device, we examined our results with this new alternative. Patients with symptomatic venous insufficiency had their lower extremities mapped via ultrasound. If superficial reflux (>.5 s) was found the patients were recommended a 6-week conservative course of compression stockings, elevation, and NSAIDs. If conservative treatment failed, the patient was scheduled for an RFA. The procedure was done at the outpatient clinic, instructions were given to return for follow-up in 3-5days, and every 3months thereafter for the first year. 1032 procedures were performed over 14months. We had 503 patients, 69% female, mean age 54 ± 12. Under the CEAP system, clinical manifestation portion, the majority of our limbs were class C3 and class C4. The majority of veins closed were GSV above knee and SSV. Follow-up duration ranged from 1 to 276days (Mean (M) = 10 SD: 20days). Our success rate was 99.32% at initial follow-up. We observed EHITs in 12 cases (1.16%), 8 of which were class I, 2 of which were class II, and 2 of which were class III. We noted SVTs of proximal varicose veins in 40 cases (3.88%) and SVT of distal GSV in 4 cases (.38%). There were 4 (.38%) cases of DVT, 3 in calf muscular veins (.29%), and one in a perforator vein (.09%). We observed two cases of puncture abscess (.193%), 8 cases of infection at the puncture site (.77%), with 8 infections occurring at locations other than the puncture site and not as a result of the procedure. These preliminary results indicate that this new machine and catheter are promising with low rates of EHIT, recanalizations, and other complications. It is important to research this catheter and further studies should continue to follow up to examine recanalization rates over a more long-term follow-up.

Clinical Efficacy of Endovenous Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) for Superficial Varicose Veins of the Lower Extremities.

Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy of intravenous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the treatment of patients with superficial varicose veins of lower extremities. Methods From January 1, 2021, to January 1, 2022, 62 patients with superficial lower extremity varicose veins were selected and divided into two groups according to the treatment plan. 31 patients underwent high saphenous vein ligation and dissection as control. Thirty-one patients received RFA treatment as the experimental group. The operation-related indicators, clinical efficacy, and postoperative complications were compared. Results The intraoperative blood loss in the experimental group was significantly less than that in the control group. The clinical efficacy of the experimental group was significantly better than that of the control group. The incidence of postoperative complications in the experimental group was lower than that in the control group. Conclusion RFA has a good clinical effect in the treatment of patients with superficial lower extremity varicose veins, with less postoperative complications, and has a high therapeutic value.

Compression versus no compression after endovenous radiofrequency ablation: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare compression with no-compression, after radiofrequency endothermal ablation of a truncal varicose vein. Databases, such as PubMed, Embase, Cochran Library, and Web of Science, were independently searched by two researchers for relevant literature, preliminary screening was performed, and the full text was read to select studies that met the inclusion criteria. The quality of the included literature was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4. A total of four randomized controlled trials were included and a total of 552 patients were involved. Among them, 273 patients were in the compression group and 279 in the no-compression group. Meta-analysis results showed that the pain using the 100mm Visual Analogue Scale was lower in the compression group than the pain in the no-compression group (MD = -4.22, 95% CI = -7.95 - -0.49, p = 0.03). No significant differences in terms of occlusion rate (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.96-1.02, p = 0.55), Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (MD = 0.46, 95% CI = -0.80-1.73, p = 0.47), and complications (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 0.61-2.94, p = 0.47) were observed between groups. This meta-analysis suggests that compression therapy reduced post-operative pain compared to the no-compression group. However, no additional advantages were observed in terms of occlusion rates, quality of life scores and complications.