Venous Ablation Therapy: Indications and Outcomes
Introduction
Although most concentration has been on the initial management of acute venous thromboembolism, many patients suffer from the long-term ravages of chronic venous disease. This spectrum of chronic venous insufficiency includes limb swelling, skin discoloration, skin ulcerations, and venous varicosities. Venous varicosities often cause cosmetically unappealing findings; however, venous valvular incompetence may result in venous stasis ulcerations that are refractory to therapy without management of the venous varicosities. Endovenous ablation of venous varicosities has largely replaced primary surgical venous ligation and stripping as the primary therapeutic modality. This article will highlight the advances in endovenous management of venous varicosities.
Section snippets
History
Evaluation of every patient should start with a complete medical history including a risk assessment for thrombosis, consisting of the patient's and family's history of thrombotic events (including superficial phlebitis), medications, tobacco use, and history of obesity. Presence and severity of symptoms should be assessed. Suspicion of proximal venous obstruction should be higher in patients with severe edema or venous ambulatory claudication (bursting pain with ambulation.) Premenopausal
Indications for ablation
Symptomatic patients who have varicose veins, edema, skin changes, or ulceration (CEAP 2-6) with axial reflux in one or more superficial truncal veins are considered candidates for therapy. Initially, a patient should be treated conservatively, and intervention can be considered when there are persistent symptoms or signs of progressive chronic venous disease (CVD).
One might consider saphenous vein preservation in patients who have varicosities with less severe disease (C2), a refluxing GSV
Outcomes
Overall results after endovenous ablation treatments are positive. There is high patient satisfaction, minimal recovery time, and only minor risks. We have established that superficial venous insufficiency is associated with a progression of signs and symptoms; and when the ambulatory venous hypertension is not corrected, this leads to progressive skin changes and ulceration. In addition to helping improve the quality of life (QOL), there is a benefit in preventing progression of venous disease
Laser vs high ligation and stripping
There have been 7 randomized trials to date comparing EVL with conventional high ligation and stripping (HLS) of the GSV. Most conclude that there is equal safety and mid-term efficacy between the 2 treatments. However, some differences are noted between HLS and EVL in the early postoperative period and short-term follow-up. Darwood et al11 randomized patients to EVL or HLS, both treatments that were similar in elimination of reflux and QOL. This study reported return to normal activity in 2
Radiofrequency results
Although RF has been used longer than the other technologies, the first-generation RF catheter had technological issues that made it somewhat less effective. Retractable electrodes often developed thrombus with the slower pull back speed, despite a heparin drip running through the catheter. Contact with the vein wall was not always sufficient, or pull back was performed too rapidly. Occasionally, these factors resulted in less energy delivery to the vein wall and insufficient obliteration of
Radiofrequency vs HLS
There have been several randomized trials comparing RF ablation with HLS, but all are comparisons to the first-generation RF device. The EVOLVeS20 study was a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial involving 85 patients with a 2-year follow-up. They showed significant improvement in postoperative pain, shorter recovery time, fewer adverse events, and superior QOL scores immediately after the RF ablation vs the HLS group. At 2 years follow-up, there were no differences noted in clinical
Radiofrequency vs laser
Gale et al21 performed a randomized trial between 810 nm EVL and the older-generation (ClosurePLUS, VNUS Medical, Calif) RF device. This showed a significantly higher incidence of bruising, less improvement in VCSS, and greater discomfort after EVL, but these differences did not persist after 1 month. They also reported that there was a higher incidence of recanalization in the RF group vs EVL (22.9% vs 4.3%, P = .02) at 1 year. This study did not include the newer-generation RF catheter.
Van
Conclusions
Both hemodynamic and clinical improvement is observed in patients after superficial ablation of refluxing truncal veins. Many treatment modalities exist including surgical stripping, saphenous vein preservation, endovenous thermal ablation (with RF or laser), and endovenous chemical ablation. Indications for treatment include patients who have axial vein reflux and those who have signs or symptoms of progressive venous disease despite conservative measures. Refluxing veins must be mapped
Statement of Conflict of Interest
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
References (24)
- et al.
Revision of the CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders: consensus statement
J Vasc Surg
(2004) - et al.
Venous severity scoring: an adjunct to venous outcome assessment
J Vasc Surg
(2000) - et al.
The care of patients with varicose veins and associated chronic venous diseases, Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Society for Vascular Surgery and the American Venous Forum
J Vasc Surg
(2011) - et al.
Midterm results of the surgical treatment of varices by phlebectomy with conservation of a refluxing saphenous vein
J Vasc Surg
(2009) - et al.
Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) after venous thermoablation techniques: rates of endovenous heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) and classical DVT after radiofrequency and endovenous laser ablation in a single centre
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg
(2010) - et al.
Endovenous laser ablation: venous outcomes and thrombotic complications are independent of the presence of deep venous insufficiency
J Vasc Surg
(2008) - et al.
Prospective randomized trial comparing endovenous laser ablation and surgery for treatment of primary great saphenous varicose veins with a 2 year follow-up
J Vasc Surg
(2010) - et al.
Duplex derived evidence of reflux after varicose vein surgery: neoreflux or neorevascularization?
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg
(1999) - et al.
Radiofrequency-powered segmental thermal obliteration carried out with the ClosureFast procedure: results at 1 year
Ann Vasc Surg
(2010) - et al.
Classification of proximal endovenous closure levels and treatment algorithm
J Vasc Surg
(2010)
Prospective randomized study of endovenous radiofrequency obliteration (closure) versus ligation and vein stripping (EVOLVeS): two year follow up
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg
A randomized, controlled trial of endovenous thermal ablation using the 810 nm wavelength laser and the ClosurePLUS radiofrequency ablation methods for superficial venous insufficiency of the great saphenous vein
J Vasc Surg
Cited by (8)
Hair-follicle Transplant Into Chronic Ulcers: A New Graft Concept
2017, Actas Dermo-SifiliograficasWhat's new: Management of venous leg ulcers Treating venous leg ulcers
2016, Journal of the American Academy of DermatologyCitation Excerpt :In comparison to surgical procedures, EVA procedures have equivalent safety and efficacy to surgical ligation/stripping of saphenous veins.91 In addition to patients with ulcers, symptomatic patients with edema, varicose veins, and skin changes are candidates for endovenous ablation.92,93 Understanding the venous anatomy is important for those performing vascular intervention; anatomic differences in disease may cause different clinical manifestations and require specific intervention(s).
Wound Healing Update
2012, Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySclerotherapy and its complications: A literature review and a case report
2023, Journal of Wound CareVenotonics and anticoagulants-undisclosed potential of drug treatment of chronic venous insufficiency
2020, Journal of Global Pharma TechnologyChronic venous insufficiency – a review of pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment
2017, JDDG - Journal of the German Society of Dermatology
Statement of Conflict of Interest: see page 69.