Outcomes of endovenous laser ablation with additional iliac vein stenting of non-thrombotic lesions in patients presenting with active venous ulcers

OBJECTIVE We evaluated the clinical outcomes of superficial and perforator ablation and the effects on wound healing by adding iliac vein stenting of nonthrombotic iliac vein lesions (NIVLs) in patients presenting with active venous ulcers. METHODS A retrospective analysis was performed of patients who had presented with venous ulcers and had a diagnosis of NIVLs from January 2017 to December 2019. Patients with a >50% diameter reduction in the iliac vein as determined by computed tomography venography had undergone transfemoral venography for further confirmation. Patients were divided into the endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) group and EVLA with stenting (EVLAS) group. The EVLA group had undergone endovascular laser treatment of superficial venous reflux, and the EVLAS group had undergone EVLA and stenting for NIVLs. The clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups. The primary endpoint was cumulative ulcer healing at 12 months. The secondary endpoints included complications, venous clinical severity score improvements, and pain scores during the follow-up period. Univariable and multivariable regression models were used to determine the refractory ulcer predictors. RESULTS A total of 157 patients were included, 93 in the EVLAS group and 64 in the EVLA group. Of the 93 patients in the EVLAS group and patients in the EVLA group, 30 (32.26%) and 17 (26.56%) had presented with iliac venous occlusion, respectively (P = .48). The mean percentage of stenosis was 78.0% ± 13.6% in EVLAS group and 77.0% ± 14.0% in the EVLA group (P = .36). No significant differences in the general preoperative data were observed between the two groups. Cumulative ulcer healing at 1 year was 86.8% and 65.6% in the EVLAS and EVLA groups, respectively (P = .001). After a mean follow-up of 22 months (median, 24 months), the EVLAS group had a significantly improved venous clinical severity score compared with the EVLA group (EVLAS group, 8.3; EVLA group, 11.7; P = .01). Multivariable analysis of the entire cohort showed that obesity and employment that requires standing were predictive of refractory ulcers and that iliac venous stent placement was a protective factor for ulcer healing. CONCLUSIONS The results of the present study have suggested an association between improvement in the overall success of venous leg ulcer healing when including treatment of NIVLs with stents into a treatment plan that already includes saphenous and perforator vein ablation.