Clinical correlation of success and acute thrombotic complications of lower extremity endovenous thermal ablation

Abstract Objective Endovenous thermal ablation has become the primary modality of treatment for patients with venous insufficiency. Previous literature has provided reviews of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) that mostly focus on the great saphenous vein (GSV) and small saphenous vein (SSV). Data with an extended review including the anterior accessory saphenous vein (ASV) and perforator veins (PVs) have been limited. This study examines the treatment of venous insufficiency with RFA and EVLA of these multiple veins to identify clinical and demographic predictors of both the early success and thrombotic complications of endovenous thermal ablation. Methods A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent either RFA or EVLA of the GSV, SSV, ASV, or PVs was performed from March 2012 through February 2014. The PVs were treated only using RFA. The success and complication rates of each method were compared. Procedure results were determined by duplex ultrasound examination at the next office visit. Obliteration of the target vein was defined as a success. A complication was defined as thrombosis of any vein proximal to the target vein or acute thrombosis of any tributaries. Results A total of 808 patients were treated with either RFA or EVLA (2057 procedures); 47 patients were excluded because of incomplete records. In total, 1811 procedures were included with an average of 2.4 procedures per patient. Excluding the PVs, the success rate of RFA was 98.4%, equivalent to EVLA at 98.1% ( P  = .66). The success rates of thermal ablation for each vein were as follows: GSV, 98.5%; SSV, 98.2%; ASV, 97.2%; and PVs, 82.4%. The overall thrombotic complication rate was 10.5%. The thrombotic complications include endovenous heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT; 5.9%) and acute superficial venous thrombosis (4.6%). However, when EHIT class 1 was excluded, the true EHIT rate was 1.16%. The rate of a thrombotic complication for each vein was as follows: GSV, 11.8%; SSV, 5.5%; ASV, 6.5%; and PVs, 2.4%. The thrombotic complication rate was 7.7% for RFA and 11.4% for EVLA ( P  = .007). Age, gender, laterality, presenting symptoms (based on Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology class), and vein type and diameter have no effect on successful ablation. Increased vein diameter ( P P Conclusions There were no statistical difference in successful closure rates between RFA and EVLA. The type of procedure (EVLA), larger vein diameters, and treatment of the GSV were associated with a greater thrombotic complication rate, but type of vein was the most significant independent predictor.