Dataset Information

Comparison of unilateral vs bilateral and staged bilateral vs concurrent bilateral truncal endovenous ablation in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Venous insufficiency is commonly bilateral, and patients often prefer single-episode care compared with staged procedures. Few studies have investigated clinical outcomes after unilateral vs bilateral venous ablation procedures or between staged and concurrent bilateral procedures. Here, we report data from the Vascular Quality Initiative regarding truncal venous ablation for chronic venous insufficiency.

Methods

Using data from the Vascular Quality Initiative, we investigated immediate postoperative as well as long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing unilateral vs bilateral truncal endovenous ablation from 2015 to 2019. We further investigated outcomes between staged bilateral and concurrent bilateral ablations. Preprocedural and postprocedural comparisons were performed using t-test, χ² test, or their nonparametric counterpart when appropriate. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression was performed on ordinal outcome variables.

Results

A total of 5029 patients were included, of whom 3782 (75.2%) underwent unilateral procedures. Median follow-up was 227 days (interquartile range [IQR], 55-788 days). Unilateral patients were less likely to be female (67.0% vs 70.3%; P = .031) and white (86.3% vs 91.2%; P < .001) and had lower body mass index (30.3 ± 7.3 kg/m² vs 31.8 ± 7.6 kg/m²; P < .001) compared with patients undergoing bilateral procedures. In addition, unilateral patients had fewer prior varicose vein treatments (23.0% vs 15.7%; P < .001) and had higher median preprocedural Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS; 8 [IQR, 6-10] vs 7 [IQR, 5.5-9]; P < .001). No difference was seen in complications (6.9% vs 8.2%; P = .292), and systemic complications were rare in both groups. No difference was seen in VCSS improvement after treatment (median, 3 [IQR, 1-6] for unilateral; median, 3 [IQR 1-5] for bilateral; P = .055). In comparing staged with concurrent bilateral procedures, there was no difference in overall complications (7.5% vs 12.2%; P = .144). Staged bilateral patients were older (56.9 ± 13.3 years vs 54.2 ± 12.9 years; P = .002), less likely to have had prior varicose vein treatment (14.3% vs 19.8%; P = .020), and more likely to be therapeutically anticoagulated (10.8% vs 6.5%; P = .028) compared with concurrent bilateral patients. Staged patients also have higher preprocedural VCSS compared with concurrent patients (median, 8 [IQR, 6-10] vs 7 [IQR, 5.5-9]; P < .001). In multivariable analysis, there was no difference in the likelihood of VCSS improvement for concurrent compared with staged procedures (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-1.24; P = .226).

Conclusions

Concurrent bilateral truncal endovenous ablation can be performed safely without increased morbidity compared with staged bilateral or unilateral ablations.

SUBMITTER: Brown CS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7768602 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveFew studies have investigated outcomes after truncal endovenous ablation in patients with combined deep and superficial reflux and no studies have evaluated patient-reported outcomes.MethodsWe investigated the short- and long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes among patients with and without deep venous reflux undergoing truncal endovenous ablation from 2015 to 2019 in the Vascular Quality Initiative. Preprocedural and postprocedural comparisons were performed using the t-test, χ2, or their nonparametric counterpart when appropriate. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess for confounding.ResultsA total of 4881 patients were included, of which 2254 (46.2%) had combined deep and superficial reflux. The median follow-up was 336.5 days. Patients with deep reflux were less likely to be female (65.9% vs 69.9%; P = .003), more likely to be Caucasian (90.2% vs 86.5%; P = .003) and had no difference in BMI (30.6 ± 7.5 vs 30.6 ± 7.2; P = .904). Additionally, no difference was seen in rates of prior varicose vein treatments, number of pregnancies, or history of deep venous thrombosis; however, patients without deep reflux were more likely to be on anticoagulation at the time of the procedure (10.9% vs 8.1%; P < .001). Patients without deep reflux had slightly higher median preprocedural Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) scores (8 [interquartile range (IQR), 6-10]) vs 7 [IQR, 6-10]; P = .005) as well as postprocedural VCSS scores (5 [IQR, 3-7] vs 4 [IQR, 2-6]; P < .001). The median change in VCSS from before to after the procedure was lower for patients without deep reflux (3 [IQR, 1.0-5.5] vs 3.5 [IQR, 1-6]; P = .006). Total symptom score was higher for patients without deep reflux both before (median, 14 [IQR, 10-19] vs median, 13.5 [IQR, 9.5-18]; P = .005) and postprocedurally (median, 4 [IQR, 1-9] vs median, 3.25 [IQR, 1-7]; P < .001), but no difference was seen in change in symptom score (median, 8 [IQR, 4-13] vs median, 9 [IQR, 4-13]; P = .172). Patients with deep reflux had substantially higher rates of complications (10.4% vs 3.0%; P < .001), with a particular increase in proximal thrombus extension (3.1% vs 1.1%; P < .001). After controlling for confounding, this estimate of effect size for any complication increased (odds ratio, 5.72; 95% confidence interval, 2.21-14.81; P < .001).ConclusionsNo significant difference is seen in total symptom improvement when patients undergo truncal endovenous ablation with concomitant deep venous reflux, although a greater improvement was seen in VCSS score in these patients. Patients with deep venous reflux had a significantly increased rate of complications, independent of confounding variables, and should be counseled appropriately before the decision for treatment.