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:ImportanceEndovenous thermal ablations (ETAs) are recommended as first-line treatment for truncal vein reflux, have a short recovery time, and are cost-effective. However, ETAs are associated with discomfort during tumescent anesthesia infiltration. To minimize discomfort, nonthermal, nontumescent ablation techniques had emerged in the form of mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) and cyanoacrylate adhesive injection (CAE).ObjectiveTo assess pain scores immediately after truncal ablation using a 100-mm visual analog scale and 10-point number scale to compare pain-related outcomes following mechanochemical ablation vs cyanoacrylate adhesive treatment.Design, setting, and participantsThe Multicenter Randomized II Clinical Trial Comparing Mechanochemical Ablation vs Cyanoacrylate Adhesive for the Treatment of Primary Truncal Saphenous Veins Incompetence study was a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted at 3 sites between November 2017 and January 2020. Inclusion criteria were primary great or small saphenous varicose veins; exclusion criteria included recurrent varicose veins, current deep venous thrombosis, or serious arterial disease. There were 392 participants screened, 225 were excluded, and 167 participants underwent randomization. Four participants did not receive allocated intervention and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Follow-up took place at 2 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months.InterventionsPatients with primary truncal vein incompetence were randomized to receive either MOCA or CAE.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome measure was pain score immediately after completing truncal ablation using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) and a 10-point number scale. Secondary outcome measures included degree of ecchymosis, occlusion rates, clinical severity, and generic and disease-specific quality of life (QoL) scores.ResultsOf 167 study participants, 99 (59.3%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 56 (15.8) years. Overall, 155 truncal veins treated (92.8%) were great saphenous veins. Demographic data and baseline status were comparable between treatment groups. A total of 73 patients (47%) underwent adjunctive treatment of varicosities. Overall median (IQR) maximum pain score after truncal treatment was 23 mm (10-44) on the VAS and 3 (2-5) on the number scale, showing no significant difference in median (IQR) pain measured by VAS (MOCA, 24 [11.5-44.7] mm vs CAE, 20 [9.0-42.0] mm; P = .23) or by number scale (MOCA, 4 [2-5] vs CAE, 3 [2-4]; P = .18). Both groups demonstrated significant and comparable improvement in clinical severity, generic and disease-specific QoL scores, and complete occlusion rates. Four patients treated with CAE developed minor complications (superficial thrombophlebitis and thrombus extensions).Conclusions and relevanceTo our knowledge, this was the first randomized clinical trial directly comparing nontumescent ablation techniques. The study demonstrated that the MOCA and CAE techniques have a similar periprocedural pain score.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03392753.