These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Effect of endovenous ablation assessment stratified by great saphenous vein size, gender, clinical severity, and patient-reported outcomes.
    Author: Bendix SD, Peterson EL, Kabbani LS, Weaver MR, Lin JC.
    Journal: J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord; 2021 Jan; 9(1):128-136. PubMed ID: 32353593.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The policies of insurance carriers have used the truncal vein size as a criterion for coverage. The objective of the present study was to compare the effect of great saphenous vein (GSV) size ≥5 mm vs <5 mm on patient presentation and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Patients in a national cohort were prospectively captured in the Vascular Quality Initiative Varicose Vein Registry. From January 2015 to October 2017, the Vascular Quality Initiative Varicose Vein Registry database was queried for all patients who had undergone varicose vein procedures. The CEAP (clinical, etiologic, anatomic, pathophysiologic) classification, Venous Clinical Severity Score, and patient-reported outcomes were compared by GSV size (<5 mm, group 1; ≥5 mm, group 2) before and after the procedures. A 2-sample Wilcoxon test was performed to assess the differences between the 2 groups stratified by GSV size. To assess for postoperative improvement, a matched-pairs Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed for each group separately. RESULTS: During the study period, 5757 vein ablation procedures had been performed for GSV: 770 for GSV size <5 mm and 4987 for GSV size ≥5 mm. Patients in group 1 were more likely to be women (81.7% vs 68.4%; P = .001) and older (56.8 vs 55.6 years; P = .012). The CEAP clinical class was more advanced in group 2 than in group 1 (P = .001). The maximal GSV diameter in group 2 was significantly greater than in group 1 (8.32 vs 3.86 mm; P = .001); 64% of group 2 and 59.2% of group 1 had undergone radiofrequency thermal ablation (P = .001). No mortalities occurred in either group. Group 2 had more complications postoperatively (0.6% vs 0%; P = .027), required postoperative anticoagulation (8.8% vs 5%, P = .001), developed partial recanalization (0.8% vs 0.3%; P = .001), and missed more work days (2.32 vs 1.6 days) compared with group 1. A similar rate of hematoma developed in both groups, but group 1 had a higher rate of paresthesia. Both groups had improvement in the Venous Clinical Severity Score and HASTI (heaviness, achiness, swelling, throbbing, itching) score. The degree of symptomatic improvement between the 2 groups was similar. CONCLUSIONS: All patients demonstrated improvement in both clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes after endovenous ablation, regardless of GSV size. Patients with a preoperative GSV size ≥5 mm experienced similar improvement in symptoms but an increased complication rate. Patients with a smaller vein size should not be denied intervention or coverage by vein size.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]