Knipp Brian S, Blackburn Susan A, Bloom Jess R, Fellows Elaine, Laforge William, Pfeifer John R, Williams David M, Wakefield Thomas W
Section of Vascular Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
J Vasc Surg. 2008 Dec;48(6):1538-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.07.052. Epub 2008 Oct 1.
We hypothesize that endovenous laser ablation (EVA) therapy is equally successful in improving venous insufficiency symptoms in patients with or without deep venous insufficiency (DVI).
From January 2005 through August 2007, EVA of the great saphenous vein (GSV) was attempted in 364 patients (460 limbs) with symptomatic GSV reflux. The GSV was successfully cannulated and obliterated in all but 17 limbs. EVA was performed alone in 308 limbs (69.5%) and with phlebectomy or perforator ligation (EVAP) in 135 limbs (30.5%). Venous clinical severity scores (VCSS) were recorded preoperatively and at 30, 90, 180, and 360 days postoperatively. Patients were classified as those with or without DVI based on duplex imaging valve closure times at the common femoral vein (CFV) and popliteal vein (PV). In a subset of 181 patients undergoing EVA therapy in the operating room, perioperative thrombosis prophylaxis was administered based on a risk-stratification protocol. Patients were assessed with direct end points (VCSS) and indirect end points (vein occlusion rates).
Successful performance of EVA led to complete saphenous vein ablation in 99.8% at 1 month and 95.9% at 1 year. Median VCSS preoperatively was 6 (interquartile range, 5-8), generally decreasing over all time points to 4 (interquartile range, 2-5) beyond 360 days (P < .001). Male gender was independently associated with greater improvement in scores with time (P = .019). Changes in VCSS and duration of vessel occlusion were equivalent regardless of DVI for both isolated EVA and EVAP. For EVAP, the true deep venous thrombosis (DVT) rate was 2.2%, whereas for isolated EVA, the rate was 0% (P = .028); the rate of saphenofemoral thrombus extension was 5.9% for EVAP vs 7.8% for isolated EVA (P = .554). The use of risk-adjusted heparin prophylaxis in patients undergoing EVAP did not have a significant effect on thrombotic complications. There were no differences in true DVT, thrombus extension, or superficial thrombophlebitis between patients with or without DVI. Performance of concomitant phlebectomy, DVI, gender, and age had no effect on the duration of vessel occlusion.
EVA produces successful ablation and is associated with sustained improvement in VCSS. These outcomes are independent of the presence of DVI. Finally, the use of a risk-adjusted thrombosis prevention protocol had no effect on the rate of superficial thrombus extension from EVA or EVAP in patients undergoing general anesthesia.
我们推测,对于有或没有深静脉功能不全(DVI)的患者,腔内激光消融(EVA)治疗在改善静脉功能不全症状方面同样成功。
从2005年1月至2007年8月,对364例(460条肢体)有症状的大隐静脉(GSV)反流患者尝试进行GSV的EVA治疗。除17条肢体外,所有肢体的GSV均成功插管并闭塞。308条肢体(69.5%)单独进行EVA,135条肢体(30.5%)进行EVA联合静脉切除术或交通支结扎术(EVAP)。术前及术后30、90、180和360天记录静脉临床严重程度评分(VCSS)。根据股总静脉(CFV)和腘静脉(PV)的双功成像瓣膜关闭时间,将患者分为有或没有DVI的两类。在手术室接受EVA治疗的181例患者亚组中,根据风险分层方案进行围手术期血栓预防。对患者进行直接终点(VCSS)和间接终点(静脉闭塞率)评估。
EVA成功实施后,1个月时大隐静脉完全消融率为99.8%,1年时为95.9%。术前VCSS中位数为6(四分位间距,5 - 8),总体上在所有时间点均下降,360天后降至4(四分位间距,2 - 5)(P <.001)。男性性别与评分随时间的更大改善独立相关(P =.019)。对于单独的EVA和EVAP,无论有无DVI,VCSS的变化和血管闭塞持续时间均相当。对于EVAP,真正的深静脉血栓形成(DVT)率为2.2%,而单独EVA的发生率为0%(P =.028);股隐静脉血栓延伸率在EVAP组为5.9%,单独EVA组为7.8%(P =.554)。在接受EVAP的患者中使用风险调整的肝素预防对血栓形成并发症无显著影响。有或没有DVI的患者在真正的DVT、血栓延伸或浅静脉血栓形成方面无差异。同时进行静脉切除术、DVI、性别和年龄对血管闭塞持续时间无影响。
EVA能成功消融,并与VCSS的持续改善相关。这些结果与DVI的存在无关。最后,在接受全身麻醉的患者中,使用风险调整的血栓预防方案对EVA或EVAP引起的浅静脉血栓延伸率无影响。