Recanalization After Endovenous Thermal Ablation.

BACKGROUND

Endovenous thermal ablation in the form of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) has quickly ascended to a prime position in the treatment of venous insufficiency. Although there are good data examining the rates of thrombotic complications, there is a relative paucity of data examining the recanalization rates after endovenous thermal ablation (ETA).

METHODS

Data analysis was performed for 1475 thermal ablations in 485 patients from 2012 to 2015 as a retrospective chart review. RFA was performed in 1027 patients and EVLA in 448 patients. The target veins included the great saphenous vein (GSV) (778), short saphenous vein (SSV) (401), accessory saphenous vein (ASV) (140), and perforator veins (PV) (156). Data were collected from follow-up visit within 1 week of procedure, every 3 months for the first year, and every 6 months thereafter. Recurrence was defined as >500 ms for the GSV, SSV, and ASV and as >350 ms for the PV. Data for recanalization were also correlated with age, gender, laterality, presenting symptoms, and treated targeted vein.

RESULTS

The average age of the study population was 64.7 years (SD ± 15.6) with 66% women and 326 bilateral veins. At 1-week follow-up, women (2.6%) had higher recanalization rate (P = 0.018). Failure rate of obliteration for GSV and SSV were 0.8% and 0.8%, respectively (P = 0.98). PV had the highest failure rate (16.6%), followed by ASV (2.9%) (P < 0.001). At mean follow-up after 13.5 ± 12 months, PV (41.2%) and ASV (14.85) had higher recanalization rate than GSV (7.7%) and SSV (8.5%) (P < 0.001). Excluding PVs, no difference with recurrence rates between RFA (10%) and EVLA (8.8%) was observed at 1-week and 1-year follow-ups (P = 0.54). Also, 56% of patients with recanalization were symptomatic. Among these 1475 procedures, redo for recurrent symptoms were performed in 76. At 1 week, there was no difference between nonrepeated (92.7%) and repeated procedures (89.5%) (P = 0.41). However, 1 year later, there was significant difference between obliteration rate in nonrepeated (86.9%) and repeated (76.3%) procedures (P = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

These data do suggest low overall rates of recanalization after thermal ablation of the GSV and SSV. However, at 1-year follow-up, accessory veins had almost twice the recurrence rate as compared with GSV and SSV, and PV had almost 5 times the recurrence rate. There was no significant difference between RFA and EVLA in recanalization rates. Redo procedures in recanalized veins after venous ablation are effective with a success rate at 76.5%.