The clinical relevance of anterior accessory great saphenous vein reflux.

BACKGROUND

Insurance approval for saphenous vein ablation is generally limited to junctional reflux involving the great saphenous vein (GSV) or small saphenous vein. This study was designed to investigate prevalence and disease severity of anterior accessory GSV (AAGSV) compared with GSV disease in patients presenting to dedicated outpatient vein centers.

METHODS

Deidentified data were pulled from the American Vein & Lymphatic Society PRO Venous Registry for first and second patient encounters. Variables included age, sex, and body mass index (BMI); clinical class of Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology (CEAP) classification; revised Venous Clinical Severity Score (rVCSS); and duplex ultrasound values for each limb. Data were further scrutinized according to duplex ultrasound findings. Patients with normal findings on duplex ultrasound examination or evidence of acute or chronic thrombosis were excluded. Patients were further characterized into two groups. The primary group had no prior vein treatment vs the progressive group, in which patients have had a superficial venous intervention at some point in the past.

RESULTS

There were 6836 unique patients with duplex ultrasound patterns of either AAGSV or GSV above the knee or both AAGSV and GSV in either group. This pool contained 2604 patients with recorded CEAP class and rVCSS, representing 2664 patient limbs in the final data set. In comparison to limbs in the progressive group, AAGSV reflux was more common in the primary group (78/563 vs 209/2101; P < .01). Demographic features of the groups demonstrated no significant difference. The primary group demonstrated a significantly higher rVCSS (6.95 vs 6.10; P < .01) than the progressive group. Patients in the primary group also demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of more advanced disease (CEAP class C4 and above; 43.1% vs 24.8%; P < .0001) than those in the progressive group. The primary group demonstrated no significant differences in age, sex proportions, or mean BMI. The mean rVCSS for GSV of these patients (7.22) was significantly higher than that of AAGSV patients (5.63; P < .01). The incidence of superficial vein thrombosis for the AAGSV patients (6.41%) was significantly higher than that of the GSV patients (2.17%; P < .05) in the progressive group. Patients in the progressive group demonstrated no significant difference in age, sex proportions, mean BMI, or average rVCSS. The proportion of AAGSV limbs with superficial thrombosis events (37/287 [12.9%]) was significantly higher than that for GSV (59/2214 [2.7%]; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

AAGSV reflux is common and carries similar morbidity to GSV reflux. It is manifested with an alarming presence of superficial vein thrombosis.