The proximity of the superficial epigastric vein to the saphenofemoral junction is associated with endovenous heat-induced thrombosis after radiofrequency ablation for varicose veins

• Published in: Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders (New York, NY) Vol. 9; no. 3; pp. 669 - 675
• Main Authors: Kitagawa, Atsushi, Yamada, Yukio, Nagao, Toshihiko
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.05.2021
• Subjects: Endovenous heat-induced thrombosis; Femoral vein; Radiofrequency ablation; Saphenous vein; Varicose vein; Varicose vein; Radiofrequency ablation; Saphenous vein; Endovenous heat-induced thrombosis; Femoral vein
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2020.08.023
• ISSN: 2213-333X

To elucidate the risk factors of endovenous heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for varicose veins in association with the superficial epigastric vein (SEV) position to the saphenofemoral junction (SFJ). We examined 125 legs from 218 patients (mean age, 67 years; 80 female legs) with great saphenous veins (GSVs) in association with the SEV proximity to the SFJ using the duplex ultrasound test. According to the Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy and Pathophysiology classification (CEAP; C1-C6), there were 62, 38, and 25 legs in the C2, C3, and C4-C6 categories, respectively. The postoperative duplex ultrasound tests, focused on EHIT, were conducted on days 1, 7, 30, and 90 after RFA. The EHIT analysis was based on Kabnick's classification (class 1-4). We compared the GSV diameter and the SEV-SFJ distance between the EHIT positive (n = 32) and negative groups (n = 93) using the Student t-test. The risk factors (age >75, male sex, ≥C3 classification, adjunctive phlebectomy, prior venous surgery history, GSV diameter of >7.5 mm, and short SEV-SFJ distance [<4 mm]) were examined using univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses. The EHIT ratio after RFA was 25.6% (24, five, three, and no legs in classes 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). In the EHIT positive group, the mean GSV diameter and the SEV-SFJ distance were larger (8.0 ± 2.3 vs 6.4 ± 2.0 mm; P < .001) and shorter (5.2 ± 4.0 vs 6.8 ± 3.7 mm; P = .05) than the negative group. Using univariate analysis, the risk factors of EHIT after RFA were as follows: ≥C3 classification (odds ratio [OR], 4.15; P = .002), GSV diameter >7.5 mm (OR, 3.50; P = .003), and short SEV-SFJ distance (OR, 2.92; P = .01). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that a classification of ≥C3 (OR, 3.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-8.86; P = .013), GSV of >7.5 mm (OR, 3.32; 95% CI, 1.33-8.25; P = .010), and short SEV-SFJ distance (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.09-6.71; P = .032) were also significant risk factors. RFA treatment for patients with varicose veins should be considered postoperatively in combination with a classification of ≥C3, GSV diameter of >7.5 mm, and a history of deep venous thrombosis and concomitant procedures, because it is related with greater chances of EHIT development.