Increased body mass index and vein diameter are associated with incomplete target vein closure following microfoam ablation of incompetent saphenous veins.

OBJECTIVE: Patient characteristics and risk factors for incomplete or non-closure following thermal saphenous vein ablation have been reported. However, similar findings have not been clearly described following commercially manufactured polidocanol microfoam ablation (MFA). The objective of our study is to identify predictive factors and outcomes associated with non-closure following MFA of symptomatic, refluxing saphenous veins.

METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained patient database was performed from procedures in our Ambulatory Procedure Unit. All consecutive patients who underwent MFA with commercially manufactured 1% polidocanol microfoam for symptomatic superficial vein reflux between June 2018 and September 2022 were identified. Patients treated for tributary veins only, without truncal vein ablation, were excluded. Patients were then stratified into groups: complete closure (Group I) and non-closure (Group II). Preoperative demographics, procedural details, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Preoperative variables that were significant on univariate analysis (prior deep venous thrombosis [DVT], body mass index [BMI] ≥30 kg/m2 , and vein diameter) were entered into a multivariate logistic regression model with the primary outcome being vein non-closure.

RESULTS: Between June 2018 and September 2022, a total of 224 limbs underwent MFA in our ambulatory venous center. Of these, 127 limbs in 103 patients met study inclusion criteria. Truncal veins treated included the above-knee great saphenous vein (Group I: n = 89, 77% vs Group II: n = 7, 58%; P = .14), below-knee great saphenous vein (Group I: n = 7, 6% vs Group II: n = 0; P = .38), anterior accessory saphenous vein (Group I: n = 17, 15% vs Group II: n = 4, 33%; P = .12, and small saphenous vein (Group I: n = 4, 4% vs Group II: n = 1, 8%; P = .41). Complete closure (Group I) occurred in 115 limbs, and 12 limbs did not close (Group II) based on postoperative duplex ultrasound screening. The mean BMI in Group II (36.1 ± 6.4 kg/m2 ) was significantly greater than Group I (28.6 ± 6.1 kg/m2 ) (P < .001). Vein diameter of ≥10.2 mm was independently associated with truncal vein non-closure with an odds ratio of 4.8. The overall mean foam volume was 6.2 ± 2.7 ml and not different between the two cohorts (Group I: 6.2 ± 2.6 ml vs Group II: 6.3 + 3.5 ml; P = .89). Post MFA improvement in symptoms was higher in Group I (96.9%) compared with Group II (66.7%) (P = .001). The mean postoperative Venous Clinical Severity Score was also lower in Group I (8.0 ± 3.0) compared with Group II (9.9 ± 4.2) (P = .048). The overall incidences of ablation-related thrombus extension and DVT were 4.7% (n = 6) and 1.6% (n = 2), and all occurred in Group I. All were asymptomatic and resolved with anticoagulation.

CONCLUSIONS: Microfoam ablation of symptomatic, refluxing truncal veins results in excellent overall closure rates and symptomatic relief. BMI ≥30 kg/m2 and increased vein diameter are associated with an increased risk of saphenous vein non-closure following MFA. Non-closure is associated with less symptomatic improvement and a lower post-procedure reduction in Venous Clinical Severity Score. Despite the incidence of ablation-related thrombus extension and DVT in this study being higher than reported rates following thermal ablation, MFA is safe for patients with early postoperative duplex ultrasound surveillance and selective short-term anticoagulation.