BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment approach for patients with active venous leg ulcers (VLUs) and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) associated with great saphenous vein (GSV) reflux remains unclear. To address this gap, we retrospectively compared the outcomes of patients with post-thrombotic VLU with an intact GSV vs those with a stripped or ablated GSV.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 48 patients with active VLUs and documented PTS, who were treated at a single center between January 2018 and December 2022. Clinical information, including ulcer photographs, was recorded in a prospectively maintained digital database at the initial and follow-up visits. Two patient groups-group A (with an intact GSV) and group B (with a stripped or ablated GSV)-were compared in terms of time to complete healing, proportion of ulcers achieving complete healing, and ulcer recurrence during the follow-up period.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, gender, initial ulcer size, or ulcer duration between the two groups. All included patients had femoropopliteal post-thrombotic changes. Group A had significantly more completely healed ulcers (33 of 34 ulcers, 97%) compared with group B (10 of 14 ulcers, 71%) (P = .008). Group A also exhibited a significantly shorter time to complete ulcer healing (median: 42.5 days, interquartile range [IQR]: 65) compared with group B (median: 161 days, IQR: 530.5) (P = .0177), with a greater probability of ulcer healing (P = .0084). Long-term follow-up data were available for 45 of 48 patients (93.7%), with a mean duration of 39.6 months (range: 5.7-67.4 months). The proportion of ulcers that failed to heal or recurred during the follow-up period was significantly lower in group A (9 of 32 ulcers, 27%) compared with group B (11 of 13 ulcers, 85%) (P = .0009). In addition, in a subgroup analysis, patients with an intact but refluxing GSV (12 of 34) had a significantly shorter time to heal (median: 34 days, IQR: 57.25) (P = .0242), with a greater probability of ulcer healing (P = .0091) and significantly fewer recurrences (2 of 12, 16%) (P = .006) compared with group B.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that removal of the GSV through stripping or ablation in patients with post-thrombotic deep venous systems affecting the femoropopliteal segment may result in delayed ulcer healing and increased ulcer recurrence. Patients with an intact GSV had better outcomes, even when the refluxing GSV was left untreated. These findings emphasize the potential impact of GSV treatment on the management of VLUs in individuals with PTS. Further investigation is needed to validate these results and explore alternative therapeutic strategies to optimize outcomes for this patient population.

Postablation deep vein thrombosis (DVT) represents a potentially serious complication after Varithena polidocanol endovenous microfoam (PEM) ablation. The following primary outcomes were assessed: whether (1) adjunctive apixaban anticoagulation or (2) mechanical deep venous system (DVS) saline flushing could decrease saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) thrombus extension (postablation superficial thrombus extension [PASTE]) and/or DVT compared with compression alone, after great saphenous vein (GSV) PEM ablation.
Varithena 1% PEM ablation patients were randomized to (1) SFJ compression, (2) compression and DVS saline flushing, or (3) compression, DVS saline flushing, and 5 days of postprocedural 5 mg oral apixaban anticoagulation twice daily. Duplex imaging was obtained 7 to 10 days after PEM ablation and PASTE/DVT incidence (primary end point) was compared between groups at this time point.
We treated 304 limbs in 257 patients with PEM. Overall, 103 limbs received SFJ compression (group C, 33.8%), 101 received compression and deep venous flushing (group D, 32.9%), and 100 received compression, deep flush, and anticoagulation (group A, 33.2%). Mean ultrasound follow-up time was 9.7 days (all patients) with a primary GSV closure rate of 92.4%. SFJ PASTE (II-IV) occurred in 0.9%, 1.0%, and 0% (groups C, D, and A, respectively). DVT occurred in 16.7%, 14.7%, and 1.98% (groups C, D, and A; χ2, P = .002). Patients in group A receiving apixaban anticoagulation had a significant reduction in DVT compared with patients in group C (1.98% vs 16.7%, χ2; P < .001); likewise, patients in group A had a significantly decreased DVT occurrence compared with group D (14.7% vs 1.98%; χ2, P = .00162), whereas patients in groups C and D were not statistically different (16.7% vs 14.7%; χ2, P = .60).
(1) Neither adjunctive DVS flushing nor anticoagulation decreased clinically relevant SFJ PASTE (II-IV) incidence, which remained similarly low across all groups and ranged between 0% and 1%, regardless of adjunctive DVS flushing or anticoagulation. This rate was significantly lower than prior reports (2.3%-4.1%). (2) DVS flushing had no influence on the rate of DVT. Observed PEM-induced DVT incidence using SFJ compression alone or compression with DVS flushing (16.7% and 14.7%, respectively) was significantly higher than prior reports (2.5%-9.6%). This finding may relate to the greater extent of AK/BK GSV territory treated in the present study. (3) Five days of postprocedural oral apixaban anticoagulation, 5 mg given twice daily, significantly decreased DVT occurrence to 1.98%, compared with nonanticoagulated patients (16.7%). This finding is comparable with the DVT rates reported after endovenous thermal ablation (0.7-1.7%). (4) Postprocedural apixaban anticoagulation may have a significant preventive role in decreasing DVT occurrence after PEM ablation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the results of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the great saphenous vein (GSV) using one versus two 20 s energy cycle treatment in the proximal 7 cm segment of the GSV.
METHODS: All patients who underwent RFA of the GSV from 1 May 2013 to 30 September 2013 in eight of our vein centers were included. Duplex ultrasound scans (DUSs) were performed prior to treatment on all patients and 2-3 days, and 1 month after procedure. Demographic data, GSV diameters, and other relevant data were recorded. Clinical, Etiologic, Anatomic, Pathologic (CEAP) classification and Venous Clinical Severity Scores (VCSSs) were determined prior to ablation and one month later. Patients who developed endovenous heat induced thrombosis (EHIT) were followed till resolution.
RESULTS: A total of 205 patients had one cycle treatment (group A) and 204 had two cycle treatment (group B). The two groups were comparable in their demography, CEAP classification, and VCSS scores. The rate of failure of ablation and incidence of EHIT were also not significantly different. The incidence of complications was low, <5% in both groups and all were minor.
CONCLUSIONS: Two cycle treatment of the proximal GSV for vein ablation does not improve the success rate of vein closure in the short term, compared to one cycle treatment. It also does not increase the risks of DVT, EHIT, major bleeding, and other complications. However, we do not know at what diameter two cycles may be superior to one cycle.