Association between antithrombotic therapy and risk of postoperative complications among patients undergoing endovenous laser ablation

Current status of endothermal heat induced thrombosis

BACKGROUND

There remain many questions regarding the pathophysiology and risk factors for endothermal heat induced thrombosis formation. Moreover, there are a paucity of data on the timing of its occurrence, and there has been no consensus regarding for its treatment. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current knowledge on the pathophysiology, risk factors and treatment strategies for endothermal heat induced thrombosis.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched from 2001 to present for endothermal heat induced thrombosis, EHIT, deep vein thrombosis, chronic venous insufficiency, varicose veins, endovenous laser and radiofrequency ablation (treatment). All relevant articles identified by the authors mentioning endothermal heat induced thrombosis were included in this review.

RESULTS

A multitude of risk factors, several pathophysiological hypotheses and different treatment strategies are described in the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Endothermal heat induced thrombosis is marginally understood. There remains a theoretical risk for significant venous thromboembolic complications. With the new uniform classification of EHIT (American Venous Forum), healthcare providers should continue to investigate the nature of this event.

[Possibilities of using the Colibri system for endovenous laser ablation]

AIM

The purpose of the study was to assess efficacy of endovenous laser ablation of major saphenous veins by means of the Mediola single-ring radial light guides with the use of the 'Optical Handpiece MHP02 (Colibri)'.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This non-comparative prospective study included 430 consecutive patients who underwent a total of 511 endovenous laser ablation procedures from January 2018 to March 2019. The great saphenous vein was subjected to obliteration in 343 (67.1%) cases, the anterior accessory saphenous vein - in 94 (18.4%) cases, and the small saphenous vein - in 74 (14.5%) cases. There were 170 (39.5%) men and 260 (60.5%) women, with a mean age of 52±12.8 years.

RESULTS

The next day after the intervention the patients revisited the clinic for control examination, with the obtained findings demonstrating that occlusion of the target vein had been achieved in all 511 (100%) cases. At 2 months, we examined 411 (95.6%) people with a total of 484 (94.7%) treated veins. After 6 months, 399 (92.8%) people with 472 (92.4%) veins were examined. Recanalization with pathological reflux during the entire follow-up period was registered in 6 (1.3%) cases. Hence, the long-term rate of obliteration amounted to 98.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

1) endovenous laser ablation of major saphenous veins by means of the Mediola laser unit with wavelength of 1470 nm and single-ring radial light guides with the use of the 'Optical Handpiece MHP02 (Colibri)' made it possible to achieve obliteration of the target vein in 98.7% of cases at 6 months of follow up; 2) within the mentioned terms, the need for repeat intervention could appear in 1.1% of cases; 3) the Colibri system provides a possibility of decreasing the final cost of radial light guides for endovenous laser ablation by 30-50%.

A meta-analysis and systematic review of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients undergoing vascular surgery procedures

OBJECTIVE

Perioperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) is generally considered preventable. Whereas the non-vascular surgery literature is rich in providing data about the impact of VTE prophylaxis on VTE outcomes, vascular surgery data are relatively sparse on this topic. This study sought to evaluate the evidence for VTE prophylaxis specifically for the population of vascular surgery patients.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase databases in December 2018. Included were studies reporting primary and secondary outcomes for common vascular surgery procedures (open aortic operation, endovascular aneurysm repair [EVAR], peripheral artery bypass, amputation, venous reflux operation). A meta-analysis was performed comparing the patients who did not receive VTE prophylaxis and had VTE complications with patients who developed VTE despite receiving prophylaxis.

RESULTS

From 3757 uniquely identified articles, 42 publications met the criteria for inclusion in this review (1 for the category of all vascular operations, 5 for open aortic reconstructions, 2 for EVAR, 1 for open aortic surgery or EVAR, 3 for abdominal or bypass surgery, 2 for peripheral bypass surgery, 2 for amputations, 1 for vascular trauma, and 25 for surgical treatment of superficial venous disease). Five studies met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The results demonstrated slightly lower relative risk for development of VTE among patients receiving VTE prophylaxis (relative risk, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-1.87). After open aortic reconstruction, the risk of VTE is 13% to 18% and is not reduced by VTE prophylaxis. For EVAR patients, the risk of VTE without prophylaxis is 6%. For patients undergoing peripheral bypass surgery and not receiving therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, the risk of VTE is <2%. For patients undergoing amputations, VTE prophylaxis reduces the risk of VTE. For patients undergoing surgical treatment of superficial venous disease, there is an abundance of literature exploring the utility of VTE prophylaxis, but the evidence is conflicting; some studies demonstrated a benefit, whereas others showed no reduction of VTE with prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is a paucity of literature that addresses the effectiveness of VTE prophylaxis specifically in the population of vascular surgery patients. Our meta-analysis of the literature does not demonstrate a statistically significant benefit of VTE prophylaxis among the vascular surgery patients evaluated; however, it does suggest a low incidence of VTE among patients who receive VTE prophylaxis. Clinicians should identify the patients at high risk for development of postoperative VTE as the risk-benefit ratio may favor VTE prophylaxis in a selected group of patients. Clinicians should use their judgment and established VTE risk prediction models to assess VTE risk for patients. Vascular surgeons should consider reporting VTE incidence as a secondary outcome in publications.