Proposal for a national coverage determination for the treatment of varicose veins and venous disease due to disparate Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services local coverage determination policies

Factors associated with lack of clinical improvement after vein ablation in the vascular quality initiative

BACKGROUND

Insurance companies have adopted variable and inconsistent approval criteria for chronic venous disease (CVD) treatment. Although vein ablation (VA) is accepted as the standard of care for venous ulcers, the treatment criteria for patients with milder forms of CVD remain controversial. This study aims to identify factors associated with a lack of clinical improvement (LCI) in patients with less severe CVD without ulceration undergoing VA to improve patient selection for treatment.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing VA for CEAP C2 to C4 disease in the Vascular Quality Initiative varicose veins database from 2014 to 2023. Patients who required intervention in multiple veins, had undergone prior interventions, or presented with CEAP C5 to C6 disease were excluded. The difference (Δ) in venous clinical severity score (VCSS; VCSS before minus after the procedure) was used to categorize the patients. Patients with a ΔVCSS of ≤0 were defined as having LCI after VA, and patients with ≥1 point decrease in the VCSS after VA (ΔVCSS ≥1) as having some benefit from the procedure and, therefore, "clinical improvement." The characteristics of both groups were compared, and multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify factors independently associated with LCI. A second analysis was performed based on the VVSymQ instrument, which measures patient-reported outcomes using five specific symptoms (ie, heaviness, achiness, swelling, throbbing pain, and itching). Patients with LCI showed no improvement in any of the five symptoms, and those with clinical improvement had a decrease in severity of at least one symptom.

RESULTS

A total of 3544 patients underwent initial treatment of CVD with a single VA. Of the 3544 patients, 2607 had VCSSs available before and after VA, and 420 (16.1%) had LCI based on the ΔVCSS. Patients with LCI were more likely to be significantly older and African American and have CEAP C2 disease compared with patients with clinical improvement. Patients with clinical improvement were more likely to have reported using compression stockings before treatment. The vein diameters were not different between the two groups. The incidence of complications was overall low, with minor differences between the two groups. However, the patients with LCI were significantly more likely to have symptoms after intervention than those with improvement. Patients with LCI were more likely to have technical failure, defined as vein recanalization. On multivariable regression, age (odds ratio [OR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.02) and obesity (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.09-2.00) were independently associated with LCI, as was treatment of less severe disease (CEAP C2; OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.30-2.56) compared with more advanced disease (C4). The lack of compression therapy before intervention was also associated with LCI (OR, 6.05; 95% CI, 4.30-8.56). The analysis based on the VVSymQ showed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

LCI after VA is associated with treating patients with a lower CEAP class (C2 vs C4) and a lack of compression therapy before intervention. Importantly, no significant association between vein size and clinical improvement was observed.

Editor's Choice - Short Term Cost Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Ablation and High Ligation and Stripping for Great Saphenous Vein Incompetence

OBJECTIVE

Superficial venous incompetence (SVI) is a common disease that causes significant quality of life (QoL) impairment. There is a need for more health economic evaluations of SVI treatment. The aim of this study was to perform a cost effectiveness analysis in patients with great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence comparing radiofrequency ablation (RFA), high ligation and stripping (HL/S), and no treatment or conservative treatment with one year follow up.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trial economic analysis from an ongoing trial; 143 patients (156 limbs) with GSV incompetence (CEAP clinical class 2 - 6) were included. Treatment was performed with RFA or HL/S. Follow up was performed up to one year using duplex ultrasound, revised venous clinical severity score (r-VCSS), Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ), and EuroQol-5D-3L (EQ-5D-3L).

RESULTS

Seventy-eight limbs were treated with RFA and HL/S respectively. No treatment or conservative treatment was assumed to have zero in treatment cost and no treatment benefit. In the RFA group, one limb had reflux in the GSV after one month and three limbs after one year. In HL/S, two limbs had remaining reflux in the treated area at one month and one year. Both disease severity (r-VCSS, p = .004) and QoL (AVVQ, p = .021 and EQ-5D-3L, p = .028) were significantly improved over time. The QALY gain was 0.21 for RFA and 0.17 for HL/S. The cost per patient was calculated as €1 292 for RFA and €2 303 for HL/S. The cost per QALY (compared with no treatment or conservative treatment) was €6 155 for RFA and €13 549 for HL/S. With added cost for days absent from work the cost per QALY was €7 358 for RFA and €24 197 for HL/S. The cost per QALY for both methods was well below the threshold suggested by Swedish National Board of Health.

CONCLUSION

RFA is more cost effective than HL/S and no treatment or conservative treatment at one year follow up.

Variations and inconsistencies in venous ablation coverage policies between single-state and multistate carriers in the United States

BACKGROUND

Vein ablation is a common and effective treatment for patients with chronic venous insufficiency. The overuse of vein ablation despite the existence of evidence-based guidelines has resulted in insurance companies developing restrictive policies for coverage that create barriers to appropriate care. This study compares the insurance coverage by single-state carriers (SSCs) and multistate carriers (MSCs), highlighting the variations and inconsistencies in the various policies.

METHODS

The American Venous Forum Venous Policy Navigator was reviewed for the various policies available in the United States. The policies were divided into SSCs and MSCs. The characteristics of the policies, including the anatomic and hemodynamic criteria for specific veins, duration of conservative treatment, disease severity, symptoms, and types of procedures covered, were compared between the two groups. SAS, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc) was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 122 policies were analyzed and divided between SSCs (n = 85; 69.7%) and MSCs (n = 37; 30.3%). A significant variation was found in the size requirement for great saphenous vein ablation. Although 48% of the policies did not specify a size criterion, the remaining policies indicated a minimal size, ranging from 3 to 5.5 mm. However, no significant differences were found between SSCs and MSCs. Similar findings were encountered for the small and anterior accessory saphenous veins. MSCs were more likely to define a saphenous reflux time >500 ms compared with SSCs (81.1% vs 58.8%; P = .04). A significant difference was found between the SSCs and MSCs in the criteria for perforator ablation in terms of size and reflux time. MSCs were significantly more likely to provide coverage for mechanochemical ablation than were SSCs (24.3% vs 8.2%; P = .03). SSCs were more likely to require ≥12 weeks of compression stocking therapy than were MSCs (76.5% vs 48.7%; P = .01). No significant differences were found in the clinical indications between the two groups; however, MSCs were more likely to mention major hemorrhage than were SSCs.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study highlight the variations in policies for venous ablation, in particular, the striking inconsistencies in size criteria. MSCs were more likely to cover mechanochemical ablation and require a shorter duration of conservative therapy before intervention compared with SSCs. Evidence-based guidance is needed to develop more coherent policies for venous ablation coverage.