Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the utilization of surgical interventions in patients diagnosed with superficial vein thrombosis (SVT) and its potential association with the occurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding events., Methods: INSIGHTS-SVT, a prospective, non-interventional, multicenter study in Germany, investigated the management and outcomes of patients with acute SVT who received conservative and/or invasive treatments at the discretion of the treating physician., Results: Among the 872 patients with 12-month data, 657 had medical therapy only, and 215 patients underwent vascular surgery (70 within 3 months of SVT diagnosis, 136 between months 4 and 12, and nine had an intervention in both periods). The most commonly performed procedures included endovenous thermal ablation, ligation of the saphenofemoral or saphenopopliteal junction, and vein stripping. The primary outcome of symptomatic VTE was observed in 5.8% of conservatively treated patients and 6.3% of those who underwent surgical intervention. Additionally, the secondary outcome of recurrent or extended SVT was documented in 4.7% of conservatively treated patients and 5.3% of invasively treated patients. Bleeding events occurred in 1.4% of conservatively treated patients and 2.1% of surgically treated patients. These differences were statistically not significant. Furthermore, our analysis indicated a potential protective effect associated with surgical treatments, such as ligation of the saphenofemoral or saphenopopliteal junction, stripping and endovenous thermal ablation, concerning the endpoint of VTE for patients when applied after 3 months from the index SVT event., Conclusions: In line with previous research, our study suggests that surgical interventions are not frequently employed in the management of SVT, although they may be warranted in select cases. Nevertheless, additional research is essential to gain a deeper understanding of the indications, criteria, and benefit of surgical interventions in the treatment of SVT., Competing Interests: Disclosures E.R. has received honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Leo Pharma, and Pfizer. R.B. has received research support from AFNET, CPC, and FADOI; and honoraria from Bayer, BMS, Leo, Pfizer, and Viatris. H.G. has received honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from Aspen, Mylan, Bayer, and Boehringer-Ingelheim. D.P. has received honoraria for consultancy, advisory boards, or lectures by Actelion, Bayer, Biogen, Aspen, Amgen, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Genzyme, and Zambon. F.L. has received honoraria for lectures or consultancy from Aspen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Viatris. U.H. has received research support and honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Leo Pharma, and Aspen. T.N. has received honoraria for consultancy from Medi Bayreuth; and honoraria for presentations from Aspen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Mylan. A.H. was, at the time of the study, a full-time employee of Aspen Pharma GmbH, Munich, and is now an employee of Amgen GmbH, Germany. A.S. is a full-time employee of Mylan Germany GmbH, Germany., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)