Severity of disease and treatment outcomes of anterior accessory great saphenous veins compared with the great saphenous vein.

Objective: Endovenous therapies are currently the standard of care for the treatment of patients with symptomatic great saphenous vein (GSV) reflux. The effectiveness and long-term outcomes of these therapies for anterior accessory great saphenous veins (AAGSVs) are poorly defined. The objective of this investigation is to determine treatment outcomes in patients with symptomatic AAGSV reflux compared with patients with symptomatic GSV reflux.
Methods: Data were prospectively collected in the Center for Vein Restoration's electronic medical record system (NexGen Healthcare Information System, Irvine, Calif) and retrospectively analyzed. Treatment outcomes after a standalone ablation and ablation + phlebectomy were compared in patients with isolated AAGSV and GSV reflux. Treatment outcomes were assessed at 1 month and 6 months postprocedure using the revised Venous Clinical Severity Score (rVCSS) and the 20-item Chronic Venous Insufficiency Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (CIVIQ20) survey for quality of life. Medical and surgical comorbidities, Clinical-Etiological-Anatomical-Pathophysiological classification, body mass index, gender, race, and the average number of procedures performed were all analyzed.
Results: From January 2015 to December 2018, 31,186 patients and 49,193 limbs were assessed. Of these, 91 patients/103 limbs had isolated AAGSV reflux, and 7704 patients/10,371 limbs had isolated GSV reflux. There were 95% and 75% women in the isolated AAGSV and GSV groups, respectively (P ≤ .001). For the ablation-only patients, AAGSV (n = 57 patients/61 limbs) and GSV (n = 5349 patients/7191 limbs), there were no differences in preintervention (7.0 ± 2.0 vs 6.8 ± 2.8, P = .99), 1-month (4.0 ± 2.4 vs 3.9 ± 2.8, P = .99), and 6-month (3.9 ± 2.6 vs 3.9 ± 2.9, P = .55) rVCSS scores. Similar results were observed when ablations and phlebectomies were performed (AAGSV [n = 34 patients/42 limbs] and GSV [n = 1848 patients/2491 limbs]). CIVIQ20 scores for patients with isolated AAGSV and GSV were 53.3 ± 19.6 vs 50.6 ± 18.8 (P = .43) preintervention, 37.2 ± 17.6 vs 35.7 ± 15.9 (P = .91) at 1 month, and 41.3 ± 21.7 vs 35.1 ± 15.7 (P = .36) at 6 months, respectively. Postprocedure scores within groups improved at 1 and 6 months (P ≤ .02); however, 6-month AAGSV CIVIQ20 scores after an ablation increased slightly compared with 1-month scores and were not different to preintervention GSV scores (P = .07). When phlebectomies were performed with ablations, 6-month CIVIQ20 scores were similar between groups (P = .72). There was no difference in the average number of ablations in patients with phlebectomies in the AAGSV or GSV group (1.24 ± 0.44 vs 1.35 ± 0.49, P = .15).
Conclusions: Endovenous therapies for the treatment of symptomatic AAGSVs demonstrate similar outcomes to patients with symptomatic GSV reflux. For standalone ablations, the rVCSS scores are similar between the groups; however, CIVIQ20 scores increase to preintervention levels in standalone ablation AAGSV patients at 6 months. This increase disappears when phlebectomies are performed with ablations. Based on these data, patients with symptomatic AAGSV treated with ablation also require treatment of the associated tributaries (varicosities) to achieve similar outcomes to patients with GSV, and this calls into question the effectiveness of ablation for isolated AAGSV reflux.
(Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)