A Comparison of Venaseal Versus Radiofrequency Ablation Outcomes Within a Managed Care Organization.

Background: Chronic venous insufficiency is a common medical condition that afflicts over 30 million adults in the United States. Treatment and management have changed dramatically over the past 20 years with the introduction of various endovenous therapies, including radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cyanoacrylate closure using the Venaseal system. In this study, we explore a direct comparison of outcomes between RFA and VenaSeal conducted by a single surgeon within a managed care organization.
Methods: Between May 2020 and December 2021, there were 87 patients undergoing 97 total procedures who were treated with either VenaSeal (n = 55) or RFA (n = 42), conducted by a single surgeon within a managed care organization. Primary outcomes included successful greater saphenous vein (GSV) closure, postoperative deep vein thrombosis (DVT), embolization, saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) thrombosis, skin reaction (allergic or thrombophlebitis), or procedure-related emergency room (ER) and urgent care (UC) visits. Retrospective chart review was conducted to describe patient demographics, indications for treatment, treatment details (number of access sites and indication for treatment), as well as follow-up adjunctive vein procedures (sclerotherapy and stab phlebectomy).
Results: All patients had postprocedural ultrasound (US) performed within 7 days by the operating surgeon and mean overall patient follow-up from index procedure was 12 months; 2 patients were lost to follow-up due to death. All operations utilized intraoperative US, and SFJ thrombosis was not observed in any patient postprocedure. The average age of VenaSeal and RFA groups was 59.05 and 59.51 years, respectively. The average number of access sites during the procedure for VenaSeal and RFA was 1.56 and 1.20, respectively. Of the 55 VenaSeal treatments, 9.1% of patients reported postoperative skin reactions, and 9.1% of patients underwent subsequent stab phlebectomy (22 stabs on average). Of the 42 RFA treatments, 7.1% of RFA patients reported postoperative skin reactions, and 9.5% underwent subsequent stab phlebectomy (36 stabs on average). The percentage of patients who had postoperative UC or emergency department visits related to the procedure in the VenaSeal and RFA groups was 3.6% and 0%, respectively.
Conclusions: Both VenaSeal and RFA demonstrated effective vein closure of the GSV at 12-month follow-up, with VenaSeal demonstrating continued noninferiority to RFA. Based on our data, postoperative skin reactions do not appear to be significantly higher with VenaSeal treatment, as previously reported.
(Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)