Advertisement

Endovenous Laser and Radiofrequency Treatments

  • Rachel Redenius
  • Margaret MannEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Chronic venous disease affects approximately 15% of men and >25% of women in the United States and can cause significant morbidity in those affected (2c) (Beebe-Dimmer et al., Ann Epidemiol 15:175–184, 2005). The preferred treatment options have shifted in the last decade from surgical ligation and stripping in the operating room to minimally invasive procedures such as endothermal ablation in the outpatient setting. Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are the two most commonly used thermal techniques. The heat produced by these methods causes denaturation of collagen proteins in the vessel wall resulting in inflammation, thrombosis, and fibrosis of the vein. RFA received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for the treatment of varicose veins in 1999 followed shortly by EVLA with an 810-nm wavelength in 2002. Additional available lasers include the 810-, 940-, 980-, 1319-, 1470-, and 1500-nm diode lasers and the 1064- and 1320-nm neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) lasers. The procedures are safely performed under local anesthesia and are well tolerated with minimal downtime for the patient. Due to their clinical effectiveness and safety profile, endothermal treatments are increasingly supplanting surgery as the treatment of choice for chronic venous disease.

Keywords

Varicose veins Endovenous ablation Chronic venous disease 

References

  1. 1.
    Beebe-Dimmer JL, Pfeifer JR, Engle JS, Schottenfeld D. The epidemiology of chronic venous insufficiency and varicose veins. Ann Epidemiol. 2005;15:175–84.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brand F, Dannenburg A, Abbott R, Kannel W. The epidemiology of varicose veins: the Framingham study. Am J Prev Med. 1988;4:96–101.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Labropoulos N, Leon L, Kwon S, Tassiopoulos A, Gonzalez-Fajardo JA, Kang SS, et al. Study of the venous reflux progression. J Vasc Surg. 2005;41:291–5.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee AJ, Evans CJ, Allan PL, Ruckley CV, Fowkes FGR. Lifestyle factors and the risk of varicose veins: Edinburgh vein study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:171–9.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Callam M. Epidemiology of varicose veins. Br J Surg. 1994;81:167–73.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ismail L, Normahani P, Standfield NJ, Jaffer U. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk for development of varicose veins in women with a history of pregnancy. J Vasc Surg: Venous Lym Dis. 2016;4:518–24.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dindelli M, Parazzini F, Basellini A, Rabaiotti E, Corsi G, Ferrar A. Risk factors for varicose disease before and during pregnancy. Angiology. 1993;44:361–7.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pavlovic MD, Schuller-Petrovic S, Pichot O, Rabe E, Maurins U, Morrison N, et al. Guidelines of the first international consensus conference on endovenous thermal ablation for varicose vein disease-ETAV consensus meeting 2012. Phlebology. 2015;30:257–73.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prince EA, Ahn SH, Dubel GJ, Soares GM. An investigation of the relationship between energy density and endovenous laser ablation success: does energy density matter? J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008;19:1449–53.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Calcagno D, Rossi JA, Ha C. Effect of saphenous vein diameter on closure rate with closure FAST radiofrequency catheter. Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2009;43:567–70.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nesbitt C, Bedenis R, Bhattacharya V, Stansby G. Endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy versus open surgery for great saphenous vein varices. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014:1–95.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Min RJ, Khilnani N, Zimmet SE. Endovenous laser treatment of saphenous vein reflux: long-term results. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14:991–6.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Agnus G, Mancini S, Magi G, IEWG. The first 1000 cases of Italian endovenous-laser working group (IEWG). Rationale, and long-term outcomes for the 1999–2003 period. Int Angiol. 2006;25:209–15.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schwarz T, Hodenberg E, Furtwangler C, Rastan A, Zeller T, Neumann F-J. Endovenous laser ablation of varicose veins with the 1470-nm diode laser. J Vasc Surg. 2010;51:1474–8.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moul DK, Housman L, Romine S, Greenway H. Endovenous laser ablation of the great and short saphenous veins with a 1320-nm neodymium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser: Retrospective case series of 1171 procedures. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70:326–31.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gale SS, Lee JN, Walsh E, Wojnarowski DL, Comerota AJ. A randomized, controlled trial of endovenous thermal ablation using the 810-nm wavelength laser and the Closure PLUS radiofrequency ablation methods for superficial venous insufficiency of the great saphenous vein. J Vasc Surg. 2010;52:645–50.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shepherd AC, Gohel MS, Brown LC, Metcalfe MJ, Hamish M, Davies AH. Randomized clinical trial of VNUS Closure FAST radiofrequency ablation versus laser for varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2010;97:810–8.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weiss RA. Comparison of endovenous radiofrequency versus 810 nm diode laser occlusion of large veins in an animal model. Dermatol Surg. 2002;28:56–61.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bozoglan O, Mese B, Eroglu E, Erdogan MB, Erdem K, Ekerbicer HC, et al. Comparison of endovenous laser and radiofrequency ablation in treating varicose veins in the same patient. Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016;50:1–5.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lurie F, Creton D, Eklof B, Kabnick LS, Kistner RL, Pichot O, et al. Prospective randomized study of endovenous radiofrequency obliteration (Closure procedure) versus ligation and stripping in a selected patient population (EVOLVeS Study). J Vasc Surg. 2003;38:207–14.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lurie F, Creton D, Eklof B, Kabnick LS, Kistner RL, Pichot O, et al. Prospective randomised study of endovenous radiofrequency obliteration (closure) versus ligation and vein stripping (EVOLVeS): two-year follow-up. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2005;29:67–73.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Merchant RF, Pichot O. Long-term outcomes of endovenous radiofrequency obliteration of saphenous reflux as a treatment for superficial venous insufficiency. J Vasc Surg. 2005;42:502–9.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Proebstle TM, Alm J, Gockeritz O, Wenzel C, Noppeney T, Lebard C, et al. Three-year European follow-up of endovenous radiofrequency-powered segmental thermal ablation of the great saphenous vein with or without treatment of calf varicosities. J Vasc Surg. 2011;54:146–52.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Creton D, Pichot O, Sessa C, Proebstle TM. Radiofrequency-powered segmental thermal obliteration carried out with the closure fast procedure: results at 1 year. Ann Vasc Surg. 2010;24:360–6.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bisang U, Meier TO, Enzler M, Thalhammer C, Husmann M, Amann-Vesti BR. Results of endovenous closure fast treatment for varicose veins in an outpatient setting. Phlebology. 2012;27:118–23.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Caprini JA. Thrombosis risk assessment as a guide to quality patient care. Dis Mon. 2005;51:70–8.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sharifi M, Mehdipour M, Bay C, Emrani F, Sharifi J. Effect of anticoagulation on endothermal ablation of the great saphenous vein. J Vasc Surg. 2011;53:147–9.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Goodyear SJ, Nyamekye IK. Radiofrequency ablation of varicose veins: best practice techniques and evidence. Phlebology. 2015;30:9–17.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schuller-Petrovic S, Pavlovic MD, Schuller-Lukic B, Schuller S. Retrospective analysis of routine use of a double heat cycle (DHC) during radiofrequency segmental ablation (Closure FAST) of saphenous veins. JEADV. 2015.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.13178.
  30. 30.
    Garcia-Madrid C, Manrique JOP, Sanchez VA, Sala-Planell E. Endovenous radiofrequency ablation (venefit procedure): impact of different energy rates on great saphenous vein shrinkage. Ann Vasc Surg. 2013;27:314–21.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zuniga JMR, Hingorani A, Ascher E, Shiferson A, Jung D, Jimenez R, et al. Short-term outcome analysis of radiofrequency ablation using closure plus vs closure fast catheters in the treatment of incompetent great saphenous vein. J Vasc Surg. 2012;55:1048–51.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Neumann HAM, van der Gemert MJC. Ins and outs of endovenous laser ablation: afterthoughts. Lasers Med Sci. 2014;29:513–8.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Malskat WSJ, Poluektova AA, van der Geld CWM, Neumann HAM, Weiss RA, Bruijninckx CMA, et al. Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA): a review of mechanisms, modeling outcomes, and issues for debate. Lasers Med Sci. 2014;29:393–403.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Theivacumar NS, Dellagrammaticas D, Beale RJ, Mavor AID, Gough MJ. Factors influencing the effectiveness of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) in the treatment of great saphenous vein reflux. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2008;35:119–23.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kabnick LS, Sadek M. Fiber type as compared to wavelength may contribute more to improving postoperative recovery following endovenous laser ablation. J Vasc Surg: Venous Lym Dis. 2016;4:286–92.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Malskat WSJ, Giang J, DeMaeseneer MGR, Nijsten TEC, Bos RR. Randomized clinical trial of 940- versus 1470-nm endovenous laser ablation for great saphenous vein incompetence. BJS. 2016;103:192–8.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Proebstle TM, Moehler T, Gul D, Herdemann S. Endovenous treatment of the great saphenous vein using a 1, 320 nm Nd: YAG laser causes fewer side effects than using a 940 nm diode laser. Dermatol Surg. 2005;31:1678–84.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Massaki ABMN, Kiripolsky MG, Detwiler SP, Goldman MP. Endoluminal laser delivery mode and wavelength effects on varicose veins in an Ex Vivo model. Lasers Surg Med. 2013;45:123–9.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kansaku R, Sakakibara N, Amano A, Endo H, Shimabukuro T, Sueishi M. Histological difference between pulsed wave laser and continuous wave laser in endovenous laser ablation. Phlebology. 2015;30:429–34.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Prince EA, Soares GM, Silva M, Taner A, Ahn S, Dubel GJ, et al. Impact of laser fiber design on outcome of endovenous ablation of lower-extremity varicose veins: results from a single practice. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2011;34:536–41.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hirokawa M, Kurihara N. Comparison of bare-tip and radial fiber in endovenous laser ablation with 1470 nm diode laser. Ann Vasc Dis. 2014;7:239–45.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vuylsteke ME, Thomis S, Mahieu P, Mordon S, Fourneau I. Endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein using a bare fibre versus a tulip fibre: a randomised clinical trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2012;44:587–92.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Holme J, Skajaa K, Holme K. Incidence of lesions of the saphenous nerve after partial or complete stripping of the long saphenous vein. Acta Chir Scand. 1990;156:145–8.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Morrison C, Dalsing MC. Signs and symptoms of saphenous nerve injury after greater saphenous vein stripping: prevalence, severity, and relevance for modern practice. J Vasc Surg. 2003;38:886–90.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Huisman LC, Bruins RMG, Van den Berg M, Hissink RJ. Endovenous laser ablation of the small saphenous vein: prospective analysis of 150 Patients, a cohort study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2009;38:199–202.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sufian S, Arnez A, Labropoulos N, Lakhanpal S. Incidence, progression, and risk factors for endovenous heat-induced thrombosis after radiofrequency ablation. J Vasc Surg: Venous Lym Dis. 2013;1:159–64.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Puggioni A, Marks N, Hingorani A, Shiferson A, Alhalbouni S, Ascher E. The safety of radiofrequency ablation of the great saphenous vein in patients with previous venous thrombosis. J Vasc Surg. 2009;49:1248–55.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Marsh P, Price BA, Holdstock J, Harrison C, Whiteley MS. Heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) and classical DVT after radiofrequency and endovenous laser ablation in a single centre. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;40:521–7.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sadek M, Kabnick LS, Rockman CB, Berland TL, Zhou D, Chasin C, et al. Increasing ablation distance peripheral to the saphenofemoral junction may result in a diminished rate of endothermal heat-induced thrombosis. J Vasc Surg. 2013;1:257–62.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Siribumrungwong B, Noorit P, Wilasrusmee C, Attia J, Thakkinstian A. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing endovenous ablation and surgical intervention in patients with varicose vein. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2012;44:214–23.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ye K, Wang R, Qin J, Yang X, Yin M, Liu X, et al. Post-operative benefit of compression therapy after endovenous laser ablation for uncomplicated varicose veins: a randomised clinical trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016;52(6):847–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2016.09.005.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Baker NA, Schieven LW, Bruins RMG, van den Berg M, Hissink RJ. Compression stockings after endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013;46:588–92.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ayo D, Blumberg S, Rockman CR, Sadek M, Cayne N, Adelman M et al. Compression vs no compression after endovenous ablation of the great saphenous vein: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Vasc Surg 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2016.08.008.
  54. 54.
    van Rij AM, Jiang P, Solomon C, Christie RA, Hill GB. Recurrence after varicose vein surgery: a prospective long-term clinical study with duplex ultrasound scanning and air plethysmography. J Vasc Surg. 2003;38:935–43.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Milleret R, Huot L, Nicolini P, Creton D, Roux AS, Decullier E, et al. Great saphenous vein ablation with steam injection: results of a multicentre study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013;45:391–6.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Yamaki T, Nozaki M, Iwasaka S. Comparative study of duplex-guided foam sclerotherapy and duplex-guided liquid sclerotherapy for the treatment of superficial venous insufficiency. Dermatol Surg. 2004;30:718–22.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tessari L, Cavezzi A, Frullini A. Preliminary experience with a new sclerosing foam in the treatment of varicose veins. Dermatol Surg. 2001;27:58–60.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gibson K, Kabnick L. A multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of varithena (polidocanol endovenous microfoam 1%) for symptomatic visible varicose veins with saphenofemoral junction incompetence. Phlebology. 2016;0:1–9.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Guex J-J. Complications and side-effects of foam sclerotherapy. Phlebology. 2009;24:270–4.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Frullini A, Cavezzi A. Sclerosing foam in the treatment of varicose veins and telangiectasias: history and analysis of safety and complications. Dermatol Surg. 2002;28:11–5.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Thomasset SC, Butt Z, Liptrot S, Fairbrother BJ, Makhdoomi KR. Ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy: factors associated with outcomes and complications. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;40:389–92.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Elias S, Raines JK. Mechanochemical tumescentless endovenous ablation: final results of the initial clinical trial. Phlebology. 2012;27:67–72.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lane T, Bootun R, Dharmarajah B, Lim CS, Najem M, Renton S, et al. A multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing radiofrequency and mechanical occlusion chemically assisted ablation of varicose veins: Final results of the venefit versus clarivein for varicose veins trial. Phlebology. 2016;0:1–10.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Almeida JI, Javier JJ, Mackay E, Bautista C, Proebstle TM. First human use of cyanoacrylate adhesive for treatment of saphenous vein incompetence. J Vasc Surg: Venous Lymphat Disord. 2013;1:174–80.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Morrison N, Gibson K, McEnroe S, Goldman M, King T, Weiss R, et al. Randomized trial comparing cyanoacrylate embolization and radiofrequency ablation for incompetent great saphenous veins (VeClose). J Vasc Surg. 2015;61:985–94.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Carradice D, Mekako A, Hatfield J, Chetter I. Randomized clinical trial of concomitant or sequential phlebectomy after endovenous laser therapy for varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2009;96:369–75.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Harlander-Locke M, Jimenez JC, Lawrence PF, Derubertis BG, Rigberg DA, Gelabert HA. Endovenous ablation with concomitant phlebectomy is a safe and effective method of treatment for symptomatic patients with axial reflux and large incompetent tributaries. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58:166–72.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of DermatologyCase Western Reserve University School of MedicineClevelandUSA
  2. 2.University Hospitals Cleveland, Case Western Reserve UniversityBay VillageUSA

Personalised recommendations