Feasibility and short-term complication rate of mechanochemical ablation for epifascial tributaries of incompetent great saphenous veins.

Objective: The aim of the present study was to investigate the occurrence of skin complications after mechanochemical ablation with the ClariVein device (Merit Medical, South Jordan, Utah) for incompetent great saphenous veins (GSVs) and compare the results in terms of the target vein characteristics, especially in the presence of an epifascial GSV tributary.

Methods: A single-center, retrospective study was performed. We reviewed 33 limbs of 32 patients with GSV insufficiency who had undergone mechanochemical ablation with the ClariVein device from December 2017 to February 2020. The 33 limbs were divided into two groups: the epifascial group, comprising 11 limbs of 11 patients, and the nonepifascial group, comprising 22 limbs of 21 patients. The patients underwent postoperative follow-up examinations at 1 week and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. The skin complication counts and scores on a four-point scale were recorded.

Results: Regarding the baseline characteristics, the epifascial group showed a significantly lower GSV depth in the distal thigh region compared with the nonepifascial group (2.64 ± 0.5 mm vs 7.05 ± 2.57 mm; P < .001). No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the sclerosant (sodium tetradecyl sulfate) volume (5.45 ± 2.02 mL vs 6.59 ± 1.79 mL; P = .109) or ablation length (31.82 ± 3.92 cm vs 32.95 ± 4.05 cm; P = .449). All ClariVein procedures were technically successful (33 of 33 limbs; 100%), and no major complications were reported. The hyperpigmentation score was significantly greater in the epifascial group than in the nonepifascial group (score, 0.18 ± 0.4 vs 0 ± 0; P = .0401), although the hyperpigmentation count was not significantly different between the two groups (2 of 11 limbs [18.2%] vs 0 of 22 limbs [0.0%]; P = .1042). Although marginally higher counts and scores were observed in terms of phlebitis and bruising in the epifascial group, these differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusions: Endovenous treatment with the ClariVein device for incompetent GSVs can be performed safely. However, caution should be exercised when the epifascial GSV tributary is treated during the ClariVein procedure because of its predilection to result in hyperpigmentation.