NYMC Faculty Publications

Direct Oral Anticoagulant Agents Might be Safe for Patients Undergoing Endovenous Radiofrequency and Laser Ablation

Author Type(s)

Faculty

DOI

10.1016/j.jvsv.2022.05.011

Journal Title

Journal of Vascular Surgery-Venous and Lymphatic Disorders

First Page

25

Last Page

30

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

1-2023

Department

Surgery

Keywords

Humans, Male, Aged, Risk Factors, Treatment Outcome, Anticoagulants, Warfarin, Saphenous Vein, Laser Therapy, Hemorrhage, Retrospective Studies, Thrombosis, Venous Insufficiency, Varicose Veins

Disciplines

Medicine and Health Sciences

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Studies assessing the effect of the use of anticoagulant agents on endovenous thermal ablation (ETA) have been limited to patients taking warfarin. Thus, the aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ETA for patients taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). We hypothesized that the outcome of ETA for patients taking DOACs would not be superior to the outcomes for patients taking DOACs.

METHODS: We performed a retrospective review to identify patients who had undergone radiofrequency ablation or endovenous laser ablation with 1470-nm diode laser fibers for symptomatic great or small saphenous venous reflux from 2018 to 2020. The patients were dichotomized into those who had received a therapeutic dose of DOACs periprocedurally and those who had not (control group). The outcomes of interest included the rates of treated vein closure at 7 days and 9 months and the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), endothermal heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT), and bleeding periprocedurally.

RESULTS: Of the 301 patients (382 procedures), 69 patients (87 procedures) had received DOACs and 232 control patients (295 procedures) had not received DOACs. The patients receiving DOACs were more often older (mean age, 65 years vs 55 years; P < .001) and male (70% vs 37%; P < .001), with a higher prevalence of venous thromboembolism and more severe CEAP (clinical, etiologic, anatomic, pathophysiologic) classification (5 or 6), than were the control patients. Those receiving DOACs were more likely to have had a history of DVT (44% vs 6%; P < .001), pulmonary embolism (13% vs 0%; P < .001), and phlebitis (32% vs 15%; P < .001). Procedurally, radiofrequency ablation had been used more frequently in the control group (92% vs 84%; P = .029), with longer segments of treated veins (mean, 38 mm vs 35 mm, respectively; P = .028). No major or minor bleeding events nor any EHIT had occurred in either group. Two patients in the control group (0.7%) developed DVT; however, no DVT was observed in those in the DOAC group (P = .441). At 9 months, the treated vein had remained ablated after 94.4% of procedures for patients receiving DOACs and 98.4% of the control group (P = .163). On multivariable analysis, DOAC usage was not associated with an increased risk of vein recanalization (hazard ratio, 5.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-58.64; P = .139). An increased preprocedural vein diameter and the use of endovenous laser ablation were associated with an increased risk of recanalization.

CONCLUSIONS: In our study of patients who had undergone ETA for symptomatic saphenous venous reflux, the periprocedural use of DOACs did not adversely affect the efficacy of endovenous ablation to ≥9 months. Furthermore, DOAC use did not confer an additional risk of bleeding, DVT, or EHIT periprocedurally. DOACs may be safely continued without affecting the efficacy and durability of ETA.

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS