Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 23, 2026

Occlusion of the Great and Small Saphenous Vein Using Copolymeric Glue Based on N-Butyl Cyanoacrylate and Methacryloxy Sulfolane
Published on: December 9, 2022
Great saphenous vein pressure after ablation in patients with symptomatic reflux
Robert Attaran1, Brandon A Creisher2, Yuan Haung3
1Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Objective:
We sought to determine the impact of great saphenous vein (GSV) ablation on below-the-knee pre- and postsaphenous vein pressures using the novel VeinPress device (Compremium). Venous pressures were correlated to clinical outcomes using the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS).
Methods:
Patients with symptomatic GSV insufficiency undergoing planned GSV ablation were prospectively enrolled into the study at a single tertiary center. GSV pressure, although standing, was measured at the ankle level utilizing the VeinPress device (Compremium) pre- and post- GSV ablation. Patient demographics, comorbidities, periprocedural complications, body mass index (BMI), and VCSS were obtained. GSV pressure was compared pre- and postablation. Based on median BMI, a subgroup analysis was performed on patients separated into BMI >31 vs ≤31 kg/m2.
Results:
A total of 31 patients (average age, 68 years old; 45% female) underwent GSV ablation with 100% technical success. The mean VCSS preablation was 7.64 ± 3.5 (n = 31), which significantly decreased after ablation to 5.0 ± 2.9 (n = 27; P < .001). The mean baseline GSV pressure at the ankle (83.8 ± 28 mmHg; n = 31) significantly decreased postablation to (76.5 ± 18; n = 27; P = .05). There was poor correlation between change in GSV pressure and delta VCSS (r = 0.24; P = .239). There was a significant mean difference in postprocedure GSV pressure for patients with BMI > 31 kg/m2 (Hodges-Lehman estimate, -13.9 mmHg; 95% CI,-39.4 to -3.8; P = .006). A significant difference was not identified for BMI ≤ 31 kg/m2 (Hodges-Lehman estimate, -1.9 mmHg; 95% CI, -16.5 to 15; P = .724). Preablation GSV pressures did not differ significantly when comparing BMI ≤31 vs >31 kg/m2 groups (74.6 ± 29 vs 93.7 ± 24; P = .1). There was no difference in preablation VCSS scores in BMI ≤ 31 kg/m2 (8.3 ± 4.2) and BMI > 31 kg/m2 (6.9 ± 2.3; P = .472). There was no significant correlation between baseline GSV pressure and C classification (r = 0.022; P = .9).
Conclusions:
Among patients with symptomatic GSV reflux, ablation resulted in a decrease in ankle region GSV pressure. This effect was most observed in patients with a BMI > 31 kg/m2. GSV pressure did not demonstrate a correlation with venous clinical severity score.
More Related Videos
09:04Synergizing Antegrade Endoscopic with Bridging Vein Harvesting for Improvement of Great Saphenous Vein Graft Quality from the Lower Leg
Published on: November 19, 2019
05:43Determination of Continuity Index Values in Atrial Fibrillation Ablation with Proactive Esophageal Cooling
Published on: April 19, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Varicose Veins II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Esophageal Varices-I: Introduction
Esophageal Varices-II: Clinical Features and Management
In the initial assessment, a thorough review of the patient's medical history is vital to identify risk factors such as liver disease, alcohol abuse, or...
Aneurysm IV: Nursing Management
Venous Thrombosis II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease II: Clinical Features and Management
Clinical Manifestations
GERD presents itself in a multitude of ways, with symptoms varying from person to person. The hallmark symptoms are...