Comparison of vein valve function following pharmacomechanical thrombolysis versus simple catheter-directed thrombolysis for iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis

被引:36
|
作者
Vogel, David [1 ]
Walsh, M. Eileen [1 ]
Chen, John T. [2 ]
Comerota, Anthony J. [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Jobst Vasc Inst, Toledo, OH 43606 USA
[2] Bowling Green State Univ, Dept Stat, Bowling Green, OH 43403 USA
[3] Univ Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
关键词
QUALITY-OF-LIFE; VENOUS THROMBOSIS; POSTTHROMBOTIC MORBIDITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.jvs.2012.02.053
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Successful catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (IFDVT) reduces post-thrombotic morbidity and is a suggested treatment option by the American College of Chest Physicians for patients with IFDVT. Pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (PMT) is also suggested to shorten treatment time and reduce the dose of plasminogen activator. However, concern remains that mechanical devices might damage vein valves. The purpose of this study is to examine whether PMT adversely affects venous valve function compared to CDT alone in IFDVT patients treated with catheter-based techniques. Methods: Sixty-nine limbs in 54 patients (39 unilateral, 15 bilateral) who underwent catheter-based treatment for IFDVT form the basis of this study. Lytic success and degree of residual obstruction were analyzed by reviewing postprocedural phlebograms. All patients underwent bilateral postprocedure duplex to evaluate patency and valve function. Phlebograms and venous duplex examinations were interpreted in a blinded fashion. Limbs were analyzed based on the method of treatment: CDT alone (n = 20), PMT using rheolytic thrombolysis (n = 14), and isolated pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (n = 35). The validated outcome measures were compared between the treatment groups. Results: Sixty-nine limbs underwent CDT with or without PMT. The average patient age was 47 years (range, 16-78). Venous duplex was performed 44.4 months (mean) post-treatment. Of the limbs treated with CDT with drip technique, 65% demonstrated reflux vs 53% treated with PMT (P = .42). There was no difference in long-term valve function between patients treated with rheolytic and isolated pharmacomechanical thrombolysis. In the bilateral group, 87% (13/15) demonstrated reflux in at least one limb. In the unilateral group, 64% (25/39) had reflux in their treated limb and 36% (14/39) in their contralateral limb. There was no correlation effect of residual venous obstruction on valve function, although few patients had >50% residual obstruction. Conclusions: In patients undergoing catheter-based intervention for IFDVT, PMT does not adversely affect valve function compared with CDT alone. A higher than expected number of patients had reflux in their uninvolved limb. (J Vasc Surg 2012;56:1351-4.)
引用
收藏
页码:1351 / 1354
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Ultrasound-Assisted Versus Conventional Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Acute Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis
    Engelberger, Rolf P.
    Spirk, David
    Willenberg, Torsten
    Alatri, Adriano
    Do, Dai-Do
    Baumgartner, Iris
    Kucher, Nils
    CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2015, 8 (01)
  • [22] Postthrombotic morbidity correlates with residual thrombus following catheter-directed thrombolysis for iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis
    Comerota, Anthony J.
    Grewal, Nina
    Martinez, Jorge Trabal
    Chen, John Tahao
    DiSalle, Robert
    Andrews, Linda
    Sepanski, Deb
    Assi, Zakaria
    JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 2012, 55 (03) : 768 - 773
  • [23] Comparison of catheter-directed thrombolysis with and without percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy for subacute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis
    Xu, Yi-Ding
    Zhong, Bin-Yan
    Yang, Chao
    Cai, Xu-Sheng
    Hu, Bo
    Wang, Xiao-Yun
    Fan, Bao-Rui
    Jin, Yong-Hai
    Ni, Cai-Fang
    Duan, Peng-Fei
    PHLEBOLOGY, 2020, 35 (08) : 589 - 596
  • [24] Anatomic and functional outcomes of pharmacomechanical and catheter-directed thrombolysis of iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis
    Hager, Eric
    Yuo, Theodore
    Avgerinos, Efthymios
    Naddaf, Abdullah
    Jeyabalan, Geetha
    Marone, Luke
    Chaer, Rabih
    JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY-VENOUS AND LYMPHATIC DISORDERS, 2014, 2 (03) : 246 - 252
  • [25] Safety and Efficacy of Aspiration Thrombectomy or Pharmacomechanical Thrombectomy after Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for the Treatment of Acute Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis
    Lee, Joong Kwon
    Kim, Kyung Yun
    Byun, Seung Jae
    VASCULAR SPECIALIST INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 36 (03) : 144 - 150
  • [26] Predictors of Clinical Outcomes of Pharmacomechanical Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Acute Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis: Analysis of a Multicenter Randomized Trial
    Thukral, Siddhant
    Salter, Amber
    Lancia, Samantha
    Kahn, Susan R.
    Vedantham, Suresh
    JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, 2022, 33 (10) : 1161 - +
  • [27] Catheter-directed thrombolysis of iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis. A new approach via the posterior tibial vein
    Armon, MP
    Whitaker, SC
    Tennant, WG
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND ENDOVASCULAR SURGERY, 1997, 13 (04) : 413 - 416
  • [28] Using it wisely: catheter-directed thrombolysis for deep vein thrombosis
    Vedantham, Suresh
    LANCET HAEMATOLOGY, 2020, 7 (01): : E6 - E7
  • [29] Catheter-directed thrombolysis for extensive iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis: review of literature and ongoing trials
    Liew, Aaron
    Douketis, James
    EXPERT REVIEW OF CARDIOVASCULAR THERAPY, 2016, 14 (02) : 189 - 200
  • [30] Catheter-directed thrombolysis for deep vein thrombosis: 2021 update
    Goldhaber, Samuel Z.
    Magnuson, Elizabeth A.
    Chinnakondepalli, Khaja M.
    Cohen, David J.
    Vedantham, Suresh
    VASCULAR MEDICINE, 2021, 26 (06) : 662 - 669